Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
On a point of order, I am not delighted by France and Germany behaviour rather very disappointed
IF you are disappointed we can only imagine how the eastern EU states feel. What's the point of this club? Our best mate seems to be bloke what left it?
Its that the real intention of Johnson and Truss here? undermine the club? If so, its a dangerous and foolish game I reckon.
The Eastern states are really not impressed by the idea of Western powers doing deals about how the neighbourhood gets carved up, against their wishes.
I wonder why?
Are you saying the Poles, Lithuanians etc don't want our help? Good. Britain is on its uppers and with big issues at home. We can't cash these cheques. Putin surely knows that.
Did you know that the UK spends substantially more of defence than Russia? India does too as well as the big boys of US and China.
Now I do not dispute for a second that the Kremlin gets many more bangs for its bucks than the MoD and that frightening amounts of our Defence budget is wasted but we do have the third largest defence budget in the world and it’s not all wasted.
And the idea that "the Poles, Lithuanians etc don't want our help" is cretinous.
What they want is the backing of major powers to protect them, while they decide their own fate.
Strangely, there is one thing that unites the Poles, Ukrainian, Bulgarians & Estonians I know. They want more of what the US and UK are offering and less noise from Germany.
Because they say that Putin is banging the old, old drum.
And they range from ultra-Green to moderate centre right.
RUKLA MILITARY BASE, Lithuania, Feb 17 (Reuters) - A German army convoy of 130 soldiers and 60 vehicles reached Lithuania on Thursday, bringing almost half of planned reinforcements for the country's German-led NATO battlegroup amid fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Reuters
===
Vlad has done wonders for military/security co-operation across europe.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
You talk more and more nonsense sadly and your bitterness over HMG is plain to see
Maybe you should listen to the US and Nato itself and criticise France and Germany who are letting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states down
I'm with Tom Tugendhadt. Warm words are a waste of time. We should have NATO forces in Ukraine and lots of them. He says the idea that Ukraine isn't in NATO is a spurious cop out.
We either negotiate a peace or we demonstrate we mean business. Preferably both.
At this moment in time NATO troops entering Ukraine would see Russia invade
Of course it is too late. Although it looks highly likely that the latter part of your statement might come to pass anyway
Tugendhadt, who I admire very much, states that Putin respects strength, he doesn't care for weakness. Which is why NATO should have been involved at Ukraine's invitation a long time ago.
I accept unlike yourself, I know not what I am talking about, I am not a military strategist like the Churchillian Johnson and Truss, but what Tugendhadt writes makes perfect sense to me.
He is a lone voice and it would explode the position if Nato put boots into Ukraine at this point
It doesn't mean that he is wrong.
I think as a lone voice he may be
Wasn’t Churchill very much a lone voice in the thirties?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
Steady on, Malc.
We may be heading that way but we have quite a bit of work to do before we arrive.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
Sad to say I do think that is a laughable view. The idea Putin's decision on whether or not to invade (and at the least he wants it to look like a real possibility, else he would not have gathered up his forces in that way) will have been materially swayed by the extent of Western media or governments speculating that a potential invasion force might, shockingly, invade, is in fact more than laughable to me, it seems absolutely absurd.
It is clearly not your intention, but the effect of suggesting western leaders looking at 100k troops massing and going 'That looks like an invasion force, I think he might invade' might itself prompt an invasion where one was not planned, is to imply, however unintended, moral equivalence between the two by making 'comments' about a potential invasion a factor in 'causing' one. It's exactly the kind of thing Putin would say.
If I waved a knife in someone's face as a laugh, never intending to hit them, and people yelled at me not to do it and that angered me to the point I did stab that person, I still don't think the people yelling at me would deserve any criticism whatsoever.
I'm not sure how the suggestion responding to overt aggression is in some way responsible if aggression is followed through on adds to a serious discussion either.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't think there have been any predictions of invasion from Western governments. What there has been is level-headed analysis of the massive armed forces assembled by Russia on Ukrainian border.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
Er, no that's a load of bollocks and whataboutery, like most pro-Putin posts.
My post does not mention Putin (who is a thug).
Again ... it is possible to distinguish between a people and their leader ... thankfully for the UK.
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
🙂. What do you mean “it is” Malc you mean we are, you are in Global Britain - Truss is designing and signing these things in your name, they affect you! …actually, hold on -
HYUFD? Isn’t this very fair reason for people in Scotland to want to become independent?
Ah, I see we're at that time-honoured stage in the electoral cycle when the Lib-Lab pact comes out to play.
I can't vote Conservative at the moment. However, Oxfordshire Country Council is a useful foreshadow of what we can expect under a left-wing Government; just think of what more could be done on a national scale with all the levers of Government.
It's not a free lunch.
There won't be a "pact", but there will be an informal agreement that in 30-50 seats central resources will not be spent. So, if you're the LibDem candidate in Bury North, don't expect to get any money from Cowley Street.
