🚨🚨🇬🇧🤡🇪🇺🇬🇧🤡🇪🇺🚨🚨 This is a story about how No.10 quietly shot down @Jacob_Rees_Mogg the new #brexit opportunities minister…and a story that begs questions over just how low the bar for ministerial competence appears to be set. Stay with me. /1
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
LOL indeed, as they say ; taking all of 20 seconds to find an example comprehensively disproving this.
Putin tells May to implement "the Will of the People"
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
Only in London though. The Edgware Road, the Gloucester Road. You don't get that anywhere else. The Stockport Road, The Oldham Road? No.
That would explain my Liverpool Road. The East Lancs, mind.
How about the Scottie Road?
Indeed. And there's the Scotswood Road in Newcastle, too. And Westgate Road. Known as the West Road. Maybe it's just local habits?
Nope. Its actual name is West Road, it turns into Westgate Road as you near town.
Yes. But the bit in town is known as West Road too.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
Why does anyone give this old soak the time of day. He’d know all about lying. Architect of the dodgy dossier and helped the illegal war on Iraq and there was his evidence to the Hutton enquiry.
That doesn't make him wrong in this case, however. The real untold story here is the large number of names redacted from the Russia report, and the significant number of these linked to organisations like Vote Leave, through figures like Matthew Eliot, and others. There is a genuine Russian influence at work there.
Quite frankly I take what he says with a large pinch of salt. Everything always comes back to Brexit with him and, quite frankly, he seems as hysterical as Cadwalladr on this issue.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
What has happened is that the Rus were one people. When Kiev fell, Rus was splintered into different states, eventually much of it was centred on Vladimir-Suzdal and then Moscow. The west fell under the rule of Poland-Lithuania although Galicia and Volhynia were independent for a while and there were independent Cossacks such as the Zaporizhian host. Part of Ukraine was Ottoman or ruled by the Khans of Crimea (in fact those places later conquered by the Russians and given Greek names). The languages diverged, with the western language more influenced by Polish and Latin, the eastern by Greek and Church Slavonic.
But most of this is a very long time ago. it is a bit like redrawing the English, French, Danish and Norwegian borders based on the situation in England in the 11th century.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
Russia shouldn’t invade anyone but Ukraine isn’t a single unified country, in the same way Spain has its Basque problem. The EU stoked the fire burning in Eastern Ukraine on the Russia borders by pushing for membership & Nato expansion. https://t.co/TqF1xnLsPP
I’m surprised how much of that mad thinking is being expressed in UK these days. And by the right of centre, on GB news not the socialist left.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
Russia shouldn’t invade anyone but Ukraine isn’t a single unified country, in the same way Spain has its Basque problem. The EU stoked the fire burning in Eastern Ukraine on the Russia borders by pushing for membership & Nato expansion. https://t.co/TqF1xnLsPP
I’m surprised how much of that mad thinking is being expressed in UK these days. And by the right of centre, on GB news not the socialist left.
To be fair, taking Russia out of the equation for a moment, I don't think its inaccurate to say that Ukraine has problems with minority areas in the same way that Spain does with the Basque country, Catalonia, etc - and indeed that many or even most countries do. However, the fact that Spain has problems of how to deal with minority areas wouldn't mean that Russia (or France, or anyone else) could legitimately march in and annex them.
International borders are highly contentious. But the principle must be that they are only changed with the consent of the country concerned and the people concerned. To do otherwise is to invite constant war.
I would have supported the rights of the people of the Crimea to have separated from the Ukraine and, should they have decided it, its subsequent union with Russia, right up to the point where Russia unilaterally decided to annex it.
But the primary principle must be that these things are not simply done by force.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
LOL indeed, as they say.
Putin tells May to implement "the Will of the People"
Putin may well have been pro-Brexit, but nobody being pro-Brexit would have given me a moment's hesitation in voting for it. I knew why I was voting. I am not some weak minded trend-follower who'd be swayed by David Attenborough or Judi Dench telling me to vote Remain or be put off by Nick Griffin and Putin weighing in on the other side. Bugger that.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
Why does anyone give this old soak the time of day. He’d know all about lying. Architect of the dodgy dossier and helped the illegal war on Iraq and there was his evidence to the Hutton enquiry.
