The problem for Polanski’s argument here is that at the present time no one would join an alternative alliance. So as a geopolitical strategy it doesn’t make sense (at the present time) and as a political position in uk politics it may create a ceiling for GP support.
bsky.app/profile/luke...

The problem for Polanski’s argument here is that at the present time no one would join an alternative alliance. So as a geopolitical strategy it doesn’t make sense (at the present time) and as a political position in uk politics it may create a ceiling for GP support.
bsky.app/profile/luke...

An alternative position could be: "NATO is explicitly US led - strategic command in Europe always American - and the long-term direction of US politics puts it into question. We don't favour leaving but back far deeper security cooperation with European neighbours independent of NATO/US structures".

Thanks - I listened to the Newsagents where he seemed somewhere between nuanced and evasive of the topic. But I watched the BBC interview today and he was very emphatic about it. bsky.app/profile/luke...

I stand corrected as Polanski does tell BBC this morning that he favours "an alternative alliance". I find this a bit puzzling from his own perspective. Why depart from the existing GP position when it's clearly not one of his policy priorities and is very unpopular? www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/epis...

“It may not include the US”. If that’s the case, then it’s questionable really that it would still be NATO. Like the Byzantine and Roman empires, technically continuous but in practice radically different. “NATO” would have to appoint a non American SACEUR for the first time in its history.

Haha yeah . I think Polanski has to communicate the position a bit differently as he’s clearly got a problem here though