In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
But doing that with our eyes closed while Russia chops more bits off the country won't work. Why not defend Ukraine territorially and help them domestically as well.
No, wait, that is what various countries *have* been doing.
Poor dome head Scholz head must be freezing 🥶 has he not been paying any attention to how to do the big Kremlin photo op!
The thing to look for is where he sits. Everyone else has been the length of a cricket pitch away from Putin at the other end of that huge table. If this is the case here too we can probably conclude the final diplomatic push by Germany has failed and it's war. But - and let's hope this is what we do see - if the two men sit cheek by jowl, all cosy, at one end of the table, maybe even with Putin's arm draped casually around the back of Scholz's chair, then it could be that a compromise has been reached.
The problem with that post Kin, he appears to use even longer tables with his own cabinet?
Ah now that is true. Bizarre really. Tbh, for all the geopolitics that is rightly chewed over, I wonder - as Dura Ace does - how much of what he wanted from all this was on the personal level, ie about feeding Big Important Man syndrome. In which case having sundry Western leaders jetting over to Moscow and sitting there in supplication at that huge long table has probably done the trick. It's a Win.
Remember bond films had KGB in big offices, and the Brit big wigs in little cosy ones. It might just be a cultural thing than supplication technique. Lunchtime he probably sits on his own in there eating a burger!
Someone posted this on site a couple of days ago “Whilst Putin doesn’t appear to have goals easily achievable through military action, he will clearly gain a lot if he moves EU and Ukraine towards those Minsk Protocol’s so far not implemented. We have no choice but to consider this, because if he doesn’t initiate military conflict, and we hail ourselves on the triumph of thwarting his invasion - we may actually overlook what Putin’s plan actually has been all along, and crucially still ongoing in the years to come. I suggest we monitor the media carefully not just for signs of invasion or false flag operations, but listen to what EU capitals, and the Ukrainian government, are saying about Nord and Minsk Protocols.”
If the EU start to say things about considering Russia’s security concerns in all this negotiating, Russia dismantles its build up with a big 😝 in direction of Washington, then not to underestimate what a Gas pipeline or two can actually win you?
So with war over and negotiations that consider Russian security in all this being given a chance, does the media narrative shift back now to vaccination status of tennis players and the other big Moscow story - Boris Moscow?
Someone on PB has started a countdown to Big Dog’s neutering and it stands today at just Snip minus 7 days 😲
I think there is no agreement as to what the Minsk protocol actually means.
The current Russian Government position is that they are not a party to Minsk. Or, I think, to Minsk II.
And what they want is a further move to give them control over what happens in other sovereign countries, whilst denying that to others in their own country.
If EuCo starts making noises as you suggest, then it will encourage Russia to try the same in Poland and the Baltics and Finland, and imo put themselves in the same place as France and the UK in 1938.
Your entitled to your view. For some “negotiations that also consider Russian security concerns in all this” is yet another reason to hate and bash the EU.
Ukraine position is to have both NATO membership AND to retake parts of its own sovereign territory held by the Russians. Do you support the UK and Washington fast tracking Ukraine NATO membership? In your opinion why don’t they have it yet? Can they have it by the end of the year? Up until then “standing shoulder to shoulder with democratic sovereign nation” is just hollow words or even lies isn’t it?
They haven't fast tracked it. No-one in NATO is really talking about Ukraine joining. It is a permanent aspiration much like Turkey joining the EU.
This is for the same reason that Finland isn't a member - because it would be seen as too much of a provocation to Russia.
The "standing shoulder to shoulder with democratic sovereign nation" is not a lie, because it is possible to stand shoulder to shoulder with a nation without them joining NATO. Neither Sweden or Finland are in NATO - but no-one doubts that if they were attacked, that NATO would come to their aid.
What Putin has achieved with his build up etc is that Ukraine is now moved up the ranks of Friends Of NATO. Not quote to the level of Finland, which is so nearly in NATO that if someone sneezes.... But massively higher than it was.
Finland hasn't applied to join NATO, and spent the cold war (like Austria) being pretty close to the USSR.
Their closeness to the USSR was an interesting one - while they superficially claimed to be some version of neutral, everyone knew that invading Finland was a Day One move for the USSR, when/if the Big Mistake happened.
It was quite noticeable how fast that turned into practically-a-memeber-of-NATO at the end of the Cold War.
It’s not often I disagree with one of your knowledgable posts Malmsy, but
“ The "standing shoulder to shoulder with democratic sovereign nation" is not a lie, because it is possible to stand shoulder to shoulder with a nation without them joining NATO. Neither Sweden or Finland are in NATO - but no-one doubts that if they were attacked, that NATO would come to their aid. ”
That’s not a true comparison - we were just about to stand by and let Putin hang draw quarter and boil the head of Ukraines democracy, sovereignty, and right to political self determination weren’t we - allowing Russia to do this with military air superiority over the Ukraine nation.
Aside from military aid and sanctions that would seriously stuff up the Russia economy (more than it is in a mess now). Things like cutting off Nord Stream 2 - permanently.
If Americans had sent armoured divisions to Ukraine, this would have guaranteed war. Because at that point Putin would have been trapped by the Greater Russian Nationalists behind him.
Instead, we guaranteed that Russia would *regret* war. But could climb down.
Instead of "destroying the village to save it" we "guaranteed to fuck up anyone who pokes the village further"
So, hopefully, the Russian soldiers go home. Alive, and with all their limbs. And the Ukrainian soldiers can as well.
“ So, hopefully, the Russian soldiers go home. Alive, and with all their limbs. And the Ukrainian soldiers can as well.”
Yes that, but also all the everyday people don’t have to live in long time conflict zone or become refugee!
“ Aside from military aid ”. No air support. Russian have this Busty Brenda air support thing parked in Belarus NATO didn’t fancy tackling. 😕
“ and sanctions that would seriously stuff up the Russia economy (more than it is in a mess now). Things like cutting off Nord Stream 2 - permanently. “. Did you believe that spin? UK have had a chat with Jersey., but Was there consensus on that level of sanctions such as no to Nord 2 outside of Biden’s skull? The sanctions war would have hurt the British people too wouldn’t it, which UK government remained silent about so we should feel relieved today too? Maybe Putin pumps cheap gas into Europe as a loss leader for the diplomatic edge is gives him, splitting EU from agreeing to Washington sanction package, so this Ukraine crisis wasn’t spur of moment decision for Putin?
