Café took place following tumultuous events in USA
March 2025
The Café started with a short introduction by the facilitator reporting back on the People’s Assembly which had been run the previous week. Around 40 attended, 50 all told, and the event secured good coverage in the local media. The next event is on 13 April and to secure a place contact mapotts53@gmail.com. We were also delighted to welcome a visitor from Horsham in E Sussex who is thinking of setting up a café in that town.
We are grateful to Salisbury Library for their generous offer to use their space for our meetings.
The Café took place in the week following the unseemly meeting in the White House between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and his team.
The first question which won the vote was would we agree to a return of conscription? Conscription ended in the UK in 1963. Some saw it as having benefits for our youth: imbuing discipline in young people although it was noted that politicians were keen for it for other people’s children not their own. What was the difference between national service and conscription someone asked: there probably isn’t in reality. Were we desperate enough yet for this someone asked?
The previous government had talked about a form of national service for school leavers. The problem was a hotchpotch of programmes for young people with little coherence for those who did not go to university, the less able and those with special needs. Someone felt that education had failed young people. Many parents don’t like their children going to school it was suggested and there had been a rise in home schooling. Echoing a discussion last time, there was little attention paid to the teaching of values they thought.
A Quaker insisted that there was a right to object. He felt there was something of an obsession with military matters. In this context, it was noted that the nation faced threats which were not of a military nature eg cyber attacks, financial and bacteriological threats. We should be alive to these just as much as recruiting for the armed services. It wasn’t all boots on the ground. Someone who was a conscientious objector spoke of his service in an ambulance unit. Should we not aim for societies to live in a world without wars? It didn’t matter how you killed: what was the difference between a soldier in the field and someone sitting in front of a screen thousands of miles away pressing a button? Both had effects on the individual. Julian Assange and Wikileaks had revealed the extent of killing at a distance mainly by the US.
The Quaker approach was questioned: what do they do to defend themselves? They did have a right to react (in reference to the Ukraine invasion) was the answer. The example of Einstein was mentioned who was in the US when Hitler came to power and decided not to go back to Germany. At that point he renounced his pacifism. After Hiroshima (which his discoveries in physics helped bring about) he became a pacifist again. The point being that people can change their minds.
The government’s change of focus was introduced (the decision to reduce overseas aid funding to put more money into defence to reach 2.5% of GDP). We were never asked about this it was noted. It was suggested that it was a debate our leaders wanted us to have, to create enemies, even suggesting it was our leaders were the real enemies. The thinker and writer Prof. Mearsheimer was mentioned in the context of Ukraine (by now we had drifted away somewhat from conscription) and a lengthy essay on his thinking is available here. You will note that many do not agree with his views. Jeffrey Sachs was mentioned and his views about the eastward push of NATO and the idea that Americans had taken over the role the British Empire had in earlier times. His speech to the EU is a recommended read. Both suggested a need for our own foreign policy (divorced from the US was implied). The impetus behind the creation of the EEC, which was partly to end the centuries of wars which had taken place between European nations, has been forgotten it was said.
It was suggested that every war since Vietnam has been a war of choice. This related to the references in the previous paragraph about America’s role in the world.
Back to the plot and the problems within the armed services needed addressing. Issues of bullying and sexual harassment were common. This touched on the problem of retention of people within the services. The process in the Nordic nations and Switzerland where all able bodied men and women are required to do some kind of military service, Militärdienst (Switzerland). A recent referendum there voted 73% in favour of maintaining conscription.
In relation to Ukraine, why weren’t we talking the language of diplomacy someone asked? The democratic process had been undermined at speed by the actions of Donald Trump someone said. There had been no time for the parliamentary process to have its say. The speed was deliberate it was suggested, the process of ‘flooding the zone’ (©Steve Bannon). It was a question of getting used to uncertainty.
Well, we didn’t really answer the question! Conscription arose in times of war and that is unlikely as far as the UK is concerned. It might arise in connection with troops being sent to Ukraine a matter we did not directly discuss. Since the armed services have seen funding fall to seriously low levels and the standing army was at a very low ebb, maybe conscription might be needed. The debate circled around events in Ukraine which led us to part two …
The second half kicked off with the question is the Trump approach to Ukraine the only practical one? There was a review of the current situation. Biden’s leadership saw no prospect of an end to the fighting; Putin has too much as stake to give up now especially after recent events; Trump is providing a solution which is not what Ukrainians want; he is forcing – or trying to force – Zelensky to concede. Debate.
The similarities to the ’30s was mentioned and the policy of appeasement. A lot depends on Putin’s intentions someone thought: will he be satisfied with what he’s got (the implication being he won’t be)? Thousands have died but Trump’s way is giving Putin all the cards. We returned to some of the points in the first half debate. We were led to believe ‘Russia bad’ ‘America good’ but both had imperial ambitions as the above references will attest. The eastward push of NATO was a factor in recent events although it was noted that these new members wanted to join for their protection.
Trump’s approach was purely transactional it was noted with an eye on securing mineral deals in Ukraine – no doubt at favourable prices – for American mining companies.
Putin was fundamentally different someone noted, he was a liar and did not stick to agreements. The Minsk agreement was referred to which demanded nothing of Russia and was a precursor to the 2022 invasion. Remember the Novichok attack in Salisbury. At this point, Craig Murray’s take on the Skripal’s and Navalny was brought up, essentially disbelieving the received narrative of Putin ordering assassinations. We were reminded of the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers carried out by the NKVD in WWII.
It felt wrong it was said, that is to allow Russia to get away with invading which might lead to further actions in places like Moldova and the Baltic states.
A bit of Russian history was mentioned namely that they were late to democracy. Attempts in the late nineteenth centuries to install a democratic system failed until the eventual October revolution took place. They had a sense of inferiority and this, it was suggested, was a factor in their thinking. They had been frequently invaded by Napoleon, Hitler and by western ‘White’ forces after the revolution. Ukraine had its own history and previous domination under the Tsars led to the policy of attempted Russification, suppression of the language and deportations of thousands of members of the intelligentsia.
There was discussion, frankly difficult to summarise, around the eastward push of NATO being a factor, the role of the CIA and a quote by Kissinger ‘to be a enemy of the USA is dangerous, to be a friend, fatal’.
The two debates circled around the same topic really and that was Ukraine. But we did discuss the changing perceptions of the USA brought into stark focus with the recent statements and actions from the White House. The USA was effectively an empire and had carried out a range of activities around the world to destabilise nations or leaders who tried to resist their power (see the books mentioned below). This power was used for the benefit of American firms, a factor plainly evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. So there is nothing new in his attitudes. This was forcing an urgent rethink of policy on defence and ultimately much else in Europe. Perhaps people were beginning to recast their view of America? Maybe we will see conscription …
Next meeting on 12 April.
Peter Curbishley
Books mentioned:
The Racket: a rogue reporter vs the American Empire, 2024, Matt Kennard
The New Rulers of the World, 2016, John Pilger
Would you like to join us? We are a small team and would welcome anyone interested in democracy and people having their say. Next café is on 12th April and that would be a good moment to have a word.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 