ELI5 Why Trump Bad For Europe

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I got my answers. Thank you all, by the way. Productive discussion here as well. Do you guys prefer to keep this thread to discuss Trump vs Europe stuff, or can I ask a mod to close it?

Except for a certain babbling Salisbury tourist, keep it open. The thing to remember is that the vast majority of voters in the U.S. voted for Trump to defeat leftists in the U.S. Let Europe handle Europe's problems.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks Rick, love you too.

[rmgill]

How is Two Tier Kier going to handle this? Will he knuckle under to the PRC like a good marxist? Or will he bow to the Iranians in a fit of oikophobia? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Only in the parallel universe that tanknet has become, could you seriously point to the British prime minister being a sell out, with your own duly elected leader promising to beat him to the punch. Its rather like the British Prime minister accusing the French of being a sellout in 38.

Your opinions are duly noted. If Im proven wrong, unlike the rest of you Ill be happy to own it. You of course will claim you never held these opinions when they prove problematic. You do it all the time.

Il leave it there, but rely on me to bump this thread when the trouble starts.

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What good does it have to have a hawk that is strong against Russia, China or Iran, when the one making the decisions is a man who says he wants to dump on Ukraine?

Yes, im sure there will be arguments saying if you dump Ukraine, China is watching and will take that as a green light on Taiwan. Again, it really depends on what mood he is in to listen. He wouldnt listen to John Bolton, he wouldnt listen to Fiona Hill. So why is he going to listen to this shadowy Hawk, not least because we dont actually know what he is telling him?

The only message that might sink in is that Biden never really recovered from Afghanistan. And if Trump presides over a huge defeat, the American people will not love him for it, for they love to be winners all said and done. That MIGHT carry some weight, but only if he doesnt stick his feet in, and he listens to them, and not Elon bloody Musk.

Trumps former advisers said he alway listned to the last guy in the room. Maybe if they can keep Musk out of the room they will go somewhere, but if not, all bets are off.

You surround yourself with people who are like minded in general approach, to clear the dicussion of any agendas and keep it more professional.

Trump surrounding himself with hawks is a sign that he's hawkish against the Axis. Biden surrounded himself with dovish people, and he himself was dovish. 

The most basic test for a politician to determine if he's hawkish, dovish, or inherently hostile regardless, is whether he's hawkish on all Axis members, or only some of them. If some, he's likely compromised. Being hawkish on all is a good sign.

Of course, there's really the question of what even is a hawk and a dove. Is Biden dovish? Is Trump hawkish? There's an argument to be made that it's quite the opposite.

Anyway, on the Ukraine front, we're seeing good signs. Ukraine and Israel need relief. They need to get their economies working uninterrupted for a while, soldiers need to go back home to rest and be with their families, and preparations need to be made for the next flare-up in a more relaxed setting. It is possible to provide both Ukraine and Israel with that, while freezing the conflicts on favorable terms. 

What can be done for Israel? Push forward with US led initiatives in Lebanon and Gaza to set up local governments that will work and be incentivized to eliminate local terrorists. Strike Iran's nuclear, military and MIC infrastructure. 

What can be done for Ukraine? Freeze the current borders, boost local production for every item Ukraine needs to become a proper armed force. Not necessarily tanks and planes but all the important bits in between - encrypted radios, battle management systems, unit structure reforms, improved officers training and vetting, combat engineering tools, modern munitions etc. Remove all restrictions on any provided weaponry, of course. 
Invest in Ukraine's economy to enable it to generate income including to pay off debt. Integrate it into western tech industry to leverage cheap labor and give Ukraine an industrial base. 
Demand Russia demilitarizes all areas occupied since 2014, and cede control over Kaliningrad. 

 

  

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Only in the parallel universe that tanknet has become, could you seriously point to the British prime minister being a sell out, with your own duly elected leader promising to beat him to the punch. Its rather like the British Prime minister accusing the French of being a sellout in 38.

Your opinions are duly noted. If Im proven wrong, unlike the rest of you Ill be happy to own it. You of course will claim you never held these opinions when they prove problematic. You do it all the time.

Il leave it there, but rely on me to bump this thread when the trouble starts.

Starmy has certainly adopted some pro-IRGC and anti-NATO policies. Would that make him a sellout?

