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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
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.
It's one capricious list from the Economist.
They only have 21 Full Democracies, and Flawed Democracies include:
France Spain Estonia USA Italy Greece Belgium and most of South East Europe.
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.
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.
It's one capricious list from the Economist.
They only have 21 Full Democracies, and Flawed Democracies include:
France Spain Estonia USA Italy Greece Belgium and most of South East Europe.
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!
The reason that border shuffling stopped was that the Second World War destroyed the last of the elites who believed in border shuffling.
Then the Great Powers redrew the map, shoved people around until they fitted and declared the game over. This included formal renunciations of territorial claims, and stationing large armies throughout Europe to get people to understand the message.
It is quite noticeable that the moment this compact was partially removed, Yugoslavia and the other joy joy stuff started all over again.
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.
It's one capricious list from the Economist.
They only have 21 Full Democracies, and Flawed Democracies include:
France Spain Estonia USA Italy Greece Belgium and most of South East Europe.
We are slugged a little by "political culture".
I don’t know about Estonia (or Spain) but I’d agree the others are flawed democracies.
I like to among the best, you know? Not say, oh well, we’re not that bad.
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!
By European standards 50 years is a very long time
I think Germany 1989 counts on my side of that debate, as it was agreed. And Algeria is not in Europe. Did de Gaulle invade somewhere and I missed it?
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
Why should those countries not be able to free themselves from the Russian shadow? Does Independence and sovereignty mean nothing to 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
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
1640, when Portugal regained independence from Spain.
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!
By European standards 50 years is a very long time
I think Germany 1989 counts on my side of that debate, as it was agreed. And Algeria is not in Europe. Did de Gaulle invade somewhere and I missed it?
Algeria was an “integral part of the French state” until independence. A bit like Northern Ireland is to Great Britain…
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
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.
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.
It's one capricious list from the Economist.
They only have 21 Full Democracies, and Flawed Democracies include:
France Spain Estonia USA Italy Greece Belgium and most of South East Europe.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
I was about to say Iceland, but they've expanded their international border out to sea. So, because of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we can exclude any littoral state from those with unchanged borders.
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.
Because that would establish the principle of spheres of influence, which is a bad thing. Russia doesn’t get to determine what an independent country can do.
We may tell Ukraine privately that it’s never going to happen but a public statement would be taken but Putin as a sign the west is weak and can be pushed around
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!
By European standards 50 years is a very long time
I think Germany 1989 counts on my side of that debate, as it was agreed. And Algeria is not in Europe. Did de Gaulle invade somewhere and I missed it?
Algeria was an integral part of metropolitan France
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
1640, when Portugal regained independence from Spain.
But hasn't Portugal acquired and then lost overseas territories since then?
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.
Because that would establish the principle of spheres of influence, which is a bad thing. Russia doesn’t get to determine what an independent country can do.
We may tell Ukraine privately that it’s never going to happen but a public statement would be taken but Putin as a sign the west is weak and can be pushed around
That’s a different thing.
What we believe privately (Ukraine “can’t”) does not need to be articulated explicitly.
Although this does lead to unfortunate ambiguities such as when Leave EU claimed that Turkey was “joining” the EU, a statement which was de jure true but de facto false.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
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
Why should those countries not be able to free themselves from the Russian shadow? Does Independence and sovereignty mean nothing to you?
That is up to them, they are not however joining NATO committing British forces to start World War 3 with Russia if the Russians invade them
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
Portugal regained independence from Spain in 1640. Soz!
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
1640, when Portugal regained independence from Spain.
But hasn't Portugal acquired and then lost overseas territories since then?
My guess is Iceland.
My other guess is Haiti.
Iceland was a colony until the 19th century, colonies don't count
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
Portugal is 11C I think.
What about Japan, Thailand or one of the European microstates - Monaco, Andorra, Lichenstein.
Though Japan depends on eg whether the Kurile Islands count.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
1640, when Portugal regained independence from Spain.
But hasn't Portugal acquired and then lost overseas territories since then?
My guess is Iceland.