That doesn't make him wrong in this case, however. The real untold story here is the large number of names redacted from the Russia report, and the significant number of these linked to organisations like Vote Leave, through figures like Matthew Eliot, and others. There is a genuine Russian influence at work there.
Quite frankly I take what he says with a large pinch of salt. Everything always comes back to Brexit with him and, quite frankly, he seems as hysterical as Cadwalladr on this issue.
I don't see any hysteria on this particular topic, just a fair amount of evidence, and a lot of unanswered questions.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though. - Admission down. - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
LOL indeed, as they say.
Putin tells May to implement "the Will of the People"
Putin may well have been pro-Brexit, but nobody being pro-Brexit would have given me a moment's hesitation in voting for it. I knew why I was voting. I am not some weak minded trend-follower who'd be swayed by David Attenborough or Judi Dench telling me to vote Remain or be put off by Nick Griffin and Putin weighing in on the other side. Bugger that.
Indeed, everyone will have their own reasons for their views, but I was just responding to the ( false ) charge that there was no evidence of his support.
I do think tough sanctions and asset seizure is required. But if Putin goes no further (and I don't call this an invasion) I think we should stop right there. A lot of noise and then we hope that three, six, months from now the separatists states have been another casualty of oligarchy but war in Europe has been avoided.
I recognise however that we're dealing with a madman.
Putin apologist.
Russian troops are literally in Ukraine right now. How is that "not an invasion".
You are a disgrace.
If you're charging into the cannon's mouth yourself, I think you can justify calling someone else a disgrace. If you're playing armchair generals, not so much. It is a valid view that British blood and treasure should be kept to defend Britain and her vital interests.
I'm surprised you don't remember, but Russia has launched chemical and nuclear attacks against Britain in the last couple of decades. Perhaps acting with others to restrain a Russia willing to perform such acts *is* a vital interest for us?
Then again, you always seem to pick the Russian side on things. Remember MH17?
I am not delighted with the position in which Britain now finds herself, with a depleted army, and with what seem to be more than a few holes in our actual defence of the UK, and a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon a foreign power. I would like us to have the world's best Navy, field a highly dangerous and adaptable airforce, and for when we said we were going to stop someone using the sea, for it to mean something. However, we are where we are, and it looks utterly stupid to make empty threats, or worse, to throw our limited resources at gaining some Ukrainian mud.
Like Mark said, building tidal capacity and no longer needing to import Russian gas (or have China build our nuclear), does a lot more for us in relation to Russia than riding around in a tank or barking at them from under a fur hat.
That does not address my point.
It explains my original position, which you attacked.
To address your point further, yes, I do take the Russian side far more often than is usual here. I put that down to my starting point being that Russia and the USA are both foreign powers. Many, if not most here, are attached to 'The West' as a concept, with NATO as its military wing, but I question deeply whether 'The West' exists to support all its constituent parts or merely to cement American dominance. I do not see that dominance as necessarily a good thing, and back in the day, America didn't see British power as a good thing - they had a plan to invade the British Empire as late as the 30's.
Traditionally, the guiding aim of British foreign policy has always been the 'balance of powers', so I'm not afraid of a powerful Russia. However, I am strongly opposed to Russia invading its near neighbours, whilst being realistic about what we can achieve to stop them.
Jessop keeps attacking people for their views on Russia but never states what actions he/she wants the West to take to stop them. Weak sanction announcement aside I think the West has taken as strong a line as it can on Ukraine.
I have stated my view on what should be done on a couple of occasions.
Russia's aggressive foreign actions need stopping. Preferably before they gobble up Ukraine; certainly before they threaten other neighbouring states.
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though. - Admission down. - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
Surely "this message was unanimously approved...."
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though. - Admission down. - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though. - Admission down. - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
“And you, Krotchlickmehoff?” “Errr. Terra Cotta Sir.” Sniggers echo up into the vast chamber. “Have you even read the email, Krotchlickmehoff?” “…I think so sir. Round yours for the Chelsea game?”