Edited November 12, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You surround yourself with people who are like minded in general approach, to clear the dicussion of any agendas and keep it more professional.

Trump surrounding himself with hawks is a sign that he's hawkish against the Axis. Biden surrounded himself with dovish people, and he himself was dovish. 

The most basic test for a politician to determine if he's hawkish, dovish, or inherently hostile regardless, is whether he's hawkish on all Axis members, or only some of them. If some, he's likely compromised. Being hawkish on all is a good sign.

Of course, there's really the question of what even is a hawk and a dove. Is Biden dovish? Is Trump hawkish? There's an argument to be made that it's quite the opposite.

Anyway, on the Ukraine front, we're seeing good signs. Ukraine and Israel need relief. They need to get their economies working uninterrupted for a while, soldiers need to go back home to rest and be with their families, and preparations need to be made for the next flare-up in a more relaxed setting. It is possible to provide both Ukraine and Israel with that, while freezing the conflicts on favorable terms. 

What can be done for Israel? Push forward with US led initiatives in Lebanon and Gaza to set up local governments that will work and be incentivized to eliminate local terrorists. Strike Iran's nuclear, military and MIC infrastructure. 

What can be done for Ukraine? Freeze the current borders, boost local production for every item Ukraine needs to become a proper armed force. Not necessarily tanks and planes but all the important bits in between - encrypted radios, battle management systems, unit structure reforms, improved officers training and vetting, combat engineering tools, modern munitions etc. Remove all restrictions on any provided weaponry, of course. 
Invest in Ukraine's economy to enable it to generate income including to pay off debt. Integrate it into western tech industry to leverage cheap labor and give Ukraine an industrial base. 
Demand Russia demilitarizes all areas occupied since 2014, and cede control over Kaliningrad. 

 

  

Starmy has certainly adopted some pro-IRGC and anti-NATO policies. Would that make him a sellout?

It has not occurred to you that he hires Hawks he thinks he is a Hawk, but every chance he gets, he slams his hawks for wanting to start wars?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/10/20859357/john-bolton-trump-war-north-korea-iran

“I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday when announcing the top aide’s ouster. That echoed the president’s comments from four months ago when he told reporters “I’m the one that tempers him. That’s okay. I have different sides. I have John Bolton and other people that are a little more dovish than him.”

It goes to show that Trump is in control of the most important aspect of his foreign policy: whether or not to go to war.

He has certainly threatened conflict before, going so far as to risk nuclear war with North Korea to persuade Kim Jong Un to come the negotiating table (remember “fire and fury?”). And he’s more willing to use military force than Obama, twice bombing Syria and escalating airstrikes on ISIS and other terrorists worldwide. He’s even continued and augmented US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

Still, Trump has walked back every chance he’s had to escalate to the highest level tensions with adversaries. That was always going to put Trump’s “America First” in conflict with Bolton’s “America Everywhere.”

“Where Trump and Bolton seemed to clash the most was on the extent to which aggressive US military intervention should accompany a hawkish foreign policy posture, and then also on the role of diplomacy,” says John Glaser, a US foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.

Which brings up the question: Why did Trump pick Bolton in the first place? The answer seems to be that Bolton defended Trump’s foreign policy on Fox News and was a known commodity within Republican circles. The president seemingly wanted an attack dog for himself, but ended up hiring a person who wanted to attack others for real.

 

I question the narrative he was more willing to use military force than Obama. Trump is a pacifist, and fair enough, he wont start WW3. Credit to him. It also means he probably wont lift a finger against people that might, such as the PRC and Russia, which is a problem, because that looks like where we are going.

Like I say, Ill be delighted if he turns out to have grown a pair of balls. Ill also be delighted if people on this grate sight develop a capacity for remembering back more than 5 minutes, but Im pretty sure there is absolutely no chance of that.

 

The truth is, Starmer hasnt done or said anything against NATO. And if people are going to point to British Socialists as the kind to sell out NATO, they really need to cast their minds back to whom set it up. NATO remains Labours proudest achievement, whcih is why I predict fireworks if Trump proposes to wind it up.