If Biden doesn't want Nord Stream 2, as in really, really not want it, then the Germans would have to like that. And they know it.
The American leverage of imposing financial sanctions is massive. And shitting on Deutsche Bank would be a very., very popular move in the US.
It’s not often I think you are missing something important Malmsy, but how about this: think of what is coming down the 2 pipes as being heroin. Biden said to the EU junkies, you are not going back to “the supplier” for more. Instead of agreeing with Biden, Our continental cousins thought Biden an impractical idiot. And yesterday Boris repeated to Europe what Biden had told them.
In my Ukraine Crisis analysis big post Sunday night I made comparison of what Putin is doing here with Lady Thatcher and the Miners strike in 1980’s. Lady Thatcher won the strike, but a big part of winning the conflict was the planning before hand building up the coal stocks and other ways not to be dependent on miners digging coal - so if miners decided to strike they would be starved back to work.
I think these two allegory work, because in the diplomatic battle for desired outcomes here, such as agreement on sanctions, Washington prefers those pipelines turned off, Moscow happy to have them on.
Do you see what I am trying to say? Am I wrong.
That’s a really beautiful still image btw. Look at that Putin and weep 😉
The issue of the pipelines is now more controversial than it was, in Germany, for example. Many people who would have waved it through on the grounds of cheap gas are seeing it very differently.
My friend who votes SDP, there, for example, who now refers to Gerhard Schröder in terms of being Putins puppet in a way that will get me banned if I say it literally.
Well on Sunday I did post this. “Whilst Putin doesn’t appear to have goals easily achievable through military action, he will clearly gain a lot if he moves EU and Ukraine towards those Minsk Protocol’s so far not implemented. We have no choice but to consider this, because if he doesn’t initiate military conflict, and we hail ourselves on the triumph of thwarting his invasion - we may actually overlook what Putin’s plan actually has been all along, and crucially still ongoing in the years to come. I suggest we monitor the media carefully not just for signs of invasion or false flag operations, but listen to what EU capitals, and the Ukrainian government, are saying about Nord and Minsk Protocols.”
These things are now front and centre. This morning I posted this. “If the EU start to say things about considering Russia’s security concerns in all this negotiating, Russia dismantles its build up with a big 😝 in direction of Washington, then not to underestimate what a Gas pipeline or two can actually win you? “
And in the first big press conference of his short term in power, Domehead Schultz has just mentioned the M word, this is what he said “It will be a political catastrophe if Minsk Protocols are not upheld”
Can you imagine Boris or Truss or Biden saying that? In my mind the only reaction to consider next in this astonishing statement from Schultz comes from Kiev. I don’t think they will entirely agree with him. But to what degree they disagree, suggesting open to movement or willing to negotiate is key now to the size of Putin’s carefully planned success here.
The implementation of the Minsk protocols is like the various peace agreements in the former Yugoslavia - signed and then ignored.
Sure, there will be some renewed commitment to them. Which will mean exactly nothing happens on the ground.
Yet again I think you missing something big here Malmsy - because if those pleblicites do, or don’t go ahead, either way it’s a big deal.
Minsk Protocol II as explained by PBs right of centre Libdem voting MoonRabbit. I’ll keep this simple, but I think still nail it on the head. (But please correct me where you think I am wrong)
The issue with Minsk II is over interpretation, with Kiev preferring a rewrite to confirm the interpretation, before implementation, Moscow prefers implementation without the rewrite.
Essentially, correct me where wrong, Ukraine does not want a ceasefire and local elections in the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on their future status in Ukraine, until Russia withdraws its military from there. Russia claims its military is not there, Ukraine should agree to a ceasefire and allow these plebiscite to go ahead.
Because they have a different interpretation on Minsk II Kiev wants it rewritten not implemented.
More than 720,000 people living in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions have obtained Russian citizenship. The Pleblicites on autonomy from Kiev can only go one way, which is why Western leaders are circumspect what they say about implementing Minsk II. Until gas guzzling addict Gashead Schulz came along…
“It will be a political catastrophe if Minsk Protocols are not upheld” Gashead Schulz this afternoon.
Has Kiev responded to this comment from Schulz yet whilst I was making dinner (or has Gashead decided to retract or clarify his position on the autonomous pleblicites)?
Added to Josep Borrells remarks this morning about having to consider Russian security concerns now in negotiations, EU has certainly come out fighting back against Washington and London today, or is this interpretation wrong?
If Kiev agreed to implement Minsk II I suspect there are enough hardliners to force the president out. I think it would be a big deal for Ukraine to go back into negotiation without spelling out it’s red lines first, the President would even fall if he left everything on table. I think this is where we should be watching, I think this is the big moment in if Putin feels he’s gained enough climb down from Kiev to back off the military threat for now.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
Ukraine’s joining NATO would not bring anything to NATO’s defensive position, and would in various ways make it worse.
Another member = another “opinion” A disputed border on NATO territory. Provocation to Russia (whether we like it or not).
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
No, the worst is based around giving into bullies.
No it really isn't.
I'm glad noone on this forum is involved in actual diplomacy. Since WWII it has served the world best when some amount of blind eye turning has gone on. Dictators have an important function in maintaining global stability.
It's when moral crusaders like Tony Blair and his buddy in the White House go around removing them that greater chaos ensues.
I know this may not be popular amongst armchair enthusiasts on here but I'm afraid it's how the real world works.
Count yourself lucky you don’t live in a dictatorship. You have freedoms enshrined in the law. You cannot be arbitrarily locked up. You are free to believe what you want, and can post it on line with repercussions. Claiming that dictatorships are a good thing is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever read on here.
Not sure Heathener was making the moral case for dictatorships but merely pointing out that putting aside questions around human rights and democracy in some cases trying to get rid of dictators can cause security concerns for the rest of the world. Libya, Iraq and Syria are recent examples where the consequences have been plain for all to see .