I know it is not all about getting likes, but I didn’t get one for my “I said gin, not Jinns” quip last night. 😕
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
This is a flat-out lie. The weakening of the EU has been a central part of Russia's foreign policy since 2011, under its "Eurasian" strategy. The promotion and funding in numerous countries of Eurosceptic parties has been done out in the open.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
Yes, but it wasn't really Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_language_in_Ukraine ...The first known mention of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine refer to a small ethnic sub-group of Russians known as the Goriuns who resided in Putyvl region (what is modern northern Ukraine). These mentions date back to the times of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or perhaps even earlier.[1][2]
The Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist in that country through two channels: the migration of ethnic Russians into what later became Ukraine and through the adoption of the Russian language as a language of communication by Ukrainians....
Similarly, the Orthodox Church in what is now Ukraine long preceded the one in Moscow. The Russians did their best to eliminate a distinctive Ukrainian church by force in the nineteenth century. What Putin is attempting to recreate is an imperial relationship.
The history is obviously a lot more complicated than that, but as a simplifying myth, it holds a great deal more truth than Putin's version.
And FWIW, Ukraine's president is a native speaker of Russian.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
@HYUFD Doesn't like his medicine - well, he will be getting it three times a day, then :-)
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Cases are not really relevant however
In fact, perhaps to make sure we are as free as possible, we should only collate deaths at the end of the year, because then we wouldn't need to impose restrictions as early.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
Yes, no Ukraine back then.
This is an area with few natural boundaries, and empires and states and statelets have ebbed and flowed constantly across this landscape. At one stage the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth held considerable sway from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
To summarise in one sentence: its complex, and not necessarily that relevant to the reality of the 21st century. But very interesting nonetheless.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
Russia shouldn’t invade anyone but Ukraine isn’t a single unified country, in the same way Spain has its Basque problem. The EU stoked the fire burning in Eastern Ukraine on the Russia borders by pushing for membership & Nato expansion. https://t.co/TqF1xnLsPP
I’m surprised how much of that mad thinking is being expressed in UK these days. And by the right of centre, on GB news not the socialist left.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
Russia shouldn’t invade anyone but Ukraine isn’t a single unified country, in the same way Spain has its Basque problem. The EU stoked the fire burning in Eastern Ukraine on the Russia borders by pushing for membership & Nato expansion. https://t.co/TqF1xnLsPP
I’m surprised how much of that mad thinking is being expressed in UK these days. And by the right of centre, on GB news not the socialist left.
To be fair, taking Russia out of the equation for a moment, I don't think its inaccurate to say that Ukraine has problems with minority areas in the same way that Spain does with the Basque country, Catalonia, etc - and indeed that many or even most countries do. However, the fact that Spain has problems of how to deal with minority areas wouldn't mean that Russia (or France, or anyone else) could legitimately march in and annex them.
International borders are highly contentious. But the principle must be that they are only changed with the consent of the country concerned and the people concerned. To do otherwise is to invite constant war.
I would have supported the rights of the people of the Crimea to have separated from the Ukraine and, should they have decided it, its subsequent union with Russia, right up to the point where Russia unilaterally decided to annex it.
But the primary principle must be that these things are not simply done by force.
Yes I like your answer.
I’m not sure if it’s anything of mine you are answering though.
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though. - Admission down. - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
Surely "this message was unanimously approved...."
Putin has just confirmed that Russia recognised the borders of the LNR and DNR as per their constitutions, which means including territory currently held by Kiev, and he has called on Ukraine to demilitarise.
I do think tough sanctions and asset seizure is required. But if Putin goes no further (and I don't call this an invasion) I think we should stop right there. A lot of noise and then we hope that three, six, months from now the separatists states have been another casualty of oligarchy but war in Europe has been avoided.
I recognise however that we're dealing with a madman.
Putin apologist.
Russian troops are literally in Ukraine right now. How is that "not an invasion".
You are a disgrace.
If you're charging into the cannon's mouth yourself, I think you can justify calling someone else a disgrace. If you're playing armchair generals, not so much. It is a valid view that British blood and treasure should be kept to defend Britain and her vital interests.
I'm surprised you don't remember, but Russia has launched chemical and nuclear attacks against Britain in the last couple of decades. Perhaps acting with others to restrain a Russia willing to perform such acts *is* a vital interest for us?
Then again, you always seem to pick the Russian side on things. Remember MH17?