My other guess is Haiti.
Iceland was a colony until the 19th century, colonies don't count
Until 1918 in fact. Or 1944 if you count full sovereignty.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
Portugal regained independence from Spain in 1640. Soz!
Scotland, 1550 (but even that was negotiated with England, sorting out the debatable lands); else, much further - back to the fall of Berwick. Apart from that village football pitch.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
Portugal is 11C I think.
What about Japan, Thailand or one of the European microstates - Monaco, Andorra, Lichenstein.
Though Japan depends on eg whether the Kurile Islands count.
Where are your goalposts?
Islands have to count if they are part of the "metropole", but colonies, dependencies, protectorates etc do not count. So Corsica counts for France as it is a departement (in fact 2) of metro France, likewise Mayotte (meaning France's borders changed in the last few years) but New Caledonia does not count
Japan's loss of the Kuriles means that her borders changed
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
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.
Because that would establish the principle of spheres of influence, which is a bad thing. Russia doesn’t get to determine what an independent country can do.
We may tell Ukraine privately that it’s never going to happen but a public statement would be taken but Putin as a sign the west is weak and can be pushed around
That’s a different thing.
What we believe privately (Ukraine “can’t”) does not need to be articulated explicitly.
Although this does lead to unfortunate ambiguities such as when Leave EU claimed that Turkey was “joining” the EU, a statement which was de jure true but de facto false.
It’s exactly what I said?
They shouldn’t join. We shouldn’t say they can’t join
A gentle reminder that between 1949 and 1989, NATO was prepared to offer collective defence under the Washington treaty and was prepared to fight in order to defend half of Germany, even though the other half was occupied by Soviet troops and even though that clearly exposed NATO members to the threat of nuclear war. Although Putin is very much a product of the Soviet system, he is a shadow of the threat that his former masters posed then, weaker economically, politically and militarily.
The crimes of Stalin are almost beyond imagination, yet Putin invites us to reconsider his murderous record. Putin sends his own rather incompetent murderers to Britain where they have killed British citizens on the streets of your own towns and cities. The Kremlin launches cyber attacks, launders money and conducts the normal business of any mafia boss and British legal and financial skills are put at the service of him and his cronies. Questionable money flows into business, media and even politics. Yet we should not lose sight of the idea that the nations of Europe, from West to East, including Estonia, or Georgia or Ukraine are entitled to live in peace, and it is on that security that the security of Britain also rests. British demestic policy and its foreign policy need to be more closely aligned on values. This is of course a problem in the current circumstances in Westminster, but a free people should be able to recognise and to overcome the occasional poor choice of ruler in a way that the subjects of the tyranny in Moscow can not.
Despite the many problems of the democratic world, it does stand for something worth having, and Putin does not. We should not forget this. It is why Ukranians are prepared to fight and if necessary to die for their freedom. The lesson of the Cold War and maybe the whole 20th century is that the only way to preserve peace is to be prepared to defeat those who attack it. However "Si Vis Pacem" also applies to British domestic politics as much as to the determination to defeat the Moscovite tyrant.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
Portugal is 11C I think.
1640
That depends whether you ask Portugal or Spain !
Portugal was ruled by Spain 1580 to 1640.
Portugal says that was a Dynastic Union - one king, two countries.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
Portugal is 11C I think.
What about Japan, Thailand or one of the European microstates - Monaco, Andorra, Lichenstein.
Though Japan depends on eg whether the Kurile Islands count.
Where are your goalposts?
Islands have to count if they are part of the "metropole", but colonies, dependencies, protectorates etc do not count. So Corsica counts for France as it is a departement (in fact 2) of metro France, likewise Mayotte (meaning France's borders changed in the last few years) but New Caledonia does not count
Japan's loss of the Kuriles means that her borders changed
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
Boris is turning the UK into a corrupted backwater.
If they were work events they weren’t parties, which was the line spun at the time. Now you or I may not believe it, but we don’t get to decide, except at the ballot box (for me at least).
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
Andorra's borders unchanged since 1278.
