FighterControl

Given the now perilous position that Starmer has put us in with the Trump administration do we think there are any implications for the various US Bases here in the UK ?

I think you've got this the wrong way around - Trump is the destabiliser.

No.

It is, however, somewhat amusing that you have decided it's Starmer that has put us in a perilous position, rather than Trump with his nonsense about invading Mexico, Canada and Greenland.

Big question is, can we trust either Starmer or Trump?

My post related to Starmer sending a 100 delegates to support Biden which has backfired. If you want to discuss Trump and Greenland can we start a separate thread ?

The fact Trump has invited all the World leaders to his inauguration except Starmer is perhaps a worry for the "special relationship" and those US bases.

There are more than just US air bases in the Uk. Although places like Holy Loch were closed years ago ther are many other sites still active. Some of their largest intelligence gathering sites are also here. If you google search I'm sure you can find all sorts of information on it. Hopefully the people who advise 'those in charge' will council taking a longer term view of what is to all our benefit, rather than knee jerk spats as mentioned above.

Time will tell.

Deramore wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:03 pm

Given the now perilous position that Starmer has put us in with the Trump administration do we think there are any implications for the various US Bases here in the UK ?

I'm sorry, must have missed that, what perilous position has the PM put us into?

Deramore wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:20 pm

My post related to Starmer sending a 100 delegates to support Biden which has backfired. If you want to discuss Trump and Greenland can we start a separate thread ?

The fact Trump has invited all the World leaders to his inauguration except Starmer is perhaps a worry for the "special relationship" and those US bases.

He didn't send delegates, people went of their own accord and volunteered in their own time, unlike say certain reform MP's who went to support Trump when they should be carrying out their MP duties? so which is it? why is one bad and not the other?

Starmer distanced himself from the Labour party members who went to support Biden. As said above, looks to me at least like Trump is the destabiliser.

Deramore wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:20 pm

The fact Trump has invited all the World leaders to his inauguration except Starmer is perhaps a worry for the "special relationship" and those US bases.

Got a link? Nothing on this when you have a quick Google. When you have the supposed "Leader of the free world" threatening millitary action on a NATO ally, then that is more concerning that anything Starmer is doing.

Deramore wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:20 pm

My post related to Starmer sending a 100 delegates to support Biden which has backfired. If you want to discuss Trump and Greenland can we start a separate thread ?

The fact Trump has invited all the World leaders to his inauguration except Starmer is perhaps a worry for the "special relationship" and those US bases.

Where do you get your facts from, The Beano? Trump hasn't invited all world leaders https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/do ... 52459.html

The USAF is here as a component of NATO on MoD bases and so the notion that Mr T (oh that was someone else!) might pull the plug on them has far wider implications in that to do so he would be withdrawing from said Organisation; which of course he has threatened. He has already upset one member in the shape of Denmark re. Greenland. NATO has previously been his 'whipping boy' all because he wants all of its members to pay their way.

Which percentage does UK spend on its defence? I guess thats a bigger issue for Trump?

chrisfg1 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 3:58 pm

Deramore wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:20 pm

My post related to Starmer sending a 100 delegates to support Biden which has backfired. If you want to discuss Trump and Greenland can we start a separate thread ?

The fact Trump has invited all the World leaders to his inauguration except Starmer is perhaps a worry for the "special relationship" and those US bases.

Where do you get your facts from, The Beano? Trump hasn't invited all world leaders https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/do ... 52459.html

Some folks on Facebook groups certainly read the Beano when commenting on Aviation matters...

Any rash decisions by the big orange baby would be bogged down in red tape until he's gone in 4 years so I wouldn't be concerned.

The US-UK military and intelligence relationship has safely ridden out far worse diplomatic crises than whatever bone Trump wants to pick this week. Kissinger personally withdrew intelligence cooperation with the UK for a period of time and US agencies still tried to work around it as much as they could.

From what I read in the media Starmer and Trump had been getting on fairly well and had met a couple of times privately in September 2024 "Labour officials have invested significant energy in trying to forge links with the Trump campaign, both in opposition and now in government, which could now be at risk"

It seemed to have been going well until Sofia Patel ( Head of Labour party Operations) went on to social media :-

" I have nearly a 100 Labour party staff (current and former) going to the US in the next few weeks heading to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. I have 10 spots available for anyone available to head to the battleground state of North Carolina. We will sort your housing. Email me
On LabourforKamalaharris@gmail.com if you are interested. Thanks!

Also Elon Musk hasn't helped by calling the UK a police state

As regards the American bases in the UK in my opinion they are here to protect American interests.

I read somewhere, the Daily Torygraph perhaps that as a proportion of GDP Europe as a whole spend more on NATO than does the USA - mainly helped by Poland who spend over 4%. Much of US military spending goes into non NATO regions such as the 50,000 troops in Japan for example.

I can only imagine the OP saw GB news making it's usual story out of nothing (caveat: I've never watched 1 second of that, but it seems like their kind of thing), but traditionally world leaders aren't invited to an inauguration, and a British PM has never been to one. Trump has broken with protocol to invite Orban, Meloni, Milei, Xi, etc which worryingly kind of says all you need to know.

EGDR wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2025 12:50 am

The US-UK military and intelligence relationship has safely ridden out far worse diplomatic crises than whatever bone Trump wants to pick this week.

This exactly, unless he somehow declares war on Britain, there isn't much Trump could do that would cause the relationship to fall apart in a single presidential term