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
Oh and I also like people who otherwise I might disagree with. Eg I argue a lot with @HYUFD but will often like his posts when appropriate and he often likes mine, so there is no colouring of our view due to other disagreements.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
I just went to Zoopla, and tried St John's Woods, and the 2013 to 2022 price delta is about 50% - or bugger all in real terms.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
It’s quite the mystery and one I don’t expect we’ll ever hear the truth of.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
How can you go through life having "no doubt"?
I mean, you might say "I think it's highly likely", but without anyone impartial having seen the original physical copy, then it is simply not possible to get to "no doubt".
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
I just went to Zoopla, and tried St John's Woods, and the 2013 to 2022 price delta is about 50% - or bugger all in real terms.
Sounds about right for normal PCL prices. The big increases were before then.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
I just went to Zoopla, and tried St John's Woods, and the 2013 to 2022 price delta is about 50% - or bugger all in real terms.
Sounds about right for normal PCL prices. The big increases were before then.
Yep: 1996 to 2012 saw massive increases, and since then PCL has been barely more than inflation.
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
I just went to Zoopla, and tried St John's Woods, and the 2013 to 2022 price delta is about 50% - or bugger all in real terms.
I'm talking about the top of the market - almost exotic properties. Where the silly money gets thrown around. Stuff like whole houses on Eaton Square.
There are multiple house markets in London and the disconnect between the levels is quite interesting.
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Chalets in Verbier were insanely expensive even in 2014. I would be staggered if prices had risen more than 30-40% since then.
Property in Switzerland was quite cheap in the 1960s. Not so much since then.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
How can you go through life having "no doubt"?
I mean, you might say "I think it's highly likely", but without anyone impartial having seen the original physical copy, then it is simply not possible to get to "no doubt".
I was going to write “little doubt” but I’m tired and it was more characters to type. More fool me as I’ve now had to write this.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
That we know, it's from the sale of the chalet. He had $15m leftover after repaying associated debt.
And how did he have the money to buy the chalet?
The sale of south-York?
Nothing funny there at all.
There is a horrid whiff around Andrew. If Boris is the “Great Unflushable” I would imagine Andrew is the “Great Unwaftable”.
Aiui he bought it a lot time ago for not a lot of money but there was some kind of lien on it that needed to be paid off before he could sell it.
Hmmm. We’ve both lived in Switzerland and know instinctively that a chalet in Verbier hasn’t been cheap for decades.
The Washington Post (chosen as a source as not UK paper) says that the dispute he had was over a $9m remainder payment for the purchase and the chalet is valued at $27m. He bought it in 2014 so I’m guessing that he didn’t put down say $1m and the value jumped from $10m to 27m in the meantime.
He must have put down a big sum which had to come from somewhere.
I suppose in a way it doesn’t matter apart from the fact that he’s an entitled arse who would never have earned anything like that with his brains and instead of any humility he’s an absolute pompous arse.
Given the way that trophy properties have gone up - a high end Swiss chalet tripling in value since 2014 is what you'd expect.
At a guess the original provider of the $9m wanted the money from any purchase to go back to them directly, rather than trusting a Prince with their money....
A friend who works in private banking tells me comic stories of the financial engineering used by the apparently mega rich to try and purchase assets well out of their wealth class.
I don't think that's true at all. I was in Verbier in 2015, and looked in an Estate Agent's window and was utterly staggered by prices.
What do you reckon the chalet was worth back then?
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
I don't think that's true at all. I bought a house in Hampstead in 2012, spent a lot of money on it, and it's price is up perhaps 40%.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
I just went to Zoopla, and tried St John's Woods, and the 2013 to 2022 price delta is about 50% - or bugger all in real terms.
I'm talking about the top of the market - almost exotic properties. Where the silly money gets thrown around. Stuff like whole houses on Eaton Square.
There are multiple house markets in London and the disconnect between the levels is quite interesting.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
The West foolishly humiliated Russia after 1989 and enforced (or maybe just enabled) a form of kleptocratic, disaster capitalism on it.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
Apparently it got lost in transit when she moved to Australia. It's surely the most famous photograph of the century, so it's strange that you'd stuff it in the bottom of a packing crate instead of a safety deposit box. Or do we think MI6 did a number, and Andrew is now stroking it in his study?
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
That’s bit of a myth actually. The verse was only unofficially added in briefly while the two Nations were at war. Is it a myth still believed up there your side of the border, my PB friend that it’s part of the anthem?
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
NATO is only important whilst Russia is strong.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
That’s bit of a myth actually. The verse was only unofficially added in briefly while the two Nations were at war. Is it a myth still believed up there your side of the border, my PB friend that it’s part of the anthem?
When never seem to agree Farooq! 😆
Ah, you're assuming that HYUFD is living in 2022 with the rest of us...
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
Apparently it got lost in transit when she moved to Australia. It's surely the most famous photograph of the century, so it's strange that you'd stuff it in the bottom of a packing crate instead of a safety deposit box. Or do we think MI6 did a number, and Andrew is now stroking it in his study?
Yeh, the lost in transit story doesn’t really stack up. But I don’t necessarily think the photo is faked either. Perhaps the version we are familiar with is cropped and we are missing some fuller context which is not totally helpful to Ms Giuffre.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
The West foolishly humiliated Russia after 1989 and enforced (or maybe just enabled) a form of kleptocratic, disaster capitalism on it.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
I'm unsure the west did 'humiliate' them: in many ways the west went out of their way to be friends - in a number of areas. From NASA and the ROSCOSMOS working together, to western countries paying for nuclear submarines to be dismantled. And many more.
If the 'west' had wanted to humiliate them, they could have done much more to make that the case.
The USSR collapsed, and some in Russia are still butthurt about that. Their system failed because it was morally and fiscally corrupt. It is unsurprising that the system that replaced it is also morally and fiscally corrupt - but that is their fault, not ours.
It's sad that so many people look at the situation in Russia and the Ukraine and try to blame 'the west' for Russian misbehaviour and failure.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
The West foolishly humiliated Russia after 1989 and enforced (or maybe just enabled) a form of kleptocratic, disaster capitalism on it.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
Storm Eunice on Friday is looking dangerous. Some pretty ferocious wind gusts are coming through in the latest outputs: in excess of 80 mph across southern Britain with some outputs going over 100 mph inland.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
AIUI he and people on his behalf have been denying the photo's authenticity and that he ever met Ms Giuffre for years.