I doubt it will reach the level of "GROT" from 1997, or that we will see the "Labour tactically voting LibDem" posters.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't think there have been any predictions of invasion from Western governments. What there has been is level-headed analysis of the massive armed forces assembled by Russia on Ukrainian border.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
I think criticisms of the stance of those responding to this crisis are the classic overcorrection move I have talked of before, wherein people are so desperate to avoid overreaction that they criticise a simple reaciton.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't think there have been any predictions of invasion from Western governments. What there has been is level-headed analysis of the massive armed forces assembled by Russia on Ukrainian border.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
I think criticisms of the stance of those responding to this crisis are the classic overcorrection move I have talked of before, wherein people are so desperate to avoid overreaction that they criticise a simple reaction.
It's amazing how normalised situations like this become. That Russia has put its armed forces on the border of a neighbouring country should be considered an incredible turn of events.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't think there have been any predictions of invasion from Western governments. What there has been is level-headed analysis of the massive armed forces assembled by Russia on Ukrainian border.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
I think criticisms of the stance of those responding to this crisis are the classic overcorrection move I have talked of before, wherein people are so desperate to avoid overreaction that they criticise a simple reaction.
It's amazing how normalised situations like this become. That Russia has put its armed forces on the border of a neighbouring country should be considered an incredible turn of events.
Particularly when Russia is claiming free nations joining an alliance 25 years ago as a sufficient provocation by threatening them.
It's the same with any jump start on hyperbole - if that was an outrage and a threat, what the heck do you call what they are doing?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't think there have been any predictions of invasion from Western governments. What there has been is level-headed analysis of the massive armed forces assembled by Russia on Ukrainian border.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
I think criticisms of the stance of those responding to this crisis are the classic overcorrection move I have talked of before, wherein people are so desperate to avoid overreaction that they criticise a simple reaction.
It's amazing how normalised situations like this become. That Russia has put its armed forces on the border of a neighbouring country should be considered an incredible turn of events.
Particularly when Russia is claiming free nations joining an alliance 25 years ago as a sufficient provocation by threatening them.
It's the same with any jump start on hyperbole - if that was an outrage and a threat, what the heck do you call what they are doing?
It is the most outrageous event in European geopolitics since the 1930s. And yet people are still arguing for appeasement and just letting it happen. It is pathetic.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
It's a fact that pretty well all of the territories sequentially occupied by Stalin and Hitler saw massacres perpetrated by some of the inhabitants of those territories.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
To be honest though, as I read through the link to 1943 Poet Laureate posted yesterday, I felt like I didn’t like Ukrainian nationalists. It wasn’t that they were fighting, there was no justification for the crime of ethnic cleansing 😕
Being very honest here, it had coloured my views when todays Ukraine nationalists came on the news afterwards. And I’m not even Polish.
If you look at the history of WWII, inhabitants of every country serially occupied by Stalin and Hitler committed appalling massacres.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
… I care about elderly people more than I do pigs, but the principle is the same. Both are victims not – repeat not – of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. They are victims of Boris Johnson’s subsequent decision, to aid him in toppling Theresa May, to interpret Brexit as requiring Britain to depart the world’s most efficient and benign economic entity, the single market…
Leaving the EU had some arguments for it. Leaving the single market had none. “Soft” Brexit within that market would have been far been easier to negotiate. Leaving it has meant wrecked supply chains and terminated scientific collaboration. It has undermined recruitment patterns and destabilised Northern Ireland. It has crippled the fish industry and impeded billions of pounds of UK trade. Its consequences have wavered between nuisance and disaster.
This is true. But. Boris held a hard Brexit view. The majority of the commons held a view veering around soft Brexit/ remain/be in SM etc. Parliament - which is the supreme authority in this country, (and government is not), failed miserably to agree a line which would have kept us in the SM. Boris took the ball out of the ungainly scrum and ran with it. The House of Commons is chiefly to blame.
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
🙂. What do you mean “it is” Malc you mean we are, you are in Global Britain - Truss is designing and signing these things in your name, they affect you! …actually, hold on -
HYUFD? Isn’t this very fair reason for people in Scotland to want to become independent?
Global Britain even more reason to preserve the Union and for this UK Tory government to refuse indyref2.
As I said I prefer a Grand Coalition with Labour in a hung parliament to any deals with the SNP. If the Labour party wish to deal with the SNP in a hung parliament that is their affair, we Tories must then go into opposition
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights.
Arbitrarily defined groupings do not.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights, not arbitrarily defined groupings.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
Being Russian is not an arbitrarily defined grouping. Just like being Irish isn't. Or being Jewish isn't.
As I said before, there are only three ways of dealing with a large, troublesome minority in your country.
1. Let them go.
2. Let them have a huge amount of autonomy to run their own affairs.
3. Civil War.
Ukraine can chose which one it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't like 1 or 2.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
Supposedly I am an appeaser and yet I have been calling for nothing but. I've also questioned whether our reticence to push financial penalties has anything to do with the millions in Russian cash that bankrolls the Conservative Party
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights.
Arbitrarily defined groupings do not.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
Any time someone says "that is on the road to X" it seems like a bad argument. If you have an army, you are on the road to aggressive conquest. If you raise taxes you are on the road to socialism. It's just a slippery slope fallacy.
