Big J

You still haven't substantively provided any justification for any of Trump's actions towards Ukraine. You just resort to insults, over and over again. If you want to make a case for his capitulation and deference to Russia, I am all ears. If all you are going to bleat on about is liberal tears, Trump Derangement Syndrome and woke agendas, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Trump, in undermining the military, intelligence and negotiating position of Ukraine has only strengthened the possibility of wider war. It has increased the likelihood of more death, not less. To cap it all off, the vast majority of the funding that the US offered Ukraine directly benefitted the US. Old, obsolete arms were donated, instead of having to pay to dispose of them. New arms were manufacturered in the US, directly supporting US jobs. And not to forget that Ukraine is fighting a war on our behalf. If we (as in the West) roll over and allow Russia to take Ukraine, Putin will not stop there. The parallels with Hitler and 1938 are stark.

It's been said by a great many people that have worked with him that he has absolutely no interest in or knowledge of history. He doesn't read anything. Everything he says and does is from impulse and gut feel. Some misconstrue this as him being genuine, ballsy and blue collar when what he is really is an uneducated moron from unbelievable privilege. Another quote I heard recently is that Trump is the wrong answer to the right question. So some of the issues that he's highlighted are absolutely valid (like Europe's dependence on US defence), but his approach is categorically wrong in almost every instance. Like realising that the decor in your house needs an update and deciding that burning down and starting again is most logical.

Fortunately, I don't really ever have to share environments with other people where music might be played. If ever I travel with family and friends, I only ever put music on my mutual consent, and I usually ask to switch off 'background' music if I'm in other people's cars as I can't concentrate on a conversation if it's on. I recently read about a spectrum of conditions called APD (auditory processing disorder) and I suspect it's something I have. I have really sensitive hearing in a quiet environment, but struggle to single out a conversation against background noise. I always just assumed I had some hearing loss from punk gigs as a teenager, but my hearing remains very good. APD is often a complication or comorbidity of ADHD (which I am also fairly sure I have). Either way, music is something that is very personal. I listen mostly to punk from about 20-30 years ago or classical. I don't like a lot of other music (especially anything in the mainstream) but equally, I don't assume other people will like what I like.

I really don't think it's any coincidence that this period of history looks to repeat itself precisely as the last of the WW2 generation dies. What collectively short memories we have.

People are mostly awful, I've found. One of the reasons I really enjoy living in the middle of nowhere in Sweden and not really having to talk to anyone Showing my naivity, I honestly thought that the world was beyond this sort of imperialistic shite. We're in a period of regression.

Just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean that the solution is total capitulation. But if I were in any kind of position to influence negotiations, I would (as I said recently) suggest that Ukraine exchange Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk for an immediate end to the war and EU and Nato membership. Russia cannot be trusted not to regroup and invade again, and in theory, NATO membership ought to discourage that. But given that Trump is exhibiting little to no interest in Europe or world peace, the chances of him honouring Article 5 are very small indeed I realise that it's an idealistic stand to take, but countries ought to be able to exist without the threat of other countries invading them. I do not think that being against such actions is unreasonable.

But the actions of Trump and his cronies are not going to improve the situation in Ukraine in any way. He is obviously gunning for the Nobel Peace Prize, but his idea of how to obtain it is total capitulation to Russia. In withdrawing military aid and intelligence support, he's effectively serving Ukraine up on a plate to Russia. Correct me if I am wrong, but I shall make a series of statements that I regard as being unambiguous: * In 1994, the Bucharest memorandum was implemented so that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and security from the US, the UK and Russia. This agreement should have guaranteed that Russia wouldn't invade, and failing that, that the US and UK would protect Ukraine. * The US withdrawal from European security and probably Nato is deeply hypocritical given that the only time that Article 5 was invoked was by the US after 9/11. Nato troops from all nations fought and died on behalf of the US. * Vance's comments about "20,000 random troops from countries that haven't fought wars for 30-40 years" is absolutely disgusting. Not only have they fought wars, but they've fought US wars. * Trump's demands for concessions from Ukraine are enormous and do not provide Ukraine with any security. The only demand he's made of Putin is that he stop killing Ukrainians. * If Russia stops fighting tomorrow, the war is over. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no Ukraine. In light of that extremely brief and by no means exhaustive list, how can it be right that Putin is allowed to get everything that he wants and Ukraine has to simply accept it? There has to be some sort of global moral standard and Trump and Putin are definitely far from reaching it.