That it, to the extent they bothered dealing with it. It's only since the court case that he's really been forced to engage with her claims.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
NATO is only important whilst Russia is strong.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
Yep.
Especially given the sensitivities.
Wallace's mention of Munich at the weekend was particularly crass, but he's not alone in failing to understand their history.
I suspect Liz Truss hasn't got a bloody clue about anything.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
Conceded by whom? Genuinely interested to learn more about this.
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
Apparently it got lost in transit when she moved to Australia. It's surely the most famous photograph of the century, so it's strange that you'd stuff it in the bottom of a packing crate instead of a safety deposit box. Or do we think MI6 did a number, and Andrew is now stroking it in his study?
Yeh, the lost in transit story doesn’t really stack up. But I don’t necessarily think the photo is faked either. Perhaps the version we are familiar with is cropped and we are missing some fuller context which is not totally helpful to Ms Giuffre.
A banner proclaiming 'The Blackpool Royal Family Lookalike Contest 2001'?
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
I don’t get why Ukraine should join NATO at all. The idea is crazy.
NATO membership is not some kind of democratic perk. Its a defence alliance, and the more members, the more unwieldy it becomes. Moreover, Russia doesn’t want it, and while it seems unfair that Russia might have a veto on this matter, it’s just realpolitik.
Western policy should be focused on assisting Ukraine to cut down on the rampant corruption and backward agriculture sector that have been holding the country back, and further deepening economic links. The UK could play a v useful role here.
You shouldn't overlook the effect that stability has on investment. Ukraine today is a risky place to invest in because, among other factors, the risk of Russian annexation and expropriation. See what happened in Crimea. Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help. Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
No, it’s consistently been an economic basket case.
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
You're pushing this "weaken NATO" line and it sounds like provocative sophistry, but I'll bite. What do you mean?
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
Conceded by whom? Genuinely interested to learn more about this.
Everyone surely. HY is right.
NATO had an internally cohesive clearly defined place and role during the Cold War.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
So you would be fine with, say, the UK having a government whose policy included reconquering Southern Ireland and Normandy?
One of the ground rules of Greater X Nationalism (and there are quite few examples of X) is that the boundaries desired are the greatest that the Nation in question ever achieved - if it was once ever a part of the Glorious Empire, then it must be again.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
NATO is only important whilst Russia is strong.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
Russia already has a veto on any UN action as a permanent member of the Security Council
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
I'm in the unusual position of thinking you are spot on about this.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
That’s bit of a myth actually. The verse was only unofficially added in briefly while the two Nations were at war. Is it a myth still believed up there your side of the border, my PB friend that it’s part of the anthem?
When never seem to agree Farooq! 😆
Ah, you're assuming that HYUFD is living in 2022 with the rest of us...
I can let my fellow Anglican and Monarchist HY speak for himself… but I’m sure he knows that verse had never offially been part of it, it was only briefly sung by some when we were at war!
So much for Virginia Guiffre saying her lawsuit against Randy Andy was not about money ...
Or so much for Andrew being determined to clear his name. You pays your money you takes your choice.
It's not entirely clear if he has paid any money to her. He has made a donation to her charity for survivors and expressed regret about his association with Epstein. It looks to me that her side has folded more than his, possibly because they have "lost" the photograph.
Sorry, David, how do you mean, with the photo?
She has now admitted that she does not have the original of the photo with Andrew's hand around her and Maxwell skulking in the background. There must have been a worry that the Judge would exclude all references to copies when its provenance could not be substantiated.
It certainly would not have looked good if the original couldn't be produced. What mystifies me though is that it has been in circulation for years so if it was faked why didn't Maxwell or Andrew call it out straight away?
If someone produced a photo of me with someone I had "never met" I would have immediately said "that's a fake". I know Andrew is a bit challenged on the IQ front but I doubt his legal team are. Why only now?
The photograph going missing sounds like it has more to it than meets the eye given it was the key piece of evidence. Rather like the suicide of Epstein while on suicide watch.
Possibly but if it was a fake why didn't Maxwell & Andrew say so immediately and force his accuser to produce the original? That photo has been doing the rounds for months if not years.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
I have no doubt the photo was genuine. I doubt it has been “misplaced”.
Then why can’t she produce it? It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
Who took the photo? They would have the original surely. Or was it on her camera / phone?
Or was it given to a third party?
Where did the newspapers get it from? How did they satisfy themselves that it was authentic and not cropped in some weird way etc?
Lots of questions and I doubt we will ever get answers
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
NATO is only important whilst Russia is strong.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
Russia already has a veto on any UN action as a permanent member of the Security Council
You can assume I knew that. I'll be able to tie my own shoelaces too soon.
If Biden doesn't want Nord Stream 2, as in really, really not want it, then the Germans would have to like that. And they know it.
The American leverage of imposing financial sanctions is massive. And shitting on Deutsche Bank would be a very., very popular move in the US.
It’s not often I think you are missing something important Malmsy, but how about this: think of what is coming down the 2 pipes as being heroin. Biden said to the EU junkies, you are not going back to “the supplier” for more. Instead of agreeing with Biden, Our continental cousins thought Biden an impractical idiot. And yesterday Boris repeated to Europe what Biden had told them.
In my Ukraine Crisis analysis big post Sunday night I made comparison of what Putin is doing here with Lady Thatcher and the Miners strike in 1980’s. Lady Thatcher won the strike, but a big part of winning the conflict was the planning before hand building up the coal stocks and other ways not to be dependent on miners digging coal - so if miners decided to strike they would be starved back to work.
I think these two allegory work, because in the diplomatic battle for desired outcomes here, such as agreement on sanctions, Washington prefers those pipelines turned off, Moscow happy to have them on.
Do you see what I am trying to say? Am I wrong.
That’s a really beautiful still image btw. Look at that Putin and weep 😉
From what I can tell, Europe including Germany can just about manage without Russian gas. It is certainly going to cost, but as things stand Europe is paying twice as much for its energy this year compared with last. Those high fossil fuel prices will drive the transition to green faster than anything.
