- 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. 😕
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.
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.
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).
Good observation.
Paul Mason has been distinguishing (roughly) between the "neo-Stalinist" left and the "global left". I'm not commenting on how right I think he is.
Worth a note that PM himself has Lithuanian background in his family.
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?
The Russian state isn't controlled by the people. It's controlled by a few hundred people at the top. Get them to fight each other and you are off to the races.
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
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 too clever by half and based on a patronising view that everyone can be manipulated by purely financial incentives. It's like applying Gordon Brown's view of welfare to foreign policy.
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?
The Russian state isn't controlled by the people. It's controlled by a few hundred people at the top. Get them to fight each other and you are off to the races.
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
The Russian state like all others is at the behest of the people.
The Russian rich get to play overseas, no questions asked. I think it's time we asked questions of all Russians - like 'what on earth are you doing?'.
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 too clever by half and based on a patronising view that everyone can be manipulated by purely financial incentives. It's like applying Gordon Brown's view of welfare to foreign policy.
It has worked in various other conflicts - for example in Serbia, targeting Milošević's crew persuaded others to move against him, in the end.
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.
Seems to me that Putin's main calculation is that the West is all talk and no action, and he may be right.
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.
Jessop has made a career of signalling his virtue long before 'Virtue Signalling' ever became a thing.
Nauseating to some but it's all part of the whacky world of PB.
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?
Lots, and yes, but you don't need to spend more than 5 minutes looking at Green views on the issue to know that they aren't anti-nuclear in order to please Putin. That's just silly. And I say that as someone who thinks they're wrong about nuclear.
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.
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.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Well he was aquitted of the sex pest crap, selling programmes to a UK registered and licenced TV station is hardly a stooge. Have you seen any Russian propaganda or input in any of his independent programmes. Also plenty of SCots still like and support him especially as he was stitched up by a dodgy set of government , police and legal system. As rotten at the core as the Tory government and possibly worse. @Gardenwalker
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Well he was aquitted of the sex pest crap, selling programmes to a UK registered and licenced TV station is hardly a stooge. Have you seen any Russian propaganda or input in any of his independent programmes. Also plenty of SCots still like and support him especially as he was stitched up by a dodgy set of government , police and legal system. As rotten at the core as the Tory government and possibly worse. @Gardenwalker
Thanks for the response. From memory, his approval ratings - in Scotland! - are at Boris Johnson levels, and even his own lawyer had to concede he was a bit dodgy (I forget the exact quote).
When I look at other RT “hosts” like Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn I do think Mr Salmond is badly advised to continue doing that show.
I accept though that something smells at the heart of the SNP administration, although nobody seems to have quite put their finger on it yet.
Regarding Mr Salmond, I would only concede that he would be good to go for a drink with, which I would not say about Boris or Nicola.
Comments
“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
Paul Mason has been distinguishing (roughly) between the "neo-Stalinist" left and the "global left". I'm not commenting on how right I think he is.
Worth a note that PM himself has Lithuanian background in his family.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1496061614092656641
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
The Russian rich get to play overseas, no questions asked. I think it's time we asked questions of all Russians - like 'what on earth are you doing?'.
Justin Trudeau’s crackdown on protests could make things worse
By seeking to curb free speech, he will aggravate Canada’s divisions" (£)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/justin-trudeaus-crackdown-on-protests-could-make-things-worse/21807707
Nauseating to some but it's all part of the whacky world of PB.
Apart from the last one
From memory, his approval ratings - in Scotland! - are at Boris Johnson levels, and even his own lawyer had to concede he was a bit dodgy (I forget the exact quote).
When I look at other RT “hosts” like Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn I do think Mr Salmond is badly advised to continue doing that show.
I accept though that something smells at the heart of the SNP administration, although nobody seems to have quite put their finger on it yet.
Regarding Mr Salmond, I would only concede that he would be good to go for a drink with, which I would not say about Boris or Nicola.