I am not delighted with the position in which Britain now finds herself, with a depleted army, and with what seem to be more than a few holes in our actual defence of the UK, and a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon a foreign power. I would like us to have the world's best Navy, field a highly dangerous and adaptable airforce, and for when we said we were going to stop someone using the sea, for it to mean something. However, we are where we are, and it looks utterly stupid to make empty threats, or worse, to throw our limited resources at gaining some Ukrainian mud.
Like Mark said, building tidal capacity and no longer needing to import Russian gas (or have China build our nuclear), does a lot more for us in relation to Russia than riding around in a tank or barking at them from under a fur hat.
That does not address my point.
It explains my original position, which you attacked.
To address your point further, yes, I do take the Russian side far more often than is usual here. I put that down to my starting point being that Russia and the USA are both foreign powers. Many, if not most here, are attached to 'The West' as a concept, with NATO as its military wing, but I question deeply whether 'The West' exists to support all its constituent parts or merely to cement American dominance. I do not see that dominance as necessarily a good thing, and back in the day, America didn't see British power as a good thing - they had a plan to invade the British Empire as late as the 30's.
Traditionally, the guiding aim of British foreign policy has always been the 'balance of powers', so I'm not afraid of a powerful Russia. However, I am strongly opposed to Russia invading its near neighbours, whilst being realistic about what we can achieve to stop them.
In the MH17 case, you parroted every ridiculous line emanating out of Russia, and when those lines changed, so did yours.
Russia has attacked us directly on a couple of occasions; killing two people in the process. One with a chemical weapon, one with a radiological one. And in their usual incompetent way, one of those deaths was of someone utterly uninvolved with Russian affairs.
I'd strongly argue that combatting that is in Britain's vital interests. Yet alone the risk Russia poses to the rest of eastern Europe.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
You just don't want to see it because you've convinced yourself the Greens are synonymous with Corbynites. But they aren't.
People like Putin hate the Greens. They can't stand the idea of people weaning themselves off the fossil fuel addiction that keeps them dependent on big oil and gas exporters like Russia.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
I wonder if Putin’s Shenanigans will produce a “better stick with the strong man we know” swing to the government?
No Australian PM has ever failed to be re elected leading on the preferred PM polling and yes there may be a stick with the man you know bounce, coupled with fact the Coalition is gradually easing Covid restrictions, only Labour controlled Victoria keeping mandatory controls
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
Yes, no Ukraine back then.
This is an area with few natural boundaries, and empires and states and statelets have ebbed and flowed constantly across this landscape. At one stage the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth held considerable sway from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
To summarise in one sentence: its complex, and not necessarily that relevant to the reality of the 21st century. But very interesting nonetheless.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Cases are not really relevant however
Cases become admissions which become deaths...
So Cases warn us of what is coming - sometimes.
That may have been the case pre vaccination, it is not really the case now over 90% of the UK population have been vaccinated and almost 2/3 have had their boosters as well
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Cases are not really relevant however
Cases become admissions which become deaths...
So Cases warn us of what is coming - sometimes.
That may have been the case pre vaccination, it is not really the case now over 90% of the UK population have been vaccinated and almost 2/3 have had their boosters as well
Yes it is.
CFR has dropped a lot, but people are still going to hospital and dying from COVID. The ratios have changed, but that is all.
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
🚨🚨🇬🇧🤡🇪🇺🇬🇧🤡🇪🇺🚨🚨 This is a story about how No.10 quietly shot down @Jacob_Rees_Mogg the new #brexit opportunities minister…and a story that begs questions over just how low the bar for ministerial competence appears to be set. Stay with me. /1
Agreed. Anyone who hasn't figured out that all Johnson does is talk the talk but never walk the walk just hasn't been paying attention. He is the most vacuous PM we have ad in my lifetime. One great bag of wind.
“ lacklustre, insipid, tepid, threadbare...BoZo has fluffed it again “
Did Big G really respond to that summing up of Boris today with “Putin apologist” or are there deleted bits just to make it look that bad?
I was about to explain... then I thought nah. I prefer the misinterpretation.