But the main reason why the plebiscite argument is bad is that (a) it would be done when many anti-Russian Ukrainians have been chased out of their homes by Putin’s little green men, (b) it sets the ground for any annexation of neighboring land with your own ethnic group and (c) Putin would just start trying to annex the next province over.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights, not arbitrarily defined groupings.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
Being Russian is not an arbitrarily defined grouping. Just like being Irish isn't. Or being Jewish isn't.
As I said before, there are only three ways of dealing with a large, troublesome minority in your country.
1. Let them go.
2. Let them have a huge amount of autonomy to run their own affairs.
3. Civil War.
Ukraine can chose which one it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't like 1 or 2.
This is bullshit. Ukraine gave Crimea substantially autonomy. Both Donetsk and Luhansk had more ethnic Ukrainians than ethnic Russians before the invasions.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
It's a fact that pretty well all of the territories sequentially occupied by Stalin and Hitler saw massacres perpetrated by some of the inhabitants of those territories.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
To be honest though, as I read through the link to 1943 Poet Laureate posted yesterday, I felt like I didn’t like Ukrainian nationalists. It wasn’t that they were fighting, there was no justification for the crime of ethnic cleansing 😕
Being very honest here, it had coloured my views when todays Ukraine nationalists came on the news afterwards. And I’m not even Polish.
If you look at the history of WWII, inhabitants of every country serially occupied by Stalin and Hitler committed appalling massacres.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
It’s fair to say. But it is I am upset by reading about all of it done by all of them, especially 100K women and children tortured and murdered for ethic cleanse, and later generation of same Nationalists won’t call it out.
But we read them sequentially one by one.
Also interesting you quote post I almost immediately deleted, having reflected. I would now add though, sacking Eurovision singer for one visit to Crimea doesn’t sound too tolerant, from people regarding the land she visited and everyone in it as their own 😕
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
Josias, if you're going to accuse me of something from the comfort of your pseudonym, please quote what I said rather than your pastiche of it. I haven't said anything remotely resembling your description here, and in my view whether Johnson or someone else is in charge is entirely irrelevant - as you must know, there is no difference between Government and Opposition on this. What I've said is that Putin is behaving aggressively and dangerously and our military equipment of Ukraine has been appropriate and timely. I've also suggested a threat to permanently turn off Nordstream if an invasion happens, rather than the "not for the moment" position that is currently being taken.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
I don't believe I am misquoting your views, as you stated the other day. You said we were 'poking' Russia - and indicated that it was in some way our fault. I called that out what you said as bullshit at the time, and it was bullshit.
Your second paragraph highlights the b/s as well. 'constantly predicting invasion'. Are you denying that Russia's actions recently, when combined with the capture of Crimea and the Russian-inspired 'uprising' in the Donbass, are worrying? If so, what can the government say except warn against a possible invasion?
Russia's in the wrong here. End of. The government have the right - indeed, I'd argue the responsibility - to call them out on it. Especially since Russia's attacked people on our own soil - a despicable act your pal Corbyn seemed to be very unsure of.
Doing anything on Nordstream is also unlikely to deter Russia by itself - Putin's got bigger aims, and he knows that any decision on that can be reversed after he's won his aims in eastern Europe.
By all means say: "We should so something different." But if you do so, say why you think it'd deter Russia, given their behaviour over the last decade even with all sorts of sanctions applied to them.
I'm unsure what your jibe about 'pseudonym' is about, either. It's fairly irrelevant, especially as my details can be very easily found out.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights.
Arbitrarily defined groupings do not.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
You don’t want United Nations but United Peoples Assembly?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
What in the ever loving Christ does that have to do with anything that is happening right now?
I find it difficult to accept you actually believe that countries cannot criticise another's reprehensible actions without a perfect record in international relations ie probably no one.
Who is permitted to criticise Russia's actions? Can Estonia do it, and we support them?
You actually seem (from earlier in the thread) to believe that we should insist Crimea is returned to the Ukraine. This is lunacy.
The most we should insist is that there is an independent plebiscite in the Crimea (and also Luhansk and Donetsk)
The plebiscite in the Crimea will confirm that the now largely Russian population in Crimea wants to join Russia.
I appreciate that Crimea's demographics have changed a lot over the centuries ... but the population in Crimea now is largely Russian.
I suspect that Luhansk and Donetsk would also want to join Russia -- but I am happy if there is a plebiscite & Ukraine/Russia abide by the results.
That is what we should be trying to do.
I presume that you are also in favour of a plebiscite in Chechnya on whether they want to remain part of Russia?
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
Chechyna, sure. There should be a plebiscite.
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
People have rights.
Arbitrarily defined groupings do not.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
Any time someone says "that is on the road to X" it seems like a bad argument. If you have an army, you are on the road to aggressive conquest. If you raise taxes you are on the road to socialism. It's just a slippery slope fallacy.