@Johnsond and @GarethM - neither of you are presenting your case coherently at present. Both of you are falling into the trap of personally insulting those that you are disagreeing with in addition to continual 'what-aboutery'. If you want to make a case for how you feel that Trump's actions over the weekend are a positive thing, why not make that argument? It would be far more persuasive than simply saying "classic 'insert lefty Arbtalk member's name here' left nonsense", or saying 'what about when Keir did this and Blair did that etc etc. I'm genuinely interested to hear an ambitiously persuasive argument rather than recycled Maga talking points

I shall try very hard not to make it personal, but your position is one that is hard to defend, understand or respect. You use every opportunity to justify the actions of fascists, trying to explain their behaviour as only natural, normal and rational. It is not. Zelensky did not come begging. He and his country are fighting a war because (amongst a great many other reasons) security guarantees given to Ukraine by the Budapest memorandum were not honoured by the west. Ukraine stands on the front line against Putin's imperialistic ambitions. If it falls, it won't be the last country on Putin's list. As such, Ukraine is not only defending itself but the West more broadly. The very least they deserve is our support and respect. Trump et al offer neither, and consequently cannot earn it in return.

It really is just such a sad day for America. I'd like to think that it must be evident to anyone now that the White House is being run by petulant, entitled toddlers. They just cannot process anything beyond their id - "Why don't you say thank you? (which Zelensky did, in his first sentence) Why don't you wear a suit? (because my country is at war). We want your minerals - give us your minerals. We like Putin. Putin is strong. We are strong" My feeling is now that most people in America with any degree of political engagement and understanding are holding their head in their hands, whereas the Maga cheerleaders are probably delighted. All the US administrations of my adult life have had their faults (without doubt), but they were all at least acting with decency, respect and for the betterment of others (which isn't to say that they weren't in it for themselves too, but that they also engaged in altruistic behaviour sometimes). Trump et al are a pack of hyenas. Sneering, viscious, selfish, taking what they want and everyone else be damned.

If it weren't for a shared language, the US and Britain wouldn't be nearly so close. This has been said many times. This latest exhibition of abhorent political showmanship from Trump and Vance hammers home how alien American culture is. To invite the leader of a country at the receiving end of an invasion to the White House and then repeatedly demand overtures of gratitude beggars belief. Trump and Vance truly have no idea what Zelensky and his countrymen have been enduring for not just three years, but since 2014. They look at the situation not as "how might we help our allies fight our adversary, which benefits us both" but rather as "how can we best extract money from this situation. Ukraine be damned" It's hard not to feel like we're in 1938, but with the Axis being Russia and Maga.

You are going to need to come up with a better defence of Trump than "well, what about the other one?!" Did you see the video of Trump signing the executive orders? With each new one that was presented to him, he remarked "oooh, that's a big one", really like some sort of over-awed toddler.

I'm just not that old 😁 You asked me to provide a suggestion that you regarded as realistic. Of course, I fully believe that Ukraine should have it's borders restored to pre-2014, but with the f**kwit Russian asset in the Whitehouse, is that is remotely likely? Another question to ask is, what would Ukraine gain by holding on for complete reunification? Russia has effectively ethnically cleansed the occupied areas of Ukrainians, so how Ukrainian are they now? Peace for 90% of Ukraine is better than 80% of Ukraine at war to take back the 20% that doesn't contain any Ukrainians anymore. Again, to stress, Ukraine should be restored to 100%. But in this age of awful people seemingly acting with total impunity, I'm not optimistic.