So we are being unfair to Big G, that fair response to Boris pea shooter Barrage and his weird commons performance wasn’t met with “Putin apologist”.
posts do get “edited” I know, which is why it didn’t make sense to me sorry.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
What has happened is that the Rus were one people. When Kiev fell, Rus was splintered into different states, eventually much of it was centred on Vladimir-Suzdal and then Moscow. The west fell under the rule of Poland-Lithuania although Galicia and Volhynia were independent for a while and there were independent Cossacks such as the Zaporizhian host. Part of Ukraine was Ottoman or ruled by the Khans of Crimea (in fact those places later conquered by the Russians and given Greek names). The languages diverged, with the western language more influenced by Polish and Latin, the eastern by Greek and Church Slavonic.
But most of this is a very long time ago. it is a bit like redrawing the English, French, Danish and Norwegian borders based on the situation in England in the 11th century.
Though something almost like that happened with modern Lithuanian nationalism, since they rejected Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth history in favour of what was essentially medieval myth.
Doesn't make the current Lithuania any less of a nation.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Cases are not really relevant however
Cases become admissions which become deaths...
So Cases warn us of what is coming - sometimes.
That may have been the case pre vaccination, it is not really the case now over 90% of the UK population have been vaccinated and almost 2/3 have had their boosters as well
Our u3a Wine Appreciation Group has a meeting tomorrow. Sadly two of the members have notified the Leader today that they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive, and therefore will not be coming. The person with whom they've been in contact is also a member of the Group! All have had three injections.
Could say all the more for the rest of us, of course!
Putin has just confirmed that Russia recognised the borders of the LNR and DNR as per their constitutions, which means including territory currently held by Kiev, and he has called on Ukraine to demilitarise.
He'd already told them to withdraw their military from parts of their own country there 8 years ago, it is not a surprise now he officially pretends they are independent he says the same basically.
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
Sorry to hear this Big G. Hope he makes a quick recovery!
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
Hope the surgery goes smoothly and he recovers quickly, @Big_G_NorthWales
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
What has happened is that the Rus were one people. When Kiev fell, Rus was splintered into different states, eventually much of it was centred on Vladimir-Suzdal and then Moscow. The west fell under the rule of Poland-Lithuania although Galicia and Volhynia were independent for a while and there were independent Cossacks such as the Zaporizhian host. Part of Ukraine was Ottoman or ruled by the Khans of Crimea (in fact those places later conquered by the Russians and given Greek names). The languages diverged, with the western language more influenced by Polish and Latin, the eastern by Greek and Church Slavonic.
But most of this is a very long time ago. it is a bit like redrawing the English, French, Danish and Norwegian borders based on the situation in England in the 11th century.
Though something almost like that happened with modern Lithuanian nationalism, since they rejected Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth history in favour of what was essentially medieval myth.
Doesn't make the current Lithuania any less of a nation.
Indeed, most places to a greater or lesser degree have identities based more in myth than reality. People can be pretty surprised to learn otherwise, and a coherent national identity (as far as is possible) stretching back a long long way I'd think is pretty unusual.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
LOL indeed, as they say ; taking all of 20 seconds to find an example comprehensively disproving this.
Putin tells May to implement "the Will of the People"
Yes and your point is? He also said "There was a referendum what can she do?"
He's trying to sound reasonable and like he respects democracy, as dictators who fiddle their own elections have a tendency to do. What's that got to do with whether he was pro or anti Brexit?
Only a real zealot who thinks democracy doesn't have to be respected would see anything objectionable in that. How about anything at all pre Referendum where he's been pro Brexit? Or how about anything at all where he's been anti EU?
There are countless speeches he's given where he's anti NATO. That's his real bugbear not the EU.
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
This is a flat-out lie. The weakening of the EU has been a central part of Russia's foreign policy since 2011, under its "Eurasian" strategy. The promotion and funding in numerous countries of Eurosceptic parties has been done out in the open.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
Given we have now ended all restrictions, do we really need a constant update on Covid cases every day?
I'd say given we have ended all restrictions - i.e. we're doing something different - it's of even more interest. I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
Death rate maybe, as a rise in Covid deaths may lead to restrictions being restored.
Cases are not really relevant however
Cases become admissions which become deaths...
So Cases warn us of what is coming - sometimes.