Governments with electorates fear high fuel prices but if forced they will work out other means. Russia is on a losing path in the medium term with piped gas. In the short term they are in clover due to the high prices even if they ship less, but this will accelerate their decline.
O/T I was pondering whether the hike in energy prices, with no real prospect of a future decline, has Hinkley Point C reached the point where it becomes economic?
I'm not really convinced that this will be the world-shattering issue it is portrayed as.
Between Sep 21 and Dec 22 we have another 4+ GW of electical supply coming on stream, which amounts to approx 12% of winter demand and 15% of summer demand.
If that comes off gas used for generating electricity that is quite a shift in demand for gas, and even if gas prices stay high we will perhaps need a lot less of it - even given a possible post-COVID bounce back on spotlights for boppers.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
The West foolishly humiliated Russia after 1989 and enforced (or maybe just enabled) a form of kleptocratic, disaster capitalism on it.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
How would you explain most of Latin America?
Nobody can explain Latin America. It’s like Chinatown in the eponymous Jack Nicholson film.
I’m no a Latin American expert; but my prejudice says they are all corrupt kleptocracies run by a (white) elite for the elite.
They are maintained in that status through a mixture of crap institutions, Dutch disease, and a USA defence umbrella that is uninterested in boosting democratic culture.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
Turkey is the only NATO member classed as "not free" by Freedom House:
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
That’s bit of a myth actually. The verse was only unofficially added in briefly while the two Nations were at war. Is it a myth still believed up there your side of the border, my PB friend that it’s part of the anthem?
When never seem to agree Farooq! 😆
Ah, you're assuming that HYUFD is living in 2022 with the rest of us...
I can let my fellow Anglican and Monarchist HY speak for himself… but I’m sure he knows that verse had never offially been part of it, it was only briefly sung by some when we were at war!
Go and do some real stuff Farooq 🙂
For some, the war never ended.
My real life stuff got delayed. I'll be gone again soon, don't you worry.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
I'm in the unusual position of thinking you are spot on about this.
Oh dear 🤭
There is a lot of bad history on the continent where they all border each other. Have you heard of the Polish Russia “troubles” when the poles went into Russia and spit roasted the leaders on the fire?
And of course we have discussed before how Kiev was White Russian in post WW1 civil war.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
NATO is only important whilst Russia is strong.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
Russia already has a veto on any UN action as a permanent member of the Security Council
You can assume I knew that. I'll be able to tie my own shoelaces too soon.
The critical skill is being able to tie *other peoples* shoelaces. Together.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
HYUFD’s army is too busy enforcing prima nocta rights on the Scots to protect Eastern European democracies.
Well the national anthem does impel any patriot to crush rebellious Scots.
That’s bit of a myth actually. The verse was only unofficially added in briefly while the two Nations were at war. Is it a myth still believed up there your side of the border, my PB friend that it’s part of the anthem?
When never seem to agree Farooq! 😆
Ah, you're assuming that HYUFD is living in 2022 with the rest of us...
I can let my fellow Anglican and Monarchist HY speak for himself… but I’m sure he knows that verse had never offially been part of it, it was only briefly sung by some when we were at war!
Go and do some real stuff Farooq 🙂
For some, the war never ended.
My real life stuff got delayed. I'll be gone again soon, don't you worry.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
The West foolishly humiliated Russia after 1989 and enforced (or maybe just enabled) a form of kleptocratic, disaster capitalism on it.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
I'm unsure the west did 'humiliate' them: in many ways the west went out of their way to be friends - in a number of areas. From NASA and the ROSCOSMOS working together, to western countries paying for nuclear submarines to be dismantled. And many more.
If the 'west' had wanted to humiliate them, they could have done much more to make that the case.
The USSR collapsed, and some in Russia are still butthurt about that. Their system failed because it was morally and fiscally corrupt. It is unsurprising that the system that replaced it is also morally and fiscally corrupt - but that is their fault, not ours.
It's sad that so many people look at the situation in Russia and the Ukraine and try to blame 'the west' for Russian misbehaviour and failure.
It is worth remembering that the USSR collapsed because the price of oil was low. Russia was the world's largest oil and gas producer in the 1980s, and it could always convert some of that crude into petrodollars that could be used to buy things the Soviet economy could not make itself - like high end capital goods.
Putin was fortunate enough to take over when the price of oil was at its trough. As the price rose 20-fold from its lows, he was able to take the money and invest it in the Russian military (and in some fancy properties in London and elsewhere).
But do not underestimate how fragile the Russian economy is. Sure, reserves are enormous, but Russia imports almost everything manufactured (including a lot of equipment for its energy industry). And without exports of oil and gas, those reserves will be spent surprisingly quickly.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
So you would be fine with, say, the UK having a government whose policy included reconquering Southern Ireland and Normandy?
One of the ground rules of Greater X Nationalism (and there are quite few examples of X) is that the boundaries desired are the greatest that the Nation in question ever achieved - if it was once ever a part of the Glorious Empire, then it must be again.
I think that’s revanchism rather than nationalism per se.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with desiring your country to be “strong” and aspiring it to be a “civilising beacon”. It’s just Gaullism, really, and I have no issue with it.
This is precisely the sentiment I have most problem with in all this discussion. Is there nothing about Western democracy that is worth defending against other current and, as yet unknown, future threats? Is it not prudent, in the absence of any world order police force, to organize for self-defence against future threats, particularly if done so in a way that demonstrates clearly a preference for non-violent resolution of international issues and a defensive stance?
I can accept some might argue that NATO has got away from non-violent resolution of issues and a purely defensive stance recently. But that is far from saying that NATO, or a NATO-like organization, has no place in the world absent a major Russian threat.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
Interesting feedback, thanks.
You didn’t tackle actual question though, someone worse could come after, born from the security humiliations of the Putin administration?
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
You WHAT?! The limits on what you should is what you can do? Are you seriously suggesting there's nothing wrong with that as an ideology? Might is right? That's not where your head is at, surely.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
My initial gut reaction was against this concept, but actually, it is not a bad idea. To be eligible for NATO membership, you have to have the civil society institutions and commitment to them that is a prerequisite for the EU, and joining the EU probably helps lock in those commitments.