 

[sunday]

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/24/21300291/john-bolton-book-trump-review-room-foreign-policy

Quote

Trump also showed an inclination to open diplomatic channels with Iran, according to Bolton. “Trump mused that at some point he should meet with Iranian President [Hassan] Rouhani,” the former adviser wrote about what the president said during a meeting with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron. This was a bridge too far for Bolton, who later typed up a two-sentence resignation letter if Trump ever met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

Trump considered holding a meeting not only because he thought he could lower tensions, but also because he wanted a new, better Iran nuclear deal. Unsurprisingly, Bolton lobbied against such a policy in a Pentagon meeting:

I argued again that … there would be no “new” Iran deal and no “deterrence” established as long as Iran’s current regime remained. You could like it or not, but basing a policy on some other reality would not get us to any “end state” we sought.

Key in that passage is “as long as the current regime remained.” Before reentering government, Bolton consistently said he wanted regime change in Iran, and it appeared he held on to that belief as national security adviser. If Trump didn’t have some innate inclination to sign a new accord with Tehran, Bolton’s sentiments may have carried more weight.

Which may help explain why he was so angry Trump didn’t attack Iran last summer after the regime shot down a US surveillance drone. Trump at the last minute called off planned strikes on Iranian sites because he felt it wasn’t “proportionate.”

“‘Too many body bags,’ said Trump,” according to Bolton, “which he was not willing to risk for an unmanned drone — ‘Not proportionate,’ he said again.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Bolton tried to change Trump’s mind to no avail.

Bolton clearly is still furious. “In my government experience, this was the most irrational thing I ever witnessed any President do,” he wrote. “Trump had behaved bizarrely.”

Let that sink in for a moment. The most irrational thing Bolton says he ever saw a president do wasn’t, for example, invade Iraq over weapons of mass destruction it didn’t have (Bolton was in the State Department at the time as the undersecretary of arms control and international security). No, he saves that designation for Trump’s decision not to put Iranian lives in danger over a downed pilotless aircraft.

Granted, striking Iranian military sites may not have directly led to an all-out fight, but it certainly would’ve made one more likely. Trump clearly saw that danger; Bolton didn’t. “In the places where those two men parted, it seems clear to me that Trump got it right,” said Justin Logan, a US foreign policy expert at Catholic University.

Of course, Bolton does have a bit more leeway to advocate for conflict. At the end of the day, Trump’s name would be the one tethered throughout history to a war — not Bolton’s.

“If that Iran attack had gone ahead, Trump would deservedly have shouldered the blame,” Heather Hurlburt, a US foreign policy expert at the New America think tank, told me. But, she noted, “Trump deserves very little credit for pulling back after having dismantled so many off-ramps and gotten himself to the brink in the first place.”

Quote

Make no mistake: War has a place in US foreign policy, and for good reason. It’s an essential element of statecraft, and a leader shouldn’t shy away from it when — and only when — absolutely necessary. But going to war for foolish reasons is the cardinal sin of foreign policy, and Bolton wanted to commit it all the time.

That Trump patently refused to consider all-out war a viable option when war wasn’t necessary, whereas Bolton clearly did, is an indictment of the foreign policy tradition the former national security adviser embodies. “Are the random outbursts of an ill-informed, rich 70-plus-year-old white guy better than the views of the Republican establishment to which Bolton belongs?” asks Logan. “The answer is yes.”

Seems there are some differences between being a foreign policy hawk and being a warmonger.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Of course, and Im not accusing Trump of being a warmonger, I never have. Im saying the Republican party gave him aides that were  Hawks and warmongers, and he fired them all. He really does believe the 'end the endless wars' spiel.

Now IF you support the idea war with Iran is a very bad idea, he did good for the American people. If you support the idea that war with Iran is a vital premptive necessity, as Netanyahu seemingly does, then you have a problem. A problem he simply wont deal with himself. He might say to Israel 'You deal with it.' But without US support, that clearly wont work. It does no good to say 'Do what you like, but I want it finished by the time I enter office.' Because war with Iran is the kind of nutty problem that doesnt fit into defined dates. So right away you have a potential split from Israeli war aims, and nobody here seems to see it.

I think at heart Trump is as risk adverse as Biden. The problem of course comes, what happens when there is a foreign policy requirement that NEEDS someone to act like a Hawk, but cant? What happens if, just like Obama, a line in the sand is drawn by the President, and the other guy walks over it?

What then indeed?