That may have been the case pre vaccination, it is not really the case now over 90% of the UK population have been vaccinated and almost 2/3 have had their boosters as well
Yes it is.
CFR has dropped a lot, but people are still going to hospital and dying from COVID. The ratios have changed, but that is all.
Well do we report winter flu cases and deaths everyday too?
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
That’s interesting. So Lviv residents could be called Leopolitans?
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
Sorry to hear. Last thing you need!
We can’t move on from Brexit, though. It’s an original sin.
But I agree on you last point. We should aim for rapprochement with our EU allies; perhaps that is the silver lining to be had from this Russian cloud.
My grandson (8) was taken into A & E yesterday at 2.00pm with vomiting and stomach pains and it was only this morning at 7.00am he saw a doctor. The nurses had cared for him overnight, with his mother, but at lunchtime they decided he had appendicitis and he is presently undergoing surgery to remove the appendix
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
You just don't want to see it because you've convinced yourself the Greens are synonymous with Corbynites. But they aren't.
People like Putin hate the Greens. They can't stand the idea of people weaning themselves off the fossil fuel addiction that keeps them dependent on big oil and gas exporters like Russia.
Yes, the Greens are aggressively anti-Putin too, even more so in Germany where they outdo both the SPD and the CDU on the subject. He ticks all their boxes for hate figures - authoritarian, pro-oil/gas, militarist, and a Big State type. It's a category error to think "some lefties are reflexively pro-Russian" (something that's become less true with time), and "Greens are lefties" (generally true in the UK, less so in Germany) therefore "Greens are pro-Russian" (nonsense).
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
You just don't want to see it because you've convinced yourself the Greens are synonymous with Corbynites. But they aren't.
People like Putin hate the Greens. They can't stand the idea of people weaning themselves off the fossil fuel addiction that keeps them dependent on big oil and gas exporters like Russia.
Yes, the Greens are aggressively anti-Putin too, even more so in Germany where they outdo both the SPD and the CDU on the subject. He ticks all their boxes for hate figures - authoritarian, pro-oil/gas, militarist, and a Big State type. It's a category error to think "some lefties are reflexively pro-Russian" (something that's become less true with time), and "Greens are lefties" (generally true in the UK, less so in Germany) therefore "Greens are pro-Russian" (nonsense).
How much cash has Germany given to Putin as a result of the decision to abandon nuclear power and did the Greens support that policy?
Why would he have done? No need to recognise a couple of tinpot fascist dictatorships when he could have just breezed in and annexed Belorussia, Ukraine and Moldova all at once with the blessing of the President of the USA.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
Johnson is a tactical dilettante who bounces around from lie to lie, broken promise to broken promise, vacuous threat to vacuous threat. Putin plays the long game all the time and will be thanking those in 🇷🇺who worked so hard to buy the Tory Party, help get Brexit and weaken🇬🇧 https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1496146205985882117
As much as I don't like Johnson, I'm tired of people like Campbell and Adonis trying to pin this crisis on Brexit. Considering the main competence of Western defence in Europe remains with NATO, I have little doubt that Russia would have continued regardless of whether Britain was in or out of the EU.
But it doesn't help at all, that Britain is out of the EU, and communication and co-ordination with a reasonable-size power is thus weakened .
Just as Putin would have wanted, and indeed was very open about wanting.
That's a load of rubbish I'm afraid. The UK government has been very careful not to let leaving the EU affect our commitment as a country to the defence of Europe. Our friends inside the EU in the Baltic and Poland are very grateful for the actions we've been taking.
There seems to be this view amongst some elements of the Remain camp that we're not even able to have a discussion with the EU any more because we left which is a total myth. Just because we're outside the club doesn't mean we don't have common interests that we can still pool together on.
Well said.
There's no evidence at all Putin was anti-EU or wanted the UK out of the EU. There are die-hard Remain zealots who project their own viewpoints on it, but all Putin ever speaks about is NATO not the EU - and if anything the EU was undermining "braindead" NATO until Putin has just breathed new life into it.
Remainers may want to credit the EU with all NATO's successes but those of us in the real world know it is NATO that is the power that matters, not the EU.
