egg

You've said similar throughout. I'm not sure that even our military leaders share your confidence.

To an extent, yes, but Trump wants a bit of Ukraine and to get that he needs Russia out of the way, thus it seems to be a chat to see what Russia will take to get out and stay out. I think it's more a mutual nest feathering exercise than PR.

That's all assumption. Unless and until we're told what principles were discussed today, we won't know current positions and whether any concessions were given or indicated as a possibility. That said, I'm convinced that Ukraine will get absolutely shafted in this, and will retain 'sovereignty' but at enormous financial expense. The latter will come with security guarantees of sorts assuming it gives US financial guarantees. Russia get land, US get to to rape and pillage Ukraine, and Ukraine remains but will be about as free as a caged canary.

Unusually we agree. The fact is that NaTo have not been a threat to Russia. Nor have Ukraine. The two combined wouldn't be, unless Russia attacked and NATO Ukraine came to it's rescue.

How do you know their demands before today, and now? That said, i think today was probably little more than a surface scratching exercise anyway.

Alas, yes.

I hadn't seen this... insane. "Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold. Panic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany’s First World War reparations. Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country. The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv. The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”. The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states. The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations. It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce. President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries. He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies. A new Versailles If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely. Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to hand over $500bn. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things,” he said. He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. “They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back,” he said. Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be “stupid” to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid." https://archive.is/0El3f

Desire

But you want loads of our laws repealed, seemingly without being able to explain why.

Thanks for the explanation. None of that explains why you feel the need to rip up a raft of existing legislation. What you're saying is that you'd like changes to achieve an end that you support. That's a different thing to repealing and starting again which you had said that you support. What's wrong with a right to family life? You enjoy it, and presumably you'd want to have laws that allow it to continue. It's use is wide reaching. Example, a woman refusing to finalise a divorce years after separation, whereas the bloke wants to move on and remarry. That's a family life - why shouldn't that bloke have a law which permits his right to the family life he wants? If you'd like to see it's use moderated or clarified, fine, but I'm struggling to see a reasonable objection to the principle. I agree that immigration numbers are too high and unsustainable. But we have a skills shortage and absolutely need controlled legal immigration to address that.

To what extent are those acts of violence are borne of frustration and anger at the treatment of their people as against a pursuit of their take on their religion. I'd hazard a guess it's not all about the latter.

Indeed, but I'm still not understanding why LD feels that we need to repeal well established statute. We need a plan and action on the ground to address immigration and infrastructure, that we agree on, but if someone feels that statute needs to repealing to achieve that, they need to be able to explain why. All he's so far is that it's a bit old.

I'll ask again, what parts of the existing legislation should go? I'm with you that immigration, legal and illegal, is too high, and needs looking at, but you're not clear what you say is wrong with various well established acts.

Keith Kellog had a bit to say in Munich, but was equally vague, pointing to financial concessions: "So what does (Russian President Vladimir Putin) have to give up? Well maybe he'll give up his oil revenue and we'll force him to do it, because what you do is start employing sanctions that break the economic back," Kellogg said. "These are the things you can do." Earlier in the discussion, Kellogg said that both Ukraine and Russia would have to make concessions to end the war. "When you say concessions, of course they're concessions that both sides are going to have to give," Kellogg said, without specifying what concessions the countries would have to make. The US will get what's in it's interests in this, leaving Ukraine out to dry, and Europe either accepting it or fronting up to Russia. This is a pretty significant moment.

What parts of all of that legislation do you say should go? Assuming you feel that most should remain, why repeal rather than amend?

His remarks were racist. Undeniably. If he really wants to alter the law to tighten up immigration then he would have said that - it's pretty obvious that you don't need to repeal the Act to put controls on immigration. You repeal the Act because you want to remove all the good that it stands for.

Barmaids

There won't be any people wearing scarves there Weston as well you know.

Pretty much it, yep. Dubai plus a drinking/gambling/club culture will do well. Sadly.

The sad thing is that people will happily do so without batting an eyelid. I'm imagining something Vegas esque, but with marinas, promenades and a predominately Jewish population.

An Aussie news website opinion piece questions whether he's planning a coup. Seems a stretch. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-15/elon-musks-doge-agency-explained/104929704

I think that's right. For me, loans in and out are vital, and I have no issue with us using another clubs player for a brief period. Edwards arguably should have gone on loan earlier, but half a season playing regularly for a team at the right end of the championship is superb for him and us. Ditto Charles, and Diaz will have regained some confidence from his loan too.

It's conceivable that one of them could pass us on the way down. Pleased for those lads as their moves to us hadn't gone well. Credit to the club though for sorting decent loans that benefits all concerned, not least us next season.

That was a cracking run and finish.

I'm not sure about that. They're still a superpower, the issue is who's with them. NATO will soon be gone, but that probably exposes Europe more than the US. They've softened up India who'll arguably be a more relevant anti China ally than Europe, and I'm interested to see what Australia do. I'm not sure where exactly he's going with Russia, but I think there'll be a warming of relations and they'll use tariffs to their advantage. Canada will be left a tad exposed in my view. He's an absolute loon.