But the main reason why the plebiscite argument is bad is that (a) it would be done when many anti-Russian Ukrainians have been chased out of their homes by Putin’s little green men, (b) it sets the ground for any annexation of neighboring land with your own ethnic group and (c) Putin would just start trying to annex the next province over.
Amazingly, plebiscites have been held under difficult conditions before.
In fact, plebiscites are usually held under difficult conditions.
In the Upper Silesia plebiscite held after the chaos of the First World War, it was possible to vote even if you no longer lived in Upper Silesia but had been resident or born there.
It ended with Silesia divided between Poland and Germany.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
I'm sorry but on behalf of @NickPalmer (sorry Nick I know you can speak for yourself, but really this needs to be said) I feel sure that last sentence is complete and utter bollocks.
YBarddCwsc - you seem to think that the core of the problem is that there is a Russian minority in Ukraine. It isn't. The core problem is a much larger neighbouring country that is engaged in wrecking any attempt Ukraine makes at being an independent sovereign state.
The same people moaning about the EU becoming a superstate are now moaning that it isn’t acting like a superstate !
There seems to be a divide rising in the EU, and angst among some that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries when others in the EU are not so committed
In an ideal situation everyone would be on the same page and maybe it will be resolved, but it is not surprising that the biggest critics of the UK in this seems to be coming from those who regret the UK leaving the EU the most
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Some think that the UK's stance isn't especially sensible and it should be more closely aligned with the EU members France and Germany. Others think it's more sensible and it's correctly aligned with the EU members Poland & the Baltic states. The fact that different EU members have a different stance shows that the UK could have taken either approach when it was a member of the EU, so what has this got to do with the UK having left?
The last couple of weeks does prove EU-UK cooperation on foreign policy is being hampered by emotional and political fallout from brexit, and Global Britains need for transatlantic relationship (parrot what Washington says) in order for influence and to remain relevant does it not?
Fact is When UK brexited it took away from the EU a wealth of foreign policy resources: membership in all the key global networks and institutions, a first-rate foreign service, our brilliant military and intelligence apparatus, world-class universities and media, and lots of money out of the EU coffers.
What did UK lose in return?
You have Winston Churchill, the Conservatives best ever Europhile, and his dream of European and world security being ripped to shreds?
“Peace and prosperity in Europe can only come if the greater European nations put aside their mistrust and oneupmanship and start operating as partners. This structure of a United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. And that is to be welcomed. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The safety of the world requires this unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”
We mustn’t air brush out of history that UK did have a great influence when inside the EU. UK was the driving and liberalising force when it came to the Single Market, enlargement, competition and trade, as well as good influence EU foreign policy, particularly under Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair.
"Global Britain" ............. has me rolling about the floor chuckling.
Don’t know why your laughing. What Truss done today is an archetypal example of What Global Britain can do.
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
Nothing Global about Britain , it is a banana republic backwater
🙂. What do you mean “it is” Malc you mean we are, you are in Global Britain - Truss is designing and signing these things in your name, they affect you! …actually, hold on -
HYUFD? Isn’t this very fair reason for people in Scotland to want to become independent?
Global Britain even more reason to preserve the Union and for this UK Tory government to refuse indyref2.
As I said I prefer a Grand Coalition with Labour in a hung parliament to any deals with the SNP. If the Labour party wish to deal with the SNP in a hung parliament that is their affair, we Tories must then go into opposition
IndyRef is dead.
The whole issue has become so toxic that mainstream Scottish opinion will not want to touch it. The Sarah Smith imbroglio, and the reaction to it, is instructive.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
Supposedly I am an appeaser and yet I have been calling for nothing but. I've also questioned whether our reticence to push financial penalties has anything to do with the millions in Russian cash that bankrolls the Conservative Party
"“I was obviously misled because nothing has subsequently happened. I can only think a deluded desire to protect the City of London has led to all these delays."
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
Whataboutism is the favored tactic of those trying to defend in the indefensible.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
I'm sorry but on behalf of @NickPalmer (sorry Nick I know you can speak for yourself, but really this needs to be said) I feel sure that last sentence is complete and utter bollocks.
Sure. That is why he always giving excuses for Putin.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush and voted for the Iraq War and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
You would bring the Iraq War up ...
I think Nick has been trying to forget that lapse of judgement
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
Why do we make such a big thing about the holocaust, when so many in the UK were guilty of antisemitism in the 1930s?
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
A Scottish Parliament election cannot give a mandate for a referendum (or independence) as the constitution is a reserved matter.
I want to ask a hypothetical. Suppose a vast majority of people in Scotland wanted independence. Let's say 75% in favour to make it totally unambiguous. What should happen?
The Scottish government needs to convince Westminster to grant a referendum. They have to do this through argument - they have no right to one. If the situation is as clear as you suggest then I think they could come up with a convincing case because what you describe is not sustainable.
I personally do not find the fact that they won a bare majority of votes in a Scottish election a convincing argument and, to date, neither does Westminster
More bollox
What is?
The courts ruled you don’t have a right to a referendum. Therefore you have to convince Westminster.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Stop it @hyufd I've strongly liked two of your comments today - one of us is going soft and I'm worried it might be me.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
Once again - we are not going to war with Russia.