But the bigger reason for not allowing Ukraine into NATO now is that it is in a current border dispute that has been and could easily become 'kinetic' again. NATO really does not want to be open to countries just joining in order to avail themselves of a bigger military to back up current unresolved territorial claims.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
This is precisely the sentiment I have most problem with in all this discussion. Is there nothing about Western democracy that is worth defending against other current and, as yet unknown, future threats? Is it not prudent, in the absence of any world order police force, to organize for self-defence against future threats, particularly if done so in a way that demonstrates clearly a preference for non-violent resolution of international issues and a defensive stance?
I can accept some might argue that NATO has got away from non-violent resolution of issues and a purely defensive stance recently. But that is far from saying that NATO, or a NATO-like organization, has no place in the world absent a major Russian threat.
Nothing worth defending as you phrase it. Western democracy can't somehow become an end in itself.
In my view democracy must be weak, a flimsy sort of affair. It's only when it's challenged that it becomes strong.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
For from it being for me to speak up on behalf of HYUFD, see my response immediately above your comment.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
Interesting feedback, thanks.
You didn’t tackle actual question though, someone worse could come after, born from the security humiliations of the Putin administration?
IN 1939 and 1940, a major reason that the British Cabinet rejected overtures from the German General Staff to overthrow Hitler
The reasoning was that if they binned the stupid corporal, the professional militarists would be in charge....
You can justify giving in to anything by that line of reasoning. Or you could consider the career of Ataturk....
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
My initial gut reaction was against this concept, but actually, it is not a bad idea. To be eligible for NATO membership, you have to have the civil society institutions and commitment to them that is a prerequisite for the EU, and joining the EU probably helps lock in those commitments.
But the bigger reason for not allowing Ukraine into NATO now is that it is in a current border dispute that has been and could easily become 'kinetic' again. NATO really does not want to be open to countries just joining in order to avail themselves of a bigger military to back up current unresolved territorial claims.
The frozen conflict is definitely something that would have to be resolved as part of NATO accession. Either Ukraine signing away claims on the Russian occupied territory, or some kind of caveat that excluded those territories from the collective defence bargain. It certainly makes it difficulty, but not impossible.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
This is precisely the sentiment I have most problem with in all this discussion. Is there nothing about Western democracy that is worth defending against other current and, as yet unknown, future threats? Is it not prudent, in the absence of any world order police force, to organize for self-defence against future threats, particularly if done so in a way that demonstrates clearly a preference for non-violent resolution of international issues and a defensive stance?
I can accept some might argue that NATO has got away from non-violent resolution of issues and a purely defensive stance recently. But that is far from saying that NATO, or a NATO-like organization, has no place in the world absent a major Russian threat.
Nothing worth defending as you phrase it. Western democracy can't somehow become an end in itself.
In my view democracy must be weak, a flimsy sort of affair. It's only when it's challenged that it becomes strong.
I sort of get that, and it brings to mind that great Bjork line, "I tried to organize freedom, how Scandanavian of me"
But in reality I believe that democracy is weaker than those of us who've always lived it believe it to be, and it is far, far, far harder to regain it than to lose it.
It was “for” those countries in the West that sought to combine powers against potential Russian hostility, chiefly the USA, UK and France.
In 1952 they added Turkey and Greece, holding, as they do, a strategic position in the Eastern Med.
So far so good, and although France pissed off for a long period, it worked well.
Since the Cold War, however, NATO membership has been used as a carrot to bring countries into the Western political/military establishment.
I mean, Albania???? Let’s be honest and agree that many of these countries do not add any actual capability, or strategic territory, and gradual NATO enlargement has been seen as provocative by Russia.
Although Putin is an arsehole, I’m not sure I want to be geostrategically encircled either, you know?
It would have been better, in my view, to keep NATO at 1989 borders. We could have arranged a separate “deal” for the Visegrad countries and the Baltics. The rest, meh.
What’s done is done. We now have a defence commitment to..Macedonia and North Macedonia…which I don’t remember voting for.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
I’ve only managed 882 likes in 2200 posts. I’m happy marking my own work on trying to post as intelligent and fair a reply or question as possible.
I have noticed though, my SPAM has leap from zero to 3 in just a matter of days. 🧐
I have been at 3 spams for a while now. No idea what that means, but probably someone accidentally hitting the button or hitting the wrong one. The 4 off topics, I get. Except that should probably really be several thousand by now.
Time for people to move on from partygate, it's been done to death.
It's unfortunate the Met is wasting so much money on this.
Laughable
I don’t know why Dale’s post appeared flagged. It was accurate and put more politely than many on this forum.
In Dales defence I’ll post “Boris sacked in dogminus 7 days.
Can Admins see who does the false flag’s and banish the naughty ones?
PS Gary, in my opinion its still rumbling in background like a volcano about to erupt wiping out all life in Boris Citadel. Whatever MET are paying for this, it’s cheap price for honesty and probity in government and rules of the land that treat everyone equally and fairly
I do believe the flag is there to be used as clients wish and is not in the preogative of any single user stating how and when it should be used. Why would admin decide who is using and why or not? Surely freedom of speech applies on PB, within the law (OGH). PS: Even if implausible. Just look at the amount of Flags I have and each one of them undeserved, yet I suffer in silence.
Moderation DO review Flags and Off Topics. They MAY take action against those who have done the flagging if they consider it unreasonable, as well of course as reviewing whether the Flag/Off Topic is justified and thus whether action should be taken against the poster who made the post which has been flagged. It is of course a matter for Moderator discretion.
Thought police
Would it be better, if possible, to do away with all buttons except quote?
I rather like using the like button. I use it far more than I post. Vert occasionally I like something so much I have to say so also.
I don’t have a problem with like button staying - but could it not have a slight negative in not being honest and straight sometimes if playing for likes? If you speak your mind, colour peoples view of you, your likes will drop off? So it undermines honesty?
I disagree. I tend to get likes when I say something more radical or on the rare occasion I say something funny.. If I'm just chatting I don't. So I think the opposite of what you say is true. So I don't think people hold back and I don't think people post for likes anyway.