[urbanoid]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They actually worked for him. People can keep spamming TDS all they like, we have the evidence of how many people he fired in his first term, and without exception all say he wouldnt listen. Even the ones whom resigned said that. What are we supposed to do, reject all that because its delivering an answer we dont want to hear?

People are assuming this is Trump 2.0, new and improved Trump, a sweet smelling Trump thats safe for you and the family. Well ok, Id be happy to believe that, when I see some evidence of it. Until them, I think the only TDS on offer is those desperately choosing to believe the man has turned over a new leaf based on 'well he hired someone who was a hawk.' And Kelly and Bolton were what, pacifists?

You see, precisely due to those potential cabinet picks various pro-RUS/Chynah/BRICS 'peace'-(ac)c(o)unts on X and elsewhere are having a meltdown because 'ooga booga warmonger neoconservative yadda yadda yadda'. You're them, just... the opposite, 'because Trump'. Because you have already decided what the guy wants to do and... will. The thing is... you don't know that, we don't know that, the man himself may not know that yet.

And no, literally nobody here is suggesting a 'new and improved Trump, a sweet smelling Trump thats safe for you and the family', nobody is suggesting he will actually sink the Black Sea Fleet and start bombing Moscow either. Then again I suppose that if he actually started sinking the Black Sea Fleet, you'll be wondering what kind of a Russian collusion that is this time. The general approach, except you, is to discuss possibilities and... wait and see, we'll know soon enough. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

47 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It has not occurred to you that he hires Hawks he thinks he is a Hawk, but every chance he gets, he slams his hawks for wanting to start wars?

A bit anecdotal, don't you think? Of course there will be differences of opinion. They're still people.

You can't eliminate differences but you can minimize them.

I bought my cars with manual gearbox not because I think they'll drive a million km, but because that's one less thing to worry about.

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The truth is, Starmer hasnt done or said anything against NATO. And if people are going to point to British Socialists as the kind to sell out NATO, they really need to cast their minds back to whom set it up. NATO remains Labours proudest achievement, whcih is why I predict fireworks if Trump proposes to wind it up.

Would imposing an arms embargo on Israel and putting the UK at risk of reciprocal action when it has so many important programs relying on Israeli companies, not qualify as an anti-NATO and pro-IRGC policy? 

As far as I know, British military capability is directly related to NATO security.

And what if I said these losses would degrade the UK's ability to provide aid to Ukraine?

 

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I bought my cars with manual gearbox not because I think they'll drive a million km, but because that's one less thing to worry about.

>worry

[Mighty_Zuk]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now IF you support the idea war with Iran is a very bad idea, he did good for the American people. If you support the idea that war with Iran is a vital premptive necessity, as Netanyahu seemingly does, then you have a problem. A problem he simply wont deal with himself. He might say to Israel 'You deal with it.' But without US support, that clearly wont work. It does no good to say 'Do what you like, but I want it finished by the time I enter office.' Because war with Iran is the kind of nutty problem that doesnt fit into defined dates. So right away you have a potential split from Israeli war aims, and nobody here seems to see it.

This assumes Iran still fits into the "nutjob sitting on an explosive barrel ready to detonate it" myth. This year's events showed us that one can conduct painful strikes on Iran with little response.

There's obviously a wide spectrum of military actions that can be conducted vs Iran. But as long as the situation's salvageable, Iran has no reason to end it all. And even if Iran does go after Arab oil, that'd spell their end anyway. They're not suicidal.

I invite you to look at Hezbollah. Huge arsenal of anything from mortars and short range heavy rockets, to SRBMs. All pointed at Israel from thousands of different locations, most well hidden.

By now over 80% of its artillery arsenal was destroyed, the vast majority of which happened in just a couple days. Their C2 was so severely degraded that even when they had some rockets left, they were unable to fire them.

Iran's assets are far more concentrated, more detectable, and far less numerous. 

By employing a similar escalation strategy as Israel did, a US-Israel joint force can degrade much of Iran's ability to target Arab oil. Regional US assets can secure oil trade until Iranian attack capability is neutered.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, this you proves you can tickle the Tiger, and he responds with a swipe you can dodge. It does not follow if you jab him with a stick, he will be just as accomodating.