We are providing military aid to Ukraine.
Which increases the cost to Russia of invading Ukraine.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
Why do we make such a big thing about the holocaust, when so many in the UK were guilty of antisemitism in the 1930s?
It is because all these things are irregular verbs
I was a benign ruler of my Empire, which did much good, You are a little careless and a few million people died of famine, He is a despot and is committing industrial-scale genocide.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
You appear to be missing two points:
* Putin's desire is not just over Ukraine. He essentially wants Russian control over many of the ex-Soviet states, including countries like Poland. * He will laugh at just hard-nosed diplomacy. All those decisions you mention can be reversed easily once he wins. What he does not want is a loss of the war and/or a loss of 'face'.
We are facing an evil. At what point do you say: "no more' ?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
Why do we make such a big thing about the holocaust, when so many in the UK were guilty of antisemitism in the 1930s?
It is because all these things are irregular verbs
I was a benign ruler of my Empire, which did much good, You are a little careless and a few million people died of famine, He is a despot and is committing industrial-scale genocide.
Your view seems to be that we should never criticize others because our own past is far from perfect.
Just as a matter of interest, how has that worked as a parenting technique?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
Why do we make such a big thing about the holocaust, when so many in the UK were guilty of antisemitism in the 1930s?
It is because all these things are irregular verbs
I was a benign ruler of my Empire, which did much good, You are a little careless and a few million people died of famine, He is a despot and is committing industrial-scale genocide.
Intention and proximate cause are the reasons done argue the Holdomor was genocide
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
I'm sorry but on behalf of @NickPalmer (sorry Nick I know you can speak for yourself, but really this needs to be said) I feel sure that last sentence is complete and utter bollocks.
Sure. That is why he always giving excuses for Putin.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Thank you, HYUFD. I was a (euro)communist...51 years ago. I've never felt it right to make a secret of it, but it's not terribly relevant to now.
These are fraught times, and I understand why people go ad hominem, but the effect is either to prompt a slanging match or to intimidate contributors. I do feel reluctant to comment because it provokes the sort of unpleasant personal reaction that Aslan and Josiah trot out, but I've never been afraid to express a view, and at 72 it seems too late to start.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
You appear to be missing two points:
* Putin's desire is not just over Ukraine. He essentially wants Russian control over many of the ex-Soviet states, including countries like Poland. * He will laugh at just hard-nosed diplomacy. All those decisions you mention can be reversed easily once he wins. What he does not want is a loss of the war and/or a loss of 'face'.
We are facing an evil. At what point do you say: "no more' ?
I expect I'm one of the bad left wing people who reflexively backs the wrong action because I don't like our government. Certainly I'm embarrassed that we have a government that seems focused on photo ops, profile raising and scoring points against some EU members. Equally I think we have a defence secretary who's doing a decent job as far as that's possible as part of this government. But overall I actually don't know enough to have an informed opinion of how or whether we should be intervening.
Let's say this is the point that we say "no more", accepting that Putin has an unacceptably expansionist policy and won't be satisfied without controlling a number of independent states including EU members. What does that oblige us to do? Who's with us? Will it work? What will it cost us, and will the world be safer or less safe afterwards?
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Nick, If you read this post from HY and decide to sue, I’m sure some on PB will have a whip round for you.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
I'm sorry but on behalf of @NickPalmer (sorry Nick I know you can speak for yourself, but really this needs to be said) I feel sure that last sentence is complete and utter bollocks.
Sure. That is why he always giving excuses for Putin.
The idea that Putin is a Communist is faciful.
But the strange way that some on the left instinctively try and cuddle Russia and China is still funny. Haven't they noticed?
I mean, the fact that Putin uses the literal, real Russian Nazi* thugs to beat up the opposition might be a bit of a clue.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
" is it really risking world war three?"
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
" is it really risking world war three?"
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
Incidentally, if Putin fucks with Craft Cocktails in Gdansk, I think we should launch Trident.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Nick, If you read this post from HY and decide to sue, I’m sure some on PB will have a whip round for you.
I agree. The idea we should be nice to one another should be strongly discouraged.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
It's a fact that pretty well all of the territories sequentially occupied by Stalin and Hitler saw massacres perpetrated by some of the inhabitants of those territories.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
To be honest though, as I read through the link to 1943 Poet Laureate posted yesterday, I felt like I didn’t like Ukrainian nationalists. It wasn’t that they were fighting, there was no justification for the crime of ethnic cleansing 😕
Being very honest here, it had coloured my views when todays Ukraine nationalists came on the news afterwards. And I’m not even Polish.
If you look at the history of WWII, inhabitants of every country serially occupied by Stalin and Hitler committed appalling massacres.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
It’s fair to say. But it is I am upset by reading about all of it done by all of them, especially 100K women and children tortured and murdered for ethic cleanse, and later generation of same Nationalists won’t call it out.
But we read them sequentially one by one.