There’s also dangers from Social approval can be addictive - likes hot wire into us emotionally.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
I’ve only managed 882 likes in 2200 posts. I’m happy marking my own work on trying to post as intelligent and fair a reply or question as possible.
I have noticed though, my SPAM has leap from zero to 3 in just a matter of days. 🧐
Under those circumstances I just assume it is a fat finger like. So you really have 885 likes and no SPAM and I'm sticking to that view no matter what anyone elses says.
It was “for” those countries in the West that sought to combine powers against potential Russian hostility, chiefly the USA, UK and France.
In 1952 they added Turkey and Greece, holding, as they do, a strategic position in the Eastern Med.
So far so good, and although France pissed off for a long period, it worked well.
Since the Cold War, however, NATO membership has been used as a carrot to bring countries into the Western political/military establishment.
I mean, Albania???? Let’s be honest and agree that many of these countries do not add any actual capability, or strategic territory, and gradual NATO enlargement has been seen as provocative by Russia.
Although Putin is an arsehole, I’m not sure I want to be geostrategically encircled either, you know?
It would have been better, in my view, to keep NATO at 1989 borders. We could have arranged a separate “deal” for the Visegrad countries and the Baltics. The rest, meh.
What’s done is done. We now have a defence commitment to..Macedonia and North Macedonia…which I don’t remember voting for.
It's called collective security.
Which social democrats of all stripes have been voting for since the League of Nations.
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
You WHAT?! The limits on what you should is what you can do? Are you seriously suggesting there's nothing wrong with that as an ideology? Might is right? That's not where your head is at, surely.
No, I certainly don’t think that might is right. I just think that vigorous patriotism is fine, even beneficial.
If it is militaristic; or undemocratic; or corrupt - that’s where the issue is. This *is* a distinction worth making.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
Long term strategy *should* be to bring Russia into the EU, or at least a “EU plus”.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
You could try for that, but the hard core Russian nationalists see Russia being absorbed into "Western Culture" as the exact disaster they have to defend against.
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
Do you have Putin down as a Hardcore Russian Nationalist - or is it quite feasible what follows Putin could play the Nationalism card much more, making us reevaluate we would prefer a moderate like Putin back?
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
According to those who have actually met him he is a Greater Russian Nationalist - he deeply believes in Russia and it's mission to be a beacon of civilisation, which it can only do when it is Strong. And He, of course, is the Right Leader to build that Strength.
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
There’s actually nothing wrong with such an ideology unto itself; the problem is that Putin’s Russia is a undemocratic kleptocracy.
You WHAT?! The limits on what you should is what you can do? Are you seriously suggesting there's nothing wrong with that as an ideology? Might is right? That's not where your head is at, surely.
No, I certainly don’t think that might is right. I just think that vigorous patriotism is fine, even beneficial.
If it is militaristic; or undemocratic; or corrupt - that’s where the issue is. This *is* a distinction worth making.
Patriotism certainly has its positives, but it comes with a huge number of negatives too, even looking just at the self. Many of the US' international problems come, in my view, because many Americans are so patriotic that they cannot imagine themselves to be doing anything that is not just and right. This impedes self-critique, analysis and learning.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
What if Ukraine joins the EU?
Why would they want to?
It's so dreadful we went to a lot of trouble to get out of it. What possible reason could they have for joining?
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
What if Ukraine joins the EU?
LOL. Then Macron's European army can ensure its territorial integrity and NATO does not need to get involved...
Comments
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
No, wait, that is what various countries *have* been doing.
Has Kiev responded to this comment from Schulz yet whilst I was making dinner (or has Gashead decided to retract or clarify his position on the autonomous pleblicites)?
Added to Josep Borrells remarks this morning about having to consider Russian security concerns now in negotiations, EU has certainly come out fighting back against Washington and London today, or is this interpretation wrong?
If Kiev agreed to implement Minsk II I suspect there are enough hardliners to force the president out. I think it would be a big deal for Ukraine to go back into negotiation without spelling out it’s red lines first, the President would even fall if he left everything on table. I think this is where we should be watching, I think this is the big moment in if Putin feels he’s gained enough climb down from Kiev to back off the military threat for now.
Another member = another “opinion”
A disputed border on NATO territory.
Provocation to Russia (whether we like it or not).
Edit: In the upper end of the London market, it would something like a 5x increase for some properties.
It sounds more plausible to me that they daren't have called it a fake at the outset because they knew that the situation in the photo was real they couldn't take the risk that evidence of it happening wouldn't turn up. Now it has come to light that the original cannot be produced it can, of course, safely be called a fake.
To have a chalet worth $25m would suggest something comfortably north of 10,000 square feet in size. In an amazing location.
It will need to wait until Putin is dead, but if we were clever we (the West) would be creating the institutional architecture that would enabled this in due course.
Maxwell had other issues I guess.
The differentials between high end (Chelsea / Belgravia / St Johns Wood / etc) and the Crouch End have really come in in recent years.
Oh and I also like people who otherwise I might disagree with. Eg I argue a lot with @HYUFD but will often like his posts when appropriate and he often likes mine, so there is no colouring of our view due to other disagreements.
Security is a vital unpinning of economic growth and the rule of law. Ukraine has a way to go, but it's mostly democratic and trying to make things better for its people. It's on the side of good, and we have a moral duty as well as a legitimate interest in helping it if it wants our help.
Part of the reason Ukraine is doing worse than the Baltic states is because of the exact strategic uncertainty that being isolated confers. And that isolation should not be enforced on it by Russia, and especially not by us acting as a proxy for Russia's malign strategic goals.
It’s very odd.
If I had such a photo, I would not misplace it. Would you?
So such efforts may well be seen as attacks.
I mean, you might say "I think it's highly likely", but without anyone impartial having seen the original physical copy, then it is simply not possible to get to "no doubt".
Obviously the security context doesn’t exactly reassure investors, but it’s all a bit chicken-and-egg,
We don’t need to weaken NATO on its behalf; but we (and esp the US) can use money to help Ukraine liberalise and strengthen the rule of law.
There are multiple house markets in London and the disconnect between the levels is quite interesting.
In fact there is a lot going on with the Like button, and not all of it good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48364817
Back later, I need to do some real life stuff.