Forgive me for having not seen the film, so the reference is lost on me

Why exactly is that so wrong? Why is it unreasonable for Ukraine to insist that it's neighbour respects it's internationally recognised borders? Russia is unquestionably the aggressor. But, in the spirit of trying to end the war, I would suggest to Ukraine that it gives up Luhansk, Donbas and Crimea in exchange for the return of all other occupied land, EU and Nato membership and a permanent demilitarised zone, manned with international peacekeepers. Putin has his exit ramp, insofar as he can say that he secured those lands for Russia, and Ukraine recovers some of it's sovereign territory and has future security assurances. Though given how the Budapest memorandum wasn't honoured, how much that is worth is debatable. Either way, a lasting peace isn't going to be acheived by simply giving Russia everything it demands. That would only embolden them to repeat the actions in the future.

Brokering a peace is one thing, but total capitulation is another. The US is not asking Russia to make a single concession, other than "give up your aim of taking all of Ukraine". If Ukraine were to agree, and Trump got his 'peace' through, Russia would be rolling through a neutered and defenseless Ukraine within 12-36 months, to finish the job.

I just feel despair now at what the WW2 generation would think of the way that their legacy is being abused and disgarded. The world went to war, tens of millions of people died to defeat fascism and it seems like the sun has barely set on that generation and there is a determined effort to replay the most abhorent episodes from the 20th century. It's remarkable and awful in equal measure that even the most vocal Trump critics didn't predict that it would be this bad.

The US is siding with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in UN votes now against Ukraine. Looking on the bright side, it seems like course of action is too much even for the MAGAs, with 80% of the US population against this new stance on Ukraine. Again I'll say, WTF does Putin have on Trump? Why does Trump feel such a deep and desperate need to appease a geostrategically insignificant country with a GDP 14 times lower than the US?

This is probably also another case of "Good technology, applied badly by the UK". The National Grid is in chronic need of upgrade. The energy infrastructure as a whole really. It, like so many other things, comes down to planning reform.

The UK is of course an island, and therefore tidal is a 100% reliable power source. But as I said earlier, storage has to be looked at. Ideally, each house should be equipped with battery storage to allow for charging during periods of high production or low demand. Most solar installations here now include a battery. 10-15% of the houses in our village have solar, I'd estimate.

Immersion heater within the heat pump boiler. Always loads of hot water (ie, we've never run out and it's always hot - not on a timer). The heating is all radiators, many of them original. We have also got an air source heat pump in the living room (40 square metres) which doubles as AC in summer. I like to keep the house a little on the cooler side on the central heating thermostat (18-19c) but then boost the living areas with the air source pump and also the stove in the kitchen (also around 40 square metres). We use about 6-8 cubic metres a year, max.

No, heatpumps are the future of heating. 25kW is almost never needed and even it it were, the 4:1 efficiency ratio of heat pumps reduces that to just over 6kWh. In the middle of winter, we use about 40kWh a day to fully heat and power our house here in Sweden. It's a big house to heat as well. It's well insulated, but equally, it's nearly 70 years old with it's original double glazed windows. My friend here works as a safety engineer at the local nuclear power plant. He's said that the spikes in energy production are the biggest issue with renewables, as dumping the excess electricity is problematic. So storage has to be the solution for that problem, where it's electrical (battery) or physical (water based - pumping water uphill to a reservoir in times of energy excess to allow it to power turbines on the way back downhill in times of need).

It's interesting to wonder what compromat Putin has on Trump.... I think Trump will quite quickly realise that aligning with Putin and alienating Ukraine and Europe is only popular with a narrow part of his base. How the Republican party has changed - could you imagine Reagan-era GOP politicians siding with the Soviets over Europeans? Trump's grasp of reality does seem to be slipping more by the day. To insist that Ukraine started the war is total nonsense. It now looks like Nato has been defanged, as who would enforce article five? And Trump's idea of a 'deal' with Russia is just to give them everything they want. Again, what does Putin have on Trump? Bleak times ahead. Listening to an interview on Times Radio today with Richard Shirreff today, he believes that the direction we're heading could result in Europe being directly at war with Russia within 5 years. With the potential total US withdrawel from Europe, US capitulation to Russia and Putin's endless thirst for imperial expansion, can states like the Baltics do anything other than fear the worst?