Also interesting you quote post I almost immediately deleted, having reflected. I would now add though, sacking Eurovision singer for one visit to Crimea doesn’t sound too tolerant, from people regarding the land she visited and everyone in it as their own 😕
I don’t think anyone’s comfortable with it. And you’ll see other countries (and I think particularly the former communist satellites ?) having much the same difficulty in coming to terms with their wartime pasts. Latvia, for example.
Perhaps we’re not so wildly different in that respect when you consider our reluctance to deal with some of our past ?
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
That is the solution that I would wish to see. The Lib Dems should support any policies - put forward by any other political party - which were in accordance with Lib Dem principles and policies .
One extra advantage of this approach, is that other parties would have to take a look at what Lib Dem stand for before making up their own minds - and so would the members of the public - and even, perhaps, the media.
Strangely enough, this was how the Lib-Lab pact worked in practice in the 1970s. We had a good sensible government for several months before the extremists on the far left wrecked everything, and Thatcher finished it all off.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
So that’s it? Get the popcorn in, watch the bloody bull fight with inevitable death of the bull, whatever dreams it had in thiis world going down with it. After, we chat about end of covid restrictions, holidays, pizza toppings?
Boris and Truss have sat down with the Ukraine leaders this week. All the Ukraine government will have for comfort whilst lying in their graves will be some new sanctions on the Russian people for a while, till it all blows over. The last round of sanctions didn’t work, is that ever discussed? Igor the McMafia banned? Only for as long as it takes to transfer assets to family member and pick up a fake passport - the West was dealing with them again!
Where’s the resolve to put words into action?
You might underestimate, after all the anti Putin propaganda and NATO build up in the region, how watching Ukraine defeated by Putin is going to colour UK and US voters toward Boris, Truss and Biden.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
But the cases are very clearly different. The latter two were not deliberate acts of policy. The first one was. And it was aimed very clearly at a particular group of people - the supporters of the Ukrainian republic and the White armies from the Civil War. So it is not in any way inconsistent to suggest that the first is a genocide and the others are not. Nor is it hate speech.
The Russians don't like it, just as the Turks don't like hearing about the Armenian genocide. But it's a perfectly reasonable way for the Ukrainians to describe it.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
1.5. The programs where the US *lent* nuclear weapons to allies make a return.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
I know. The bastard remainers. If only they had won we wouldn't have to continue complaining about Brexit.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
You appear to be missing two points:
* Putin's desire is not just over Ukraine. He essentially wants Russian control over many of the ex-Soviet states, including countries like Poland. * He will laugh at just hard-nosed diplomacy. All those decisions you mention can be reversed easily once he wins. What he does not want is a loss of the war and/or a loss of 'face'.
We are facing an evil. At what point do you say: "no more' ?
I expect I'm one of the bad left wing people who reflexively backs the wrong action because I don't like our government. Certainly I'm embarrassed that we have a government that seems focused on photo ops, profile raising and scoring points against some EU members. Equally I think we have a defence secretary who's doing a decent job as far as that's possible as part of this government. But overall I actually don't know enough to have an informed opinion of how or whether we should be intervening.
Let's say this is the point that we say "no more", accepting that Putin has an unacceptably expansionist policy and won't be satisfied without controlling a number of independent states including EU members. What does that oblige us to do? Who's with us? Will it work? What will it cost us, and will the world be safer or less safe afterwards?
The "Will it work?" question is the big one, and of course is unknowable in advance.
IMV we need a multi-pronged approach: *) Diplomatic moves to punish Russia if they attack. *) Further sanctions on Russia and individuals therewithin.
So far, I think we can call this the RP approach. However, none of these are permanent: Putin will know they can be reversed in days, and all he needs to do is split a few countries off.
So what else? *) Unequivocally say we support Ukraine and that Russia is the aggressor. *) Beef up support for Ukraine. Not boots on the ground, but weaponry, intel and supplies. *) Seriously beef up forces in other Eastern European states that Putin threatens. But I daresay Nick would see this as 'poking'. *) Do not recognise any pro-Russian government in any part of the Ukraine, even after supposedly 'fair' elections. Establish a Ukranian government-in-exile.
I daresay there are more things as well.
The last of these is a biggie, and a massive potential flashpoint, either deliberate or accidental.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And yet the SNP quaintly wants us/Scotland to abandon Trident, in a world where non-nuclear powers can be clearly bullied and menaced into subjugation
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
Alot of Russia's military expenditure is on bullshit - such as vast numbers of conscripts who can look pretty marching the goose-step, but are militarily useless. As Chechnya proved.
Comments
What they want is the backing of major powers to protect them, while they decide their own fate.
Strangely, there is one thing that unites the Poles, Ukrainian, Bulgarians & Estonians I know. They want more of what the US and UK are offering and less noise from Germany.
Because they say that Putin is banging the old, old drum.
And they range from ultra-Green to moderate centre right.
Reuters
===
Vlad has done wonders for military/security co-operation across europe.
Where I think Western leaders have been making a mistake is in constantly predicting imminent invasion - it's been against the advice of the Ukrainian government, helped destabilise their economy, and raised the stakes to make it more likely that invasion will actually happen (because it will now look like a climbdown if it doesn't). You're entitled to think that horrible or laughable if you like, but really it can't be construed as hoping for an invasion. This sort of nonsense makes it difficult to have a serious discussion at all.