It is also worth remembering that a lot of the silly prices bandied around for "1 Hyde Park" and the like never actually happened.
Now it’s payback.
I tend to believe countries and even voters follow their economic interests in the long run, especially if they are assisted to do so.
What about the argument if we beat and humiliate Putin too much on Russian security, an even more nationalistic and aggressive successor could come along afterwards, staking their claim on being more of the hard man than failure Putin?
There’s quite a lot to this Art of Diplomacy Lark! 🙂
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
For many years I think it has been generally conceded that enlargement has weakened its strategic capability due to a mixture of operational inflexibility and strategic “overstretch”.
When never seem to agree Farooq! 😆
He sees the limits on what Russia should do as simply the limits on Russia *can* do.
Think Imperial Germany and the ideology behind that - it's quite similar really.
This would be a good time to revisit the way the UN works. Russia really might have a good compaint about creeping alliances.
If the 'west' had wanted to humiliate them, they could have done much more to make that the case.
The USSR collapsed, and some in Russia are still butthurt about that. Their system failed because it was morally and fiscally corrupt. It is unsurprising that the system that replaced it is also morally and fiscally corrupt - but that is their fault, not ours.
It's sad that so many people look at the situation in Russia and the Ukraine and try to blame 'the west' for Russian misbehaviour and failure.
That it, to the extent they bothered dealing with it. It's only since the court case that he's really been forced to engage with her claims.
Especially given the sensitivities.
Wallace's mention of Munich at the weekend was particularly crass, but he's not alone in failing to understand their history.
I suspect Liz Truss hasn't got a bloody clue about anything.
First schoolgirl: "There's going to be a war."
Second schoolgirl: "Yes. What am I going to wear?"
NATO had an internally cohesive clearly defined place and role during the Cold War.
One of the ground rules of Greater X Nationalism (and there are quite few examples of X) is that the boundaries desired are the greatest that the Nation in question ever achieved - if it was once ever a part of the Glorious Empire, then it must be again.
Go and do some real stuff Farooq 🙂
Or was it given to a third party?
Where did the newspapers get it from? How did they satisfy themselves that it was authentic and not cropped in some weird way etc?
Lots of questions and I doubt we will ever get answers
Between Sep 21 and Dec 22 we have another 4+ GW of electical supply coming on stream, which amounts to approx 12% of winter demand and 15% of summer demand.
If that comes off gas used for generating electricity that is quite a shift in demand for gas, and even if gas prices stay high we will perhaps need a lot less of it - even given a possible post-COVID bounce back on spotlights for boppers.
Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU.
The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
It’s like Chinatown in the eponymous Jack Nicholson film.
I’m no a Latin American expert; but my prejudice says they are all corrupt kleptocracies run by a (white) elite for the elite.
They are maintained in that status through a mixture of crap institutions, Dutch disease, and a USA defence umbrella that is uninterested in boosting democratic culture.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-world/2021
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
My real life stuff got delayed. I'll be gone again soon, don't you worry.
There is a lot of bad history on the continent where they all border each other. Have you heard of the Polish Russia “troubles” when the poles went into Russia and spit roasted the leaders on the fire?
And of course we have discussed before how Kiev was White Russian in post WW1 civil war.
Putin was fortunate enough to take over when the price of oil was at its trough. As the price rose 20-fold from its lows, he was able to take the money and invest it in the Russian military (and in some fancy properties in London and elsewhere).
But do not underestimate how fragile the Russian economy is. Sure, reserves are enormous, but Russia imports almost everything manufactured (including a lot of equipment for its energy industry). And without exports of oil and gas, those reserves will be spent surprisingly quickly.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with desiring your country to be “strong” and aspiring it to be a “civilising beacon”. It’s just Gaullism, really, and I have no issue with it.
Fundraiser for Topsey the cat.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/topsey
I can accept some might argue that NATO has got away from non-violent resolution of issues and a purely defensive stance recently. But that is far from saying that NATO, or a NATO-like organization, has no place in the world absent a major Russian threat.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
You didn’t tackle actual question though, someone worse could come after, born from the security humiliations of the Putin administration?
I have noticed though, my SPAM has leap from zero to 3 in just a matter of days. 🧐
But the bigger reason for not allowing Ukraine into NATO now is that it is in a current border dispute that has been and could easily become 'kinetic' again. NATO really does not want to be open to countries just joining in order
to avail themselves of a bigger military to back up current unresolved territorial claims.
As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
In my view democracy must be weak, a flimsy sort of affair. It's only when it's challenged that it becomes strong.
The reasoning was that if they binned the stupid corporal, the professional militarists would be in charge....
You can justify giving in to anything by that line of reasoning. Or you could consider the career of Ataturk....
NOW I'm off. Play nice.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
But in reality I believe that democracy is weaker than those of us who've always lived it believe it to be, and it is far, far, far harder to regain it than to lose it.
It was “for” those countries in the West that sought to combine powers against potential Russian hostility, chiefly the USA, UK and France.
In 1952 they added Turkey and Greece, holding, as they do, a strategic position in the Eastern Med.
So far so good, and although France pissed off for a long period, it worked well.
Since the Cold War, however, NATO membership has been used as a carrot to bring countries into the Western political/military establishment.
I mean, Albania????
Let’s be honest and agree that many of these countries do not add any actual capability, or strategic territory, and gradual NATO enlargement has been seen as provocative by Russia.
Although Putin is an arsehole, I’m not sure I want to be geostrategically encircled either, you know?
It would have been better, in my view, to keep NATO at 1989 borders. We could have arranged a separate “deal” for the Visegrad countries and the Baltics. The rest, meh.
What’s done is done.
We now have a defence commitment to..Macedonia and North Macedonia…which I don’t remember voting for.
I have been at 3 spams for a while now. No idea what that means, but probably someone accidentally hitting the button or hitting the wrong one. The 4 off topics, I get. Except that should probably really be several thousand by now.
Which social democrats of all stripes have been voting for since the League of Nations.
I just think that vigorous patriotism is fine, even beneficial.
If it is militaristic; or undemocratic; or corrupt - that’s where the issue is. This *is* a distinction worth making.
It's so dreadful we went to a lot of trouble to get out of it. What possible reason could they have for joining?