Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "" video.

  1. Ukraine was not a member of NATO. If it was, Russia would not have invaded it.
    2
  2. Europe had no intention of spending any more until Trump got back in the White House, then Starmer et al were loudly proclaiming big defence increases. Even if everyone spent 5% the Americans would still be needed so although it is appropriate rhetoric to speak as if Europe can get by without the US; don't ever actually think that is a real option. America has always wanted Europe to pay a much bigger share, European taxpayers wanted the American taxpayer to keep shouldering a lot of the burden. No Western government can announce a 'however much it takes' spending commitment without the bond markets raising the interest they demand on that country's bonds and crashing the economy. What forced Liz Truss out in mere weeks was in her first budget as UK Prime minister she said she would cut taxes and subsidise UK household energy bills at the last yea'rs levels, which was a financially perilous commitment to expenditure potentially without limit that she didn't explain how she might pay for. Increased defence commitments of the order you are suggesting (ie sufficient to defeat Russia in Ukraine however much that might be in practice) would have to be paid for by raising taxes because they are not investment, which can be paid for by borrowing, but a type of consumption. So why would American taxpayers agree to potentially unlimited tax increases America could do it more efficiently itself if they wanted to, or thought defeating Russia in the near term by just throwing similar amounts of taxpayers' money at Ukraine was feasible without creating a golden opportunity for China--who American strategists consider the real threat to the West. I don't think American military intelligence have ever thought it was practicable to defeat Russia in Ukraine by any amount of indirect support. Russia can be hurt and has been but it can't be knocked out of the war--it just can't. Biden was not told that more arms to Ukraine would let if win and the intel briefings have not changed for Trump. The difference in is Trump has decided that after years with Biden giving Ukraine lots of help with no decisive result to show for, it there is no further point in continuing with the cost of supporting an ongoing stalemate.
    1
  3. In the last budget, Britain had £30 odd billion of unfunded spending.
    1
  4. Britain left the EU so it is not the basis of Britain's existence. The UK has been raiding the defence budget to pay for social spending without raising taxes and being supported militarily by America (not really Europe) for decades. There is no money for the UK to spend. The 5% is a demand of Trump. Free ride is over.
    1
  5. There is no money for all this stuff.
    1
  6. The Dnieper will be the dividing line between the West and Russia.
    1
  7. Is Anders aware that Poles are going to be wealthier than British in about ten years? Military spending is not investment. It's consumption that would have to be paid for by raising taxes. Britain desperately needs investment.
    1