In the end, it matters little what range of actions you want to undertake. Trump isnt a Tiger, and has no aspirations to be. TBH, he has always been a blank sheet that allows others to project their hopes on them, so I entirely understand why Netanyahu believes he is his salvation. I submit that Bibi now has something like 2 months to end 2 wars and one pending one, and get the hostages back.  Irans assets are not anywhere near as accessable as Hezbollah's, and you are not accessing them without America's help. This is self evident. For Israel, this is going to be a real problem. You have 2 months to clean iran's clocks, before hunting season is over. As I said before, good luck with that.

Trump just promised the American people low price oil. Question. How does bombing Iran, which will probably try to close the straits of Hormuz, deliver cut price energy for the American people? And it isnt. And right there is Bibi's problem in a nutshell. You are losing the most complient President in American history for one of the most intractable, and think this is a trade up. Why? I see no indications he is remotely interested. He will do what he always does, talk a strong game and dodge, dodge, dodge.

[Stuart Galbraith]

59 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A bit anecdotal, don't you think? Of course there will be differences of opinion. They're still people.

You can't eliminate differences but you can minimize them.

I bought my cars with manual gearbox not because I think they'll drive a million km, but because that's one less thing to worry about.

Would imposing an arms embargo on Israel and putting the UK at risk of reciprocal action when it has so many important programs relying on Israeli companies, not qualify as an anti-NATO and pro-IRGC policy? 

As far as I know, British military capability is directly related to NATO security.

And what if I said these losses would degrade the UK's ability to provide aid to Ukraine?

 

Facts by their nature are often anecdotal. There are plenty of other examples, whether its Kelly, Mcmaster, Mattis, that support my thesis.

There is no British arms embargo on Israel. The UK is still supplying parts for your airplanes. It just means we are not selling you as much, and it was already a pittance. Dont mistake a soundbite for reality, or you will really turn into one of the Trump humpers here, or perhaps a gullible British left winger that believes Starmers bluff.

Right, which is why Britain is not going to tolerate NATO being hung up like a tired coat.

What losses? We have already give up our entire AS90 fleet to Ukraine. We have given nearly 6 percent of our tank fleet. Its hardly as if we are going to be going to war with Russia till the 2030's anyway, so great has our expenditure been.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, this you proves you can tickle the Tiger, and he responds with a swipe you can dodge. It does not follow if you jab him with a stick, he will be just as accomodating.

In the end, it matters little what range of actions you want to undertake. Trump isnt a Tiger, and has no aspirations to be. TBH, he has always been a blank sheet that allows others to project their hopes on them, so I entirely understand why Netanyahu believes he is his salvation. I submit that Bibi now has something like 2 months to end 2 wars and one pending one, and get the hostages back.  Irans assets are not anywhere near as accessable as Hezbollah's, and you are not accessing them without America's help. This is self evident. For Israel, this is going to be a real problem. You have 2 months to clean iran's clocks, before hunting season is over. As I said before, good luck with that.

Trump just promised the American people low price oil. Question. How does bombing Iran, which will probably try to close the straits of Hormuz, deliver cut price energy for the American people? And it isnt. And right there is Bibi's problem in a nutshell. You are losing the most complient President in American history for one of the most intractable, and think this is a trade up. Why? I see no indications he is remotely interested. He will do what he always does, talk a strong game and dodge, dodge, dodge.

Iran's response options were built around its proxies. But with Hezbollah and Hamas out of the picture, and Houthis practically spent, Iran has little response options remaining. Choosing to fire ballistic missiles at Israel was in itself an act of desperation as it was losing Hezbollah. Its response options are thus its MRBM arsenal against Israel, SRBMs against Arab states, ability to hit American bases, and naval activity in the strait. This isn't a lot. Going after oil in the Arab states can go any of 2 ways:

1. Small scale attacks like the Aramco strike, which ultimately was nothing major.

2. Blockading the strait, which is a nuclear option. 

There is no reason to think the IRGC will go suicidal if Israel and the US destroy its nuclear infrastructure but keep the leadership alive.

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Facts by their nature are often anecdotal. There are plenty of other examples, whether its Kelly, Mcmaster, Mattis, that support my thesis.

There is no British arms embargo on Israel. The UK is still supplying parts for your airplanes. It just means we are not selling you as much, and it was already a pittance. Dont mistake a soundbite for reality, or you will really turn into one of the Trump humpers here, or perhaps a gullible British left winger that believes Starmers bluff.