Conquered by France 1812 to 1814. Incorporated into Departement du Segre.
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
Andorra's borders unchanged since 1278.
OK I'm now properly intrigued. And I googled. San Marino's borders changed during the Renaissance, so Andorra seems a superior candidate
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
Boris is turning the UK into a corrupted backwater.
If they were work events they weren’t parties, which was the line spun at the time. Now you or I may not believe it, but we don’t get to decide, except at the ballot box (for me at least).
I don’t know what this means.
He lied. You know he lied, I know he lied. Indeed, we’ve watched him do so, twisting his story based on whatever loophole appears available at the time.
That’s the end of the matter, and you either believe that is acceptable or not. I don’t, whatever the ballot box might say.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
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...
Portugal's border with Spain?
Ooh, yes, good guess. That might date back to the late medieval period?
I haven't Googled either, but I'll suggest San Marino.
Another good guess. Also medieval? Several of the European micronations are surprisingly old. Liechtenstein, Lux, Andorra....
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
Andorra's borders unchanged since 1278.
OK I'm now properly intrigued. And I googled. San Marino's borders changed during the Renaissance, so Andorra seems a superior candidate
Conquered by France 1812 to 1814. Incorporated into Departement du Segre.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Somewhat related to this is you can get an incredible amount of information about people in seconds by doing an Anti-Money Laundering search; which of course means, anyone can get an incredible amount of information about me.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
Boris is turning the UK into a corrupted backwater.
If they were work events they weren’t parties, which was the line spun at the time. Now you or I may not believe it, but we don’t get to decide, except at the ballot box (for me at least).
I don’t know what this means.
He lied. You know he lied, I know he lied. Indeed, we’ve watched him do so, twisting his story based on whatever loophole appears available at the time.
That’s the end of the matter, and you either believe that is acceptable or not. I don’t, whatever the ballot box might say.
I’ve said all along that I think they convinced themselves that it was ok to have drinks at work because they were at work all day. It wasn’t and they shouldn’t have done it, but I can see how it happened. It’s even harder for Johnson as it’s his home and office, so it’s a really grey area. Ultimately the public will decide, and I totally agree with you, but I can see how legally say the result may not be what you hope.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
Boris is turning the UK into a corrupted backwater.
If they were work events they weren’t parties, which was the line spun at the time. Now you or I may not believe it, but we don’t get to decide, except at the ballot box (for me at least).
I don’t know what this means.
He lied. You know he lied, I know he lied. Indeed, we’ve watched him do so, twisting his story based on whatever loophole appears available at the time.
That’s the end of the matter, and you either believe that is acceptable or not. I don’t, whatever the ballot box might say.
I’ve said all along that I think they convinced themselves that it was ok to have drinks at work because they were at work all day. It wasn’t and they shouldn’t have done it, but I can see how it happened. It’s even harder for Johnson as it’s his home and office, so it’s a really grey area. Ultimately the public will decide, and I totally agree with you, but I can see how legally say the result may not be what you hope.
I don’t hope for any specific legal outcome.
One presumes the police need a very concrete case to levy a fine in this instance and I do not doubt there are loopholes.
But from a practical (as opposed to a legal) perspective, I don’t believe it’s as “grey” as you suggest, and the fact they “they” convinced themselves otherwise simply tells me they are not fit to govern.
Which I think most people do understand, actually.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
I think you are right about your level of liberalness! Fair enough, everyone has their level I guess. I’m guessing you don’t support mandatory vaccinations then!
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
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
So... no arguments for why your weirdo path to NATO accession has to run through the EU. Just a restatement of the opinion. Are you able to understand the difference between someone asking to hear your opinion again (and again), and someone asking you to try to explain your logic? Can you grapple with the idea that someone else might find your opinion that the only path to NATO membership must be through the EU a little strange, and help them along to fill in the gaps? Do you even understand how normal people exchange ideas, debate, maybe change each others' minds? Why are you so restlessly strange?