This is a flat-out lie. The weakening of the EU has been a central part of Russia's foreign policy since 2011, under its "Eurasian" strategy. The promotion and funding in numerous countries of Eurosceptic parties has been done out in the open.
Any evidence for that?
I mean, yes, there's tonnes of it out there. If you want a good executive summary of where things have been over the past few decades, I recommend starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relations After that, read the sources because, well, Wikipedia, you know. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has some good stuff from memory, and lastly I can't recommend Tim Snyder highly enough. In fact, I've just discovered he's got a substack I've just read one of his pieces, but I haven't explored what else is in there yet: https://substack.com/profile/30618158-timothy-snyder, it's his books that I'm quite keen on.
For the purposes of Putin's anti-EU stance, focus on the so called "Eurasian strategy". And try to enjoy the bizarre ahistoricity of the justifications of it because otherwise you'll weep. Some of it's been hinted at in today's discussions on here, going back to Viking Rus. It's old fashioned deranged nationalist mythologising. As Snyder says (this made me laugh out loud): "A historian confronted with this sort of mess is in the same unhappy situation as a zoologist in a slaughterhouse."
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Seeds of discord etc...
It's not a spy game though. The Russian government is acting irresponsibly, and in a way that risks all of our futures (I don't think the west is blameless). There are 140million Russians. I don't believe it's the case that they can't guide one man into somewhat less belligerant channels?
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
You just don't want to see it because you've convinced yourself the Greens are synonymous with Corbynites. But they aren't.
People like Putin hate the Greens. They can't stand the idea of people weaning themselves off the fossil fuel addiction that keeps them dependent on big oil and gas exporters like Russia.
Yes, the Greens are aggressively anti-Putin too, even more so in Germany where they outdo both the SPD and the CDU on the subject. He ticks all their boxes for hate figures - authoritarian, pro-oil/gas, militarist, and a Big State type. It's a category error to think "some lefties are reflexively pro-Russian" (something that's become less true with time), and "Greens are lefties" (generally true in the UK, less so in Germany) therefore "Greens are pro-Russian" (nonsense).
A good while back, quite a few of the SWP types got into the Red/Green thing, in the UK, but they seem to have dropped out, mostly.
Comments
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1496129713227579411
Putin tells May to implement "the Will of the People"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyksXSOnwQ0
Morrison also leads Albanese 40% to 35% still as preferred PM and the later was more predictive of the result in 2019 than the 2PP
https://essentialreport.com.au/reports/federal-political-insights
https://ria.ru/20220222/soglasie-1774434602.html
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine?
Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family?
And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds.
And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
But most of this is a very long time ago. it is a bit like redrawing the English, French, Danish and Norwegian borders based on the situation in England in the 11th century.
However, the fact that Spain has problems of how to deal with minority areas wouldn't mean that Russia (or France, or anyone else) could legitimately march in and annex them.
International borders are highly contentious. But the principle must be that they are only changed with the consent of the country concerned and the people concerned. To do otherwise is to invite constant war.
I would have supported the rights of the people of the Crimea to have separated from the Ukraine and, should they have decided it, its subsequent union with Russia, right up to the point where Russia unilaterally decided to annex it.
But the primary principle must be that these things are not simply done by force.
I think the news will continue to be good. But should I be wrong I don't want to be oblivious to it.
- Cases down. R below 1. Scotland is near 1 - why? Some indication it is falling back, though.
- Admission down.
- MV beds down
- In hospital down
- Deaths down
Russia's aggressive foreign actions need stopping. Preferably before they gobble up Ukraine; certainly before they threaten other neighbouring states.
“Errr. Terra Cotta Sir.”
Sniggers echo up into the vast chamber.
“Have you even read the email, Krotchlickmehoff?”
“…I think so sir. Round yours for the Chelsea game?”
I know it is not all about getting likes, but I didn’t get one for my “I said gin, not Jinns” quip last night. 😕
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_language_in_Ukraine
...The first known mention of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine refer to a small ethnic sub-group of Russians known as the Goriuns who resided in Putyvl region (what is modern northern Ukraine). These mentions date back to the times of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or perhaps even earlier.[1][2]
The Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist in that country through two channels: the migration of ethnic Russians into what later became Ukraine and through the adoption of the Russian language as a language of communication by Ukrainians....