The fact you describe it as a "pittance" is evidence of the existence of an arms embargo. Israel would gladly buy from the UK, especially because it has factories there. But it doesn't, because it knows that tap will quickly run dry.

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Right, which is why Britain is not going to tolerate NATO being hung up like a tired coat.

What losses? We have already give up our entire AS90 fleet to Ukraine. We have given nearly 6 percent of our tank fleet. Its hardly as if we are going to be going to war with Russia till the 2030's anyway, so great has our expenditure been.

The UK needs a capable armed force and an active arms industry to supply Ukraine in both the short and long term.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Israel hasnt bought British since the 1960's, and if you want to know why there is one word which sums it up. 'Chieftain'. And whilst I regret it, I cant say I blame you. So yes, its a pittance. We simply dont make anything you want. You might have wanted Typhoon, except the Americans surely wouldnt have bought it for you. Name a single British weapon system in Israeli employ. Id struggle to thing of a French one either.

EVERYONE wants a capable armed force and an active arms industry. No, we are not in great shape. But look across Europe where our productive capacity is precisely one tank factory in Germany. Its not just Britain that made this mistake about the end of history. Look how many shipyards the US shut and told itself it was progress. Even Israel has divested itsel fo the capacity to build Merkava's (Or so I was led to understand was pending just a few short years ago). Why? Because politicians are idiots. This is not exactly a newsflash.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Iran's response options were built around its proxies. But with Hezbollah and Hamas out of the picture, and Houthis practically spent, Iran has little response options remaining. Choosing to fire ballistic missiles at Israel was in itself an act of desperation as it was losing Hezbollah

This is all speculation.  You don't know how much the Iranians were relying on their proxies, and you don't know what a real Iranian attack looks like in comparison to the first two.

 

[RETAC21]

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I got my answers. Thank you all, by the way. Productive discussion here as well. Do you guys prefer to keep this thread to discuss Trump vs Europe stuff, or can I ask a mod to close it?

Keep it open and we will see how it tracks with reality

[RETAC21]

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Iran's response options were built around its proxies. But with Hezbollah and Hamas out of the picture, and Houthis practically spent, Iran has little response options remaining. Choosing to fire ballistic missiles at Israel was in itself an act of desperation as it was losing Hezbollah. Its response options are thus its MRBM arsenal against Israel, SRBMs against Arab states, ability to hit American bases, and naval activity in the strait. This isn't a lot. Going after oil in the Arab states can go any of 2 ways:

1. Small scale attacks like the Aramco strike, which ultimately was nothing major.

2. Blockading the strait, which is a nuclear option. 

There is no reason to think the IRGC will go suicidal if Israel and the US destroy its nuclear infrastructure but keep the leadership alive.

The fact you describe it as a "pittance" is evidence of the existence of an arms embargo. Israel would gladly buy from the UK, especially because it has factories there. But it doesn't, because it knows that tap will quickly run dry.

The UK needs a capable armed force and an active arms industry to supply Ukraine in both the short and long term.

Iran is in a limited war with Israel but on a all out war with its people, Israel is useful as a distraction, and the loss of Hamas and Hizbollah is just too bad, but that's what they were wanted for. A war to the hilt with the Arabs may be more than they bargain for.

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, sunday said:

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/24/21300291/john-bolton-book-trump-review-room-foreign-policy

Seems there are some differences between being a foreign policy hawk and being a warmonger.

Effective Brinkmanship and big stick diplomacy are hard to tell from basic war mongering to those poorly initiated in the nature of violence.  

[seahawk]

Which loss of Hamas and Hezbollah, please? Yes, they lost some equipment and a fighters, but in their respective areas of operation, they are still unchallenged and still are capable to deal with any Sunni Muslim or Christian opposition. "We are helping fighting the Zionists" sounds a lot better "than we are still meddling in your affairs and keep preparing for another Civil war", but the later is the actual truth. Hezbollah is fine as long as it is so strong that the Lebanese Armed Forces can not crush it. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Even Israel has divested itsel fo the capacity to build Merkava's

Still building new ones at 30 per year.