The European Parliament is in favour of 2nd votes without enacting the 1st, just like Remoaner Trumpites
‘Moreover, a referendum to confirm the final decision can be an important democratic safeguard - crucial in case of a “no deal” withdrawal, they say.’
https://twitter.com/europarl_en/status/1493903546428887040?s=21
That remains true, even though nobody is quite sure yet what she has done today.
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Personally, I was pretty relaxed about Crimea. It was only recently handed to Ukraine. It was clearly majority Russian. I have little doubt that they would (overwhelmingly) chosen to be a part of Russia. And in 1991, when the Ukraine voted for independence in a plebiscite, the majority in the Crimea voted to stay joined to Russia.
That is not true of Donetsk.
In 1991, 89% of people in the Donetsk region voted for independence. And while I'm sure many of them are sympathetic to Russia - and Russia has spent a great deal on stirring up trouble in the region - that does not actually suggest a region that is desperate to rejoin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNen3lMvDwM
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
@FCDOGovUK
·
33m
United Kingdom government organization
Any British Nationals still in Ukraine should leave now.
We may be heading that way but we have quite a bit of work to do before we arrive.
It is clearly not your intention, but the effect of suggesting western leaders looking at 100k troops massing and going 'That looks like an invasion force, I think he might invade' might itself prompt an invasion where one was not planned, is to imply, however unintended, moral equivalence between the two by making 'comments' about a potential invasion a factor in 'causing' one. It's exactly the kind of thing Putin would say.
If I waved a knife in someone's face as a laugh, never intending to hit them, and people yelled at me not to do it and that angered me to the point I did stab that person, I still don't think the people yelling at me would deserve any criticism whatsoever.
I'm not sure how the suggestion responding to overt aggression is in some way responsible if aggression is followed through on adds to a serious discussion either.
Really?
I guess we can rely on wikipeadia ... or maybe there should be a plebisicite in Donetsk.
As @NickPalmer has pointed, UN plebiscites have pretty darned successful when tried in the past.
About 20 per cent of the population of Ukraine is Russian. That is a sizeable minority.
Ukraine should be thinking what it can do to make them feel content & secure as a minority in Ukraine.
Minorities have rights -- whether they are Russians in Ukraine or Muslims in France or even (the most pampered and noisy minority I have ever encountered) .... English-speakers in Quebec, or in Cymro Cymraeg.
It would be grossly negligent of our government not to take adequate provisions (i.e. advising our people to get out of the country).
Again ... it is possible to distinguish between a people and their leader ... thankfully for the UK.
HYUFD? Isn’t this very fair reason for people in Scotland to want to become independent?
I doubt it will reach the level of "GROT" from 1997, or that we will see the "Labour tactically voting LibDem" posters.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
It's the same with any jump start on hyperbole - if that was an outrage and a threat, what the heck do you call what they are doing?
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
ungainly scrum and ran with it. The House of Commons is chiefly to blame.
As I said I prefer a Grand Coalition with Labour in a hung parliament to any deals with the SNP. If the Labour party wish to deal with the SNP in a hung parliament that is their affair, we Tories must then go into opposition
Arbitrarily defined groupings do not.
Otherwise you are on that long road to identity politics.
As I said before, there are only three ways of dealing with a large, troublesome minority in your country.
1. Let them go.
2. Let them have a huge amount of autonomy to run their own affairs.
3. Civil War.
Ukraine can chose which one it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't like 1 or 2.
But the main reason why the plebiscite argument is bad is that (a) it would be done when many anti-Russian Ukrainians have been chased out of their homes by Putin’s little green men, (b) it sets the ground for any annexation of neighboring land with your own ethnic group and (c) Putin would just start trying to annex the next province over.
But we read them sequentially one by one.
Also interesting you quote post I almost immediately deleted, having reflected. I would now add though, sacking Eurovision singer for one visit to Crimea doesn’t sound too tolerant, from people regarding the land she visited and everyone in it as their own 😕
Your second paragraph highlights the b/s as well. 'constantly predicting invasion'. Are you denying that Russia's actions recently, when combined with the capture of Crimea and the Russian-inspired 'uprising' in the Donbass, are worrying? If so, what can the government say except warn against a possible invasion?
Russia's in the wrong here. End of. The government have the right - indeed, I'd argue the responsibility - to call them out on it. Especially since Russia's attacked people on our own soil - a despicable act your pal Corbyn seemed to be very unsure of.
Doing anything on Nordstream is also unlikely to deter Russia by itself - Putin's got bigger aims, and he knows that any decision on that can be reversed after he's won his aims in eastern Europe.
By all means say: "We should so something different." But if you do so, say why you think it'd deter Russia, given their behaviour over the last decade even with all sorts of sanctions applied to them.
I'm unsure what your jibe about 'pseudonym' is about, either. It's fairly irrelevant, especially as my details can be very easily found out.