Norway, Turkey, Canada, USA, North Macedonia and Albania have never been part of the EU.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
You can be hit by a flying unrestrained passenger. Also, people outside the vehicle can be hit by said passenger.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
You can be hit by a flying unrestrained passenger. Also, people outside the vehicle can be hit by said passenger.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
This is really not one of my strongest held views.
Nevertheless, I’d want to understand the real prevalence of (1). Is it worth the restriction in liberties?
The health cost argument can be extended to almost anything. I think it’s very sticky to rely on that.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
A "work event" is not "work" when it is a social activity in the workplace.
Lock the lying twat up.
As a former diplomat and as someone who works on building workplace culture, I can think of plenty of circumstances where a social event at a workplace is work. However, I doubt the Downing Street parties were, even if work were discussed by many.
Looks as though Johnson will survive, why is everyone else so sure he won't?
Johnson attended events with party snacks and alcohol involving people who were not in his social "bubble". That would appear to be fact, and that being so he broke the spirit of the rules of the day. The great majority of the voting public understand this.
As I own my own business I can take what I want to eat and drink in my office, but I don't take anything more exciting than a packed lunch, because the workspace is for work not parties. An M & S sandwich and a mineral water is lunch, a bottle of Hermitage and a bowl of peanuts is not lunch (for those without an alcoholism problem at least). In my days as an employee if I had cracked open bottles of beer and wine at most employer workplaces I would have been sacked on the spot.
Johnson may well avoid a FPN, it would be a travesty should that come to pass, but so be it. If the speed camera can't read my number plate accurately it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, or didn't run the red light.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
That is why - the externalities - I would describe myself as a neo-libertarian, not a libertarian. As you indicate, classical libertarianism is simply undoable in an interconnected, crowded world.
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
So... no arguments for why your weirdo path to NATO accession has to run through the EU. Just a restatement of the opinion. Are you able to understand the difference between someone asking to hear your opinion again (and again), and someone asking you to try to explain your logic? Can you grapple with the idea that someone else might find your opinion that the only path to NATO membership must be through the EU a little strange, and help them along to fill in the gaps? Do you even understand how normal people exchange ideas, debate, maybe change each others' minds? Why are you so restlessly strange?
Your logic seems to be to make it as easy as possible for World War 3 to break out with Russia by adding one of the biggest ex USSR states right next to Russia to NATO, a nation not even in the EU
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Hence why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian or even a Liberal
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Hence why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian or even a Liberal
Yes, although you love inherited wealth like a priapic viscount.
One of the reasons I’m *not* a libertarian is in fact because it is agnostic towards inherited wealth and ignores the ill effects of increasing wealth inequality.
Comments
They only have 21 Full Democracies, and Flawed Democracies include:
France
Spain
Estonia
USA
Italy
Greece
Belgium
and most of South East Europe.
We are slugged a little by "political culture".
We are doing better than France and the USA.
But we are declining due to things like prorogation, attacks on the judiciary, etc etc
These things do have a meaningful impact on the workings of democracy.
I would say most countries have taken a democratic “hit” during COVID too. Look at what Trudeau is doing in Canada.
Personally, I think boosting our democratic systems is the first and best defence against China, Russia et al, and even the EU.
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
Then the Great Powers redrew the map, shoved people around until they fitted and declared the game over. This included formal renunciations of territorial claims, and stationing large armies throughout Europe to get people to understand the message.
It is quite noticeable that the moment this compact was partially removed, Yugoslavia and the other joy joy stuff started all over again.
I like to among the best, you know? Not say, oh well, we’re not that bad.
I think Germany 1989 counts on my side of that debate, as it was agreed.
And Algeria is not in Europe. Did de Gaulle invade somewhere and I missed it?
https://twitter.com/lucasfoxnews/status/1493685933165666308
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
We may tell Ukraine privately that it’s never going to happen but a public statement would be taken but Putin as a sign the west is weak and can be pushed around
My guess is Iceland.
My other guess is Haiti.
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0AxrOUJ62E
What we believe privately (Ukraine “can’t”) does not need to be articulated explicitly.