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Israel hasnt bought British since the 1960's, and if you want to know why there is one word which sums it up. 'Chieftain'. And whilst I regret it, I cant say I blame you. So yes, its a pittance. We simply dont make anything you want. You might have wanted Typhoon, except the Americans surely wouldnt have bought it for you. Name a single British weapon system in Israeli employ. Id struggle to thing of a French one either.

Stop thinking full weapons, start thinking subsystems, ASICs, optics, precision-made items, etc etc. The UK is great for sourcing electronics and designs.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

This is all speculation.  You don't know how much the Iranians were relying on their proxies, and you don't know what a real Iranian attack looks like in comparison to the first two.

 

 

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Iran is in a limited war with Israel but on a all out war with its people, Israel is useful as a distraction, and the loss of Hamas and Hizbollah is just too bad, but that's what they were wanted for. A war to the hilt with the Arabs may be more than they bargain for.

Common Iranians are generally opposed to IRGC's war on Israel as it is considered a money pit during their financial struggles. This also raised antagonism toward Palestinias.

Hamas and Hezbollah were deterrents, not tools for political gain. It can be argued that without Hezbollah being dismantled so thoroughly, mutual attacks between Israel and Iran on each others' soil would not happen. 

20 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Which loss of Hamas and Hezbollah, please? Yes, they lost some equipment and a fighters, but in their respective areas of operation, they are still unchallenged and still are capable to deal with any Sunni Muslim or Christian opposition. "We are helping fighting the Zionists" sounds a lot better "than we are still meddling in your affairs and keep preparing for another Civil war", but the later is the actual truth. Hezbollah is fine as long as it is so strong that the Lebanese Armed Forces can not crush it. 

Hamas is unable to fire rockets into Israel nor invading it again.

Hezbollah's threat of launching thousands of rockets per day and disabling national infrastructure and airfields country-wide, has been dismantled and can no longer be realized.

[seahawk]

You still do not get the strategic value of them. Israel is a a marketing campaign, but the real interest is to stop a Sunni domination of the Middle East. All Iranian proxies, while hostile to Israel, also contain or defeated a Sunni non-Shia force.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Still building new ones at 30 per year.

Stop thinking full weapons, start thinking subsystems, ASICs, optics, precision-made items, etc etc. The UK is great for sourcing electronics and designs.

 

Common Iranians are generally opposed to IRGC's war on Israel as it is considered a money pit during their financial struggles. This also raised antagonism toward Palestinias.

Hamas and Hezbollah were deterrents, not tools for political gain. It can be argued that without Hezbollah being dismantled so thoroughly, mutual attacks between Israel and Iran on each others' soil would not happen. 

Hamas is unable to fire rockets into Israel nor invading it again.

Hezbollah's threat of launching thousands of rockets per day and disabling national infrastructure and airfields country-wide, has been dismantled and can no longer be realized.

Electronics? About the only electronics Im aware are still made in the UK at scale are Raspberry Pi....

Designs? Well if you want a Frigate or a nuclear submarine, yes. Anything else, we diversted ourself of some years ago. And you arent coming to us for Tempest, so...

I say it again, the only thing we seem to make for Israel are perhaps electronic listening devices (that is a guess on my part, but a good one) and probably gas masks. Is this really going to break the bank for you in combat? Hardly. It may make sense to inflate it as a huge weapons block, but it isnt, as is demonstrated by the fact you are still fighting.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Electronics? About the only electronics Im aware are still made in the UK at scale are Raspberry Pi....

Designs? Well if you want a Frigate or a nuclear submarine, yes. Anything else, we diversted ourself of some years ago. And you arent coming to us for Tempest, so...

I say it again, the only thing we seem to make for Israel are perhaps electronic listening devices (that is a guess on my part, but a good one) and probably gas masks. Is this really going to break the bank for you in combat? Hardly. It may make sense to inflate it as a huge weapons block, but it isnt, as is demonstrated by the fact you are still fighting.

1. Israel's largest defense companies Rafael and Elbit have set up a strong base in the UK, by far the largest presence in Europe. UK may be Elbit's largest base outside Israel. What's manufactured there for the UK are products used by Israel as well and which Israel imported during this war.

2. Electronics are so, so much more than what you describe, and the UK has a huge share in the tech industry. I remember during my service a lot of the things we ordered were from British companies.