In fact, plebiscites are usually held under difficult conditions.
In the Upper Silesia plebiscite held after the chaos of the First World War, it was possible to vote even if you no longer lived in Upper Silesia but had been resident or born there.
It ended with Silesia divided between Poland and Germany.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/17/hugh-grant-promotes-anti-boris-johnson-protest-in-london-16121272/
The whole issue has become so toxic that mainstream Scottish opinion will not want to touch it. The Sarah Smith imbroglio, and the reaction to it, is instructive.
Today's Courier editorial:
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/3023577/sarah-smith-abuse-courier-opinion/
"As talk turns to another referendum there’s justifiable concern over the manner in which it would be conducted.
"Politicians have a responsibility to lead by example.
"And on the strength of this performance the country is in no fit state to re-open those old sores."
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/15/no-10-pressure-money-laundering-measures-lord-faulks
"“I was obviously misled because nothing has subsequently happened. I can only think a deluded desire to protect the City of London has led to all these delays."
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
https://www.windy.com/?49.295,-10.905,5,m:e4Haf8f
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
I think Nick has been trying to forget that lapse of judgement
The courts ruled you don’t have a right to a referendum. Therefore you have to convince Westminster.
We are providing military aid to Ukraine.
Which increases the cost to Russia of invading Ukraine.
I was a benign ruler of my Empire, which did much good,
You are a little careless and a few million people died of famine,
He is a despot and is committing industrial-scale genocide.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
* Putin's desire is not just over Ukraine. He essentially wants Russian control over many of the ex-Soviet states, including countries like Poland.
* He will laugh at just hard-nosed diplomacy. All those decisions you mention can be reversed easily once he wins. What he does not want is a loss of the war and/or a loss of 'face'.
We are facing an evil. At what point do you say: "no more' ?
Just as a matter of interest, how has that worked as a parenting technique?
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
These are fraught times, and I understand why people go ad hominem, but the effect is either to prompt a slanging match or to intimidate contributors. I do feel reluctant to comment because it provokes the sort of unpleasant personal reaction that Aslan and Josiah trot out, but I've never been afraid to express a view, and at 72 it seems too late to start.
Let's say this is the point that we say "no more", accepting that Putin has an unacceptably expansionist policy and won't be satisfied without controlling a number of independent states including EU members. What does that oblige us to do? Who's with us? Will it work? What will it cost us, and will the world be safer or less safe afterwards?
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
I mean, the fact that Putin uses the literal, real Russian Nazi* thugs to beat up the opposition might be a bit of a clue.
*People with swastika tattoos.
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
And you’ll see other countries (and I think particularly the former communist satellites ?) having much the same difficulty in coming to terms with their wartime pasts. Latvia, for example.
Perhaps we’re not so wildly different in that respect when you consider our reluctance to deal with some of our past ?
We are 4th or 5th by these tables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
One extra advantage of this approach, is that other parties would have to take a look at what Lib Dem stand for before making up their own minds - and so would the members of the public - and even, perhaps, the media.
Strangely enough, this was how the Lib-Lab pact worked in practice in the 1970s. We had a good sensible government for several months before the extremists on the far left wrecked everything, and Thatcher finished it all off.
Boris and Truss have sat down with the Ukraine leaders this week. All the Ukraine government will have for comfort whilst lying in their graves will be some new sanctions on the Russian people for a while, till it all blows over. The last round of sanctions didn’t work, is that ever discussed? Igor the McMafia banned? Only for as long as it takes to transfer assets to family member and pick up a fake passport - the West was dealing with them again!
Where’s the resolve to put words into action?
You might underestimate, after all the anti Putin propaganda and NATO build up in the region, how watching Ukraine defeated by Putin is going to colour UK and US voters toward Boris, Truss and Biden.
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
But the cases are very clearly different. The latter two were not deliberate acts of policy. The first one was. And it was aimed very clearly at a particular group of people - the supporters of the Ukrainian republic and the White armies from the Civil War. So it is not in any way inconsistent to suggest that the first is a genocide and the others are not. Nor is it hate speech.
The Russians don't like it, just as the Turks don't like hearing about the Armenian genocide. But it's a perfectly reasonable way for the Ukrainians to describe it.
IMV we need a multi-pronged approach:
*) Diplomatic moves to punish Russia if they attack.
*) Further sanctions on Russia and individuals therewithin.
So far, I think we can call this the RP approach. However, none of these are permanent: Putin will know they can be reversed in days, and all he needs to do is split a few countries off.
So what else?
*) Unequivocally say we support Ukraine and that Russia is the aggressor.
*) Beef up support for Ukraine. Not boots on the ground, but weaponry, intel and supplies.
*) Seriously beef up forces in other Eastern European states that Putin threatens. But I daresay Nick would see this as 'poking'.
*) Do not recognise any pro-Russian government in any part of the Ukraine, even after supposedly 'fair' elections. Establish a Ukranian government-in-exile.
I daresay there are more things as well.
The last of these is a biggie, and a massive potential flashpoint, either deliberate or accidental.
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
The useful Russian armed forces are much smaller.