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”.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
This is just a non-sequitur to me, I’m afraid.
A military alliance is a real thing, with strategic strengths and weaknesses. Enlargement should be viewed in the context of whether it aids or impedes the alliance’s aims.
NATO enlargement in, say, Macedonia, has NOT been to advance our defensive position against Russia, but rather because somebody somewhere wants to cement Macedonia into the Western order, which is NOT the same thing, or to “reward” it for democratising etc etc
We have conflated political with military goals. The two are not completely separable of course, but we’ve pretended they are the same thing for thirty years and it is biting us on the bum a bit.
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?
They’d love it. Same reason we joined; the economic opportunity.
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).
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
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).
They shouldn’t join
We should t say they *can’t* join
Why not? Whose alliance is it? It’s ours. We can do with it what we want.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Are we perhaps inching towards a nice slice of February Fudge to begin the de-escalation on the Russo-Ukrainian border?
We can make Ukraine's membership of NATO analogous to Britain joining the European Union. Even if all the conditions were somehow miraculously met, some new stipulation would be created which would still preclude membership.
It would, like conservatism, socialism, liberalism and me going through the card on the first day of Cheltenham be forever tantalisingly just out of reach. Desired, obtainable but never realised - rather like a PB pun.
Would that be enough? Maybe because we're at the point of "saving face" on all sides - the manoeuvrings and the bellicose sabre-rattling for domestic consumption have become tedious. We all want cheaper energy and life to continue to get back to the new normal.
Plaudits also to @Cicero and his excellent postings - where does this leave Putin? Is he approaching the end of the road and who is his obvious or less obvious successor - perhaps Belousov could take over as Putin steps back?
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
But in that case nobody will let them in, unless they are being silly.
Maybe all the other rich countries will realise it was all a big mistake and leave, like we did, in which case the feckless youth of Eastern Europe will stay where they are in future.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
“Slightly less corrupt”.
LOL.
Is it fair to say that one achievement of the EEC / EC / EU has been to prevent interminable border shuffling amongst its members, which has been a curse in Europe for many hundreds of years?
And to allow self-conscious "countries" to actually have borders for a few decades.
By European standards the length of time for which Italy or Germany has existed continuously is a very long time indeed.
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
The fact that they've "tumbled down since 2016" just shows how politicised they are.
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.
My reading is that the original has disappeared somehow rather than that it was a fake.
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
The fact that they've "tumbled down since 2016" just shows how politicised they are.
It’s possible. I haven’t looked at their methodology. Have you?
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
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
Thank God we - finally - honoured the 2016 Brexit referendum vote, eh? Otherwise we might not be a democracy at all
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
Thank God we - finally - honoured the 2016 Brexit referendum vote, eh? Otherwise we might not a democracy at all
I think you’re one of the last commentators on here I’d come to for a democratic view, tbh.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
“Slightly less corrupt”.
LOL.
Is it fair to say that one achievement of the EEC / EC / EU has been to prevent interminable border shuffling amongst its members, which has been a curse in Europe for many hundreds of years?
And to allow self-conscious "countries" to actually have borders for a few decades.
By European standards the length of time for which Italy or Germany has existed continuously is a very long time indeed.
I’ll give you Italy. Germany’s borders changed in 1989. France‘s in 1962.
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...
Now now.
I was accused of Francophobia this morning, for being mildly sceptical about Mons. Macron.
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
Thank God we - finally - honoured the 2016 Brexit referendum vote, eh? Otherwise we might not be a democracy at all
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
The fact that they've "tumbled down since 2016" just shows how politicised they are.
It’s possible. I haven’t looked at their methodology. Have you?
One of the factors is "the influence of foreign powers on government", yet they rank Norway number 1 despite it having to implement law made by a foreign legislature.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
“Slightly less corrupt”.
LOL.
Is it fair to say that one achievement of the EEC / EC / EU has been to prevent interminable border shuffling amongst its members, which has been a curse in Europe for many hundreds of years?
And to allow self-conscious "countries" to actually have borders for a few decades.
By European standards the length of time for which Italy or Germany has existed continuously is a very long time indeed.
I’ll give you Italy. Germany’s borders changed in 1989. France‘s in 1962.