Although this does lead to unfortunate ambiguities such as when Leave EU claimed that Turkey was “joining” the EU, a statement which was de jure true but de facto false.
On reflection (and without Googling) my guess is that it will be a smaller or much smaller European country, and the furthest back you can go is ~14th century
What about Japan, Thailand or one of the European microstates - Monaco, Andorra, Lichenstein.
Though Japan depends on eg whether the Kurile Islands count.
Where are your goalposts?
Japan's loss of the Kuriles means that her borders changed
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
It’s valid unto itself, but free of the broader context which, for example, saw several strict lockdowns in the UK and 150,000 corpses.
They shouldn’t join. We shouldn’t say they can’t join
The crimes of Stalin are almost beyond imagination, yet Putin invites us to reconsider his murderous record. Putin sends his own rather incompetent murderers to Britain where they have killed British citizens on the streets of your own towns and cities. The Kremlin launches cyber attacks, launders money and conducts the normal business of any mafia boss and British legal and financial skills are put at the service of him and his cronies. Questionable money flows into business, media and even politics. Yet we should not lose sight of the idea that the nations of Europe, from West to East, including Estonia, or Georgia or Ukraine are entitled to live in peace, and it is on that security that the security of Britain also rests. British demestic policy and its foreign policy need to be more closely aligned on values. This is of course a problem in the current circumstances in Westminster, but a free people should be able to recognise and to overcome the occasional poor choice of ruler in a way that the subjects of the tyranny in Moscow can not.
Despite the many problems of the democratic world, it does stand for something worth having, and Putin does not. We should not forget this. It is why Ukranians are prepared to fight and if necessary to die for their freedom. The lesson of the Cold War and maybe the whole 20th century is that the only way to preserve peace is to be prepared to defeat those who attack it. However "Si Vis Pacem" also applies to British domestic politics as much as to the determination to defeat the Moscovite tyrant.
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
https://www.ft.com/content/b685482a-82f3-4602-bd02-41bb561161d7
Boris is turning the UK into a corrupted backwater.
He lied. You know he lied, I know he lied.
Indeed, we’ve watched him do so, twisting his story based on whatever loophole appears available at the time.
That’s the end of the matter, and you either believe that is acceptable or not. I don’t, whatever the ballot box might say.
Lock the lying twat up.
Ultimately the public will decide, and I totally agree with you, but I can see how legally say the result may not be what you hope.
Costa Rica, Uruguay, Mauritius, South Korea, Taiwan.
One presumes the police need a very concrete case to levy a fine in this instance and I do not doubt there are loopholes.
But from a practical (as opposed to a legal) perspective, I don’t believe it’s as “grey” as you suggest, and the fact they “they” convinced themselves otherwise simply tells me they are not fit to govern.
Which I think most people do understand, actually.
One senses you are rather keen to discredit for reasons wrapped up in Brexitry.
Costa Rica 91/100
Uruguay 98/100
Mauritius 87/100
S Korea 83/100
Taiwan 94/100
I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Looks as though Johnson will survive, why is everyone else so sure he won't?
It acts as if externalities don’t exist.
Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1493694446759723015?s=21
I would have expected Costa Rica and S Korea. But did know the detail on the others.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
Nevertheless, I’d want to understand the real prevalence of (1). Is it worth the restriction in liberties?
The health cost argument can be extended to almost anything. I think it’s very sticky to rely on that.
As I own my own business I can take what I want to eat and drink in my office, but I don't take anything more exciting than a packed lunch, because the workspace is for work not parties. An M & S sandwich and a mineral water is lunch, a bottle of Hermitage and a bowl of peanuts is not lunch (for those without an alcoholism problem at least). In my days as an employee if I had cracked open bottles of beer and wine at most employer workplaces I would have been sacked on the spot.
Johnson may well avoid a FPN, it would be a travesty should that come to pass, but so be it. If the speed camera can't read my number plate accurately it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, or didn't run the red light.
One of the reasons I’m *not* a libertarian is in fact because it is agnostic towards inherited wealth and ignores the ill effects of increasing wealth inequality.