Similarly, the Orthodox Church in what is now Ukraine long preceded the one in Moscow. The Russians did their best to eliminate a distinctive Ukrainian church by force in the nineteenth century.
What Putin is attempting to recreate is an imperial relationship.
The history is obviously a lot more complicated than that, but as a simplifying myth, it holds a great deal more truth than Putin's version.
And FWIW, Ukraine's president is a native speaker of Russian.
Cases are not really relevant however
This is an area with few natural boundaries, and empires and states and statelets have ebbed and flowed constantly across this landscape. At one stage the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth held considerable sway from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
To summarise in one sentence: its complex, and not necessarily that relevant to the reality of the 21st century.
But very interesting nonetheless.
This is rather good - a map of the world, every year in history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Wu0Q7x5D0
EDIT: slightly better for our discussion: this one focuses just on Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
I’m not sure if it’s anything of mine you are answering though.
Russia has attacked us directly on a couple of occasions; killing two people in the process. One with a chemical weapon, one with a radiological one. And in their usual incompetent way, one of those deaths was of someone utterly uninvolved with Russian affairs.
I'd strongly argue that combatting that is in Britain's vital interests. Yet alone the risk Russia poses to the rest of eastern Europe.
So Cases warn us of what is coming - sometimes.
Translated from Russian by ⚡️
The Federation Council allowed the use of the army in the Donbass4:06 PM · Feb 22, 2022·TweetDeck"
https://twitter.com/rianru/status/1496154487777542156
We'll know a lot more then.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
I wonder if Putin’s Shenanigans will produce a “better stick with the strong man we know” swing to the government?
CFR has dropped a lot, but people are still going to hospital and dying from COVID. The ratios have changed, but that is all.
Along with everything going on, and not least the Ukraine crisis, I have been rather bad tempered and would like to apologise directly to @Scott_xP for suggesting he is a Putin apologist as he clearly is not
However, reading the various posts the underlying theme is yet again brexit and to be honest we all need to move on from what happened in 2016 and realise that we should all be on the same page conceding that the real culprit is Putin, and to endeavour to act in unity to face down this very dangerous individual that is putting millions of lives at risk across Europe
Which considering how servile he is, tells you something.
posts do get “edited” I know, which is why it didn’t make sense to me sorry.
Doesn't make the current Lithuania any less of a nation.
All have had three injections.
Could say all the more for the rest of us, of course!
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
He's trying to sound reasonable and like he respects democracy, as dictators who fiddle their own elections have a tendency to do. What's that got to do with whether he was pro or anti Brexit?
Only a real zealot who thinks democracy doesn't have to be respected would see anything objectionable in that. How about anything at all pre Referendum where he's been pro Brexit? Or how about anything at all where he's been anti EU?
There are countless speeches he's given where he's anti NATO. That's his real bugbear not the EU.
Hope you grandson gets well soon.
Seeds of discord etc...
Let us all hope this is the catalyst that helps to see a much better UK - EU relationship that is so needed
Masks will no longer be mandatory in shops and on public transport either, albeit advised
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60482303
So Lviv residents could be called Leopolitans?
I love weird demonyms.
We can’t move on from Brexit, though.
It’s an original sin.
But I agree on you last point. We should aim for rapprochement with our EU allies; perhaps that is the silver lining to be had from this Russian cloud.
This is arguably better:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/21/ukrainian-american-voters-eye-on-russia-00010148
After that, read the sources because, well, Wikipedia, you know. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has some good stuff from memory, and lastly I can't recommend Tim Snyder highly enough. In fact, I've just discovered he's got a substack I've just read one of his pieces, but I haven't explored what else is in there yet: https://substack.com/profile/30618158-timothy-snyder, it's his books that I'm quite keen on.
For the purposes of Putin's anti-EU stance, focus on the so called "Eurasian strategy". And try to enjoy the bizarre ahistoricity of the justifications of it because otherwise you'll weep. Some of it's been hinted at in today's discussions on here, going back to Viking Rus. It's old fashioned deranged nationalist mythologising. As Snyder says (this made me laugh out loud): "A historian confronted with this sort of mess is in the same unhappy situation as a zoologist in a slaughterhouse."