Not that long ago!
Italy's borders changed several times in the first half of C20
The UK's in 1921
It would be an interesting pub quiz question. Which extant nation has had unchanged borders for the longest period of time?
My guess (I have not Googled): Switzerland. Or maybe Australia? But then it was a colony during that time...
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
Thank God we - finally - honoured the 2016 Brexit referendum vote, eh? Otherwise we might not be a democracy at all
Lol, just can't let it go.
The reference to Brexit - "2016" - was in the comment preceding mine
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 don't think we can properly evaluate the costs and benefits of new members until a generation after joining.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Dunno but the UK has taken a hit in the latest EIU rankings. Has tumbled down since 2016 and is now just the barest finger inside the “full democracy” category.
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?
The usual reasons East European countries want to join - the young want job opportunities in Western Europe, the farmers and businessmen want tens of billions in subsidies from Germany to feather their own nests and Brussels' governance is slightly less corrupt than their own dismal standards.
“Slightly less corrupt”.
LOL.
Is it fair to say that one achievement of the EEC / EC / EU has been to prevent interminable border shuffling amongst its members, which has been a curse in Europe for many hundreds of years?
And to allow self-conscious "countries" to actually have borders for a few decades.
By European standards the length of time for which Italy or Germany has existed continuously is a very long time indeed.
I’ll give you Italy. Germany’s borders changed in 1989. France‘s in 1962.
Not that long ago!
Italy's borders changed several times in the first half of C20
The UK's in 1921
It would be an interesting pub quiz question. Which extant nation has had unchanged borders for the longest period of time?
My guess (I have not Googled): Switzerland. Or maybe Australia? But then it was a colony during that time...
I can't help but wonder if the real problem with Ukraine is more in the half-in-half-out nature of it's relationship with NATO than NATO itself. The partnership status or associate status or whatever it is puts them close enough to *effectively* being in NATO to piss Russia off but without them actually being in NATO to get the full benefit of the attack-one-attack-all doctrine.
So they get a sort of bespoke package of support that is "ok if you get attacked we're not really going to get involved, but we will give you money and parade enough troops nearby to give you the illusion of some sort of support". It's a sort of half-hearted, wishy-washy not-quite-committed-either-way fudge of a position.
Again as someone else said similarly, maybe that's just got to be the realpolitik of the situation, but it sort of feels like either you say "you're in fully" and deal with the consequences of properly squaring up to Russia across the border, or "you're not in and you're not going to be in" and wash your hands of the situation, or at least react more in line with how you would react if Russia was aggressive towards another totally non-NATO aligned country.
Are we perhaps inching towards a nice slice of February Fudge to begin the de-escalation on the Russo-Ukrainian border?
We can make Ukraine's membership of NATO analogous to Britain joining the European Union. Even if all the conditions were somehow miraculously met, some new stipulation would be created which would still preclude membership.
It would, like conservatism, socialism, liberalism and me going through the card on the first day of Cheltenham be forever tantalisingly just out of reach. Desired, obtainable but never realised - rather like a PB pun.
Would that be enough? Maybe because we're at the point of "saving face" on all sides - the manoeuvrings and the bellicose sabre-rattling for domestic consumption have become tedious. We all want cheaper energy and life to continue to get back to the new normal.
Plaudits also to @Cicero and his excellent postings - where does this leave Putin? Is he approaching the end of the road and who is his obvious or less obvious successor - perhaps Belousov could take over as Putin steps back?
Excellent, young Stodge, you are clearly on good form although I should qualify by saying that for most punters 'going through the card' means losing in every single race, something which I do regularly but which may be unfamiliar to you.
Cicero's posts were indeed spot on and it was good to see him posting regularly on here again. Yokes was his usual pithy model of accuracy and constraint. I see the much missed Icarus put in an appearance too. It's been just like old times. I really don't know why anybody wastes money on The Economist, FT, New York Times and the like when you get it all fresher and better written here on PB.
Putin appears to have overplayed his hand. That's not like him. Was he pressured into it? If so, by whom and were they just trying to set him up for happy retirement in the gulag of his choice? We may not like him but I think Western Leaders have for a long time worried about what might follow. He has kept the nukes under lock and key and even during his attempted bullying of the Ukraine, there has never been any suggestion of loading up the silos. Could we be sure his successor would be as restrained, and careful?
Comments
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
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.
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
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.
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....
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?
A military alliance is a real thing, with strategic strengths and weaknesses. Enlargement should be viewed in the context of whether it aids or impedes the alliance’s aims.
NATO enlargement in, say, Macedonia, has NOT been to advance our defensive position against Russia, but rather because somebody somewhere wants to cement Macedonia into the Western order, which is NOT the same thing, or to “reward” it for democratising etc etc
We have conflated political with military goals.
The two are not completely separable of course, but we’ve pretended they are the same thing for thirty years and it is biting us on the bum a bit.
Same reason we joined; the economic opportunity.
We should t say they *can’t* join
Whose alliance is it?
It’s ours. We can do with it what we want.
LOL.
I think the big upside will eventually be another ring of stable democracies in Europe.
Are there any metrics available? Where are all the new NATO members from 1999 or 2004 now, comparatively, for example, on Press Freedom? Or murder rate? Compared say to 1984 or 1994?
Combining against potential Russian hostility seems quite a good idea, at present
Are we perhaps inching towards a nice slice of February Fudge to begin the de-escalation on the Russo-Ukrainian border?
We can make Ukraine's membership of NATO analogous to Britain joining the European Union. Even if all the conditions were somehow miraculously met, some new stipulation would be created which would still preclude membership.
It would, like conservatism, socialism, liberalism and me going through the card on the first day of Cheltenham be forever tantalisingly just out of reach. Desired, obtainable but never realised - rather like a PB pun.
Would that be enough? Maybe because we're at the point of "saving face" on all sides - the manoeuvrings and the bellicose sabre-rattling for domestic consumption have become tedious. We all want cheaper energy and life to continue to get back to the new normal.
Plaudits also to @Cicero and his excellent postings - where does this leave Putin? Is he approaching the end of the road and who is his obvious or less obvious successor - perhaps Belousov could take over as Putin steps back?
Maybe all the other rich countries will realise it was all a big mistake and leave, like we did, in which case the feckless youth of Eastern Europe will stay where they are in future.
Is that what's going to happen?
And to allow self-conscious "countries" to actually have borders for a few decades.
By European standards the length of time for which Italy or Germany has existed continuously is a very long time indeed.
I haven’t looked at their methodology. Have you?
Germany’s borders changed in 1989.
France‘s in 1962.
Not that long ago!
I was accused of Francophobia this morning, for being mildly sceptical about Mons. Macron.
The UK's in 1921
It would be an interesting pub quiz question. Which extant nation has had unchanged borders for the longest period of time?
My guess (I have not Googled): Switzerland. Or maybe Australia? But then it was a colony during that time...
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-world/2021
So they get a sort of bespoke package of support that is "ok if you get attacked we're not really going to get involved, but we will give you money and parade enough troops nearby to give you the illusion of some sort of support". It's a sort of half-hearted, wishy-washy not-quite-committed-either-way fudge of a position.
Again as someone else said similarly, maybe that's just got to be the realpolitik of the situation, but it sort of feels like either you say "you're in fully" and deal with the consequences of properly squaring up to Russia across the border, or "you're not in and you're not going to be in" and wash your hands of the situation, or at least react more in line with how you would react if Russia was aggressive towards another totally non-NATO aligned country.
Cicero's posts were indeed spot on and it was good to see him posting regularly on here again. Yokes was his usual pithy model of accuracy and constraint. I see the much missed Icarus put in an appearance too. It's been just like old times. I really don't know why anybody wastes money on The Economist, FT, New York Times and the like when you get it all fresher and better written here on PB.
Putin appears to have overplayed his hand. That's not like him. Was he pressured into it? If so, by whom and were they just trying to set him up for happy retirement in the gulag of his choice? We may not like him but I think Western Leaders have for a long time worried about what might follow. He has kept the nukes under lock and key and even during his attempted bullying of the Ukraine, there has never been any suggestion of loading up the silos. Could we be sure his successor would be as restrained, and careful?
Better the devil you know, eh?