I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Frankly, if London property prices crash as a result of getting dirty money out of London, that would be a good thing. I am frankly sick of hearing about ludicrously overpriced properties, of whole areas going dark because houses are bought and not lived in, of local businesses failing because there is no local population and knowing how hard it will be for my children to get onto the property ladder because of the effects of London property being treated as a bank by the crooked and corrupt of the world.
The Chinese are worse.
The Chinese regime is dreadful, but it does at least have the advantage of being led by rational actors with clearly defined and comprehensible aims, even if we don't agree with them. If Xi were anything like Putin he'd be sending the troops in to bite random chunks out of Vietnam and Mongolia and install client satraps, and threatening to nuke Bhutan if it ran away screaming into an alliance with India.
Putin is a far more dangerous and volatile proposition, and so is Russia itself. The escalating rupture to economic and cultural ties - in everything from football to banking transactions - does at least suggest that the penny is finally dropping, even (it would now appear) amongst hitherto sympathetic states like Hungary and Cyprus. If the Russians won't junk Putin and reform - and I'm betting that they won't - then the rupture should be total. We will have to deal with the buggers at the United Nations, but other than that let's have nothing more to do with them.
I think like everyone, Putin's actions are pulling him ever closer to the thing he fears most, the disintegration of his state apparatus at the hands of the West. After his formative experiences in the collapse of the GDR, when he called for back up and it never came, his whole career has been built on preventing this from happening, but his own actions will bring it about. We can scream 'Yes' at something and it will come; we can scream 'No' at something and it will still come.
But sorry, in no way is Russia more of a threat to us than China. They haven't unleashed a pandemic on us for one thing.
Of course Russia is more of a threat to us than China. It is on the same continent as us for starters while China is on the other side of the world.
Post vaccination Covid is also now much less of an issue. China may be more of a threat to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Australia than us, Russia is more of a threat to Europe and us however than China is
As far as the non-tentacled community is concerned, we're not.
"Islands are generally grouped with the nearest continental landmass, hence Iceland is considered to be part of Europe, while the nearby island of Greenland is usually assigned to North America, although politically belonging to Denmark."
The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe because that is basic geology/geography. Just as much as Sicily of any of the Greek Islands. Luckyguy needs to go back to school.
Nope. You have swallowed the whole continental drift = plate tectonics thang. It doesn't, why would it? Continental drift theory is up there with phlogiston and the universal aether, so why would plate tectonics have anytrhing useful to say about the definition of continent?
Also are Spain and Portugal part of Europe or Africa?
You are arguing geology with a geologist? You are truly deluded.
Hahahahahaha
You: your head is the organ attached to the extremity of your left leg
Me: You sure?
You: Are you arguing physiology with a physiologist?
I don't know if you are a geologist or not, but I do know that you majored in neither history of science, nor logic. Geology has nothing to say about the definition of "continent", you only think it does because of a rather confused misunderstanding of Weigener's mad and untenable theories and the utterly misleading superficial resemblance between them and plate tectonics.
Spain n Portugal: E or A? Answer the Q.
Given the amount of time I have been around on here, the fact I use my own name and am known to plenty of posters outside of PB as well I am not sure I have to provide any proof about the fact that I am a professional geologist. Continental drift is a well established and accepted scientific theory. Not least because we can actually see it happening, measure it happening today and have vast amounts of evidence about it having happened in the past. I will henceforth regard you as a flat earther and treat you with the appropriate scorn.
Mind you I was scornful of you before so nothing changes much really.
Not to defend Ishmael but I think when he says Continental Drift he refers to the original theory which certainly isn’t well established/accepted. Sure, the continents are drifting, but because of plate tectonics not centrifugal force as originally Wegner proposed
In which case he is making an utterly pointless distinction. The effect is the same. Plates move relative to one another. They are subducted beneath one another or form mountain chains depending one whether they are formed of continental or oceanic crust. We are part of the Eurasian plate which is formed from a series of older plates. Northwest Scotland was part of the North American plate and Western Newfoundland was part of the Eurasian plate before the opening of the Atlantic. This is all basic accepted stuff. What ever delusions Ishmael is suffering from have no place in proper science.
Yes, I know all that. it is all correct. Nobody disputes it. This argument is all just over your head, isn't it?
4th and final time before gin o'clock: SPAIN; EUROPE OR AFRICA?
Nether. It is part of the Iberian plate which is now part of the Eurasian plate.
Or in your terminology about half way to the edge of the world.
Is it going to make a difference? Weren't you saying the other day that it's worse for Russia in terms of capital flight to remain in SWIFT?
Russian exclusion from SWIFT has many benefits for us it also had a few disadvantages for us.
I suspect a coup in Moscow will be more damaging than exclusion from SWIFT for Putin.
We won't know if it is the right decision for a few months, if not years.
If Ukraine is asking for something, then we should trust that it's the right course and do it. The merits should not be judged based on the advantages and disadvantages "for us". They want Russia excluded from SWIFT. So that should happen. End of argument.
The only exception to that rule would be if a course of action that risked dragging NATO into direct conflict with Russia, so while we should be meeting their requests for additional weapons and resupply, we should not provide any troops on the ground or a protected air corridor within Ukraine.
Why are we so meek about this? Russia has already risked direct conflict with NATO. They started this. So what if there's a risk of direct conflict with Russia? You have to stand up to bullies and not cower in the corner. The Ukrainians are not cowering.
Russia has just as much to loose re. nuclear exchange as we do, so MAD still stands.
You've posted a lot sensible posts on the site here Gallowgate, but this isn't one of them.
I honestly disagree. With that attitude Russia could roll over half of Europe and we wouldn't do anything because it might "risk direct conflict with Russia". Where is the line?
NATO membership is as arbitrary as can be.
No, NATO membership has very clearly defined rules and limits ; an attack on one is an attack on all. So far the West's critical interests have not been endangered, and a madman is threatening exactly that if action moves directly between NATO. There's no rational sense in NATO risking everything to defend an area which is not part of it.
Do you honestly think the British public would be more willing to defend Latvia with British blood than Ukraine? It's entirely arbitrary.
I certainly would, but then I understand what being in NATO means.
As @solarflare has just said, our response to the Ukraine situation could upset Vlad. But I think we should do as much as we can short of troops on the ground.
I heard Jen Psaki making it clear that America will not be fighting Russia. That's fine, but I think I'd quite like our leaders to say "...but we are going to cause as much pain to Russia as possible, whatever the consequences."
I'm not necessarily arguing we should have "troops on the ground" but we certainly shouldn't be absolute cowards.
We should be giving them air coverage and shooting down Russian planes if needed.
Is it going to make a difference? Weren't you saying the other day that it's worse for Russia in terms of capital flight to remain in SWIFT?
Russian exclusion from SWIFT has many benefits for us it also had a few disadvantages for us.
I suspect a coup in Moscow will be more damaging than exclusion from SWIFT for Putin.
We won't know if it is the right decision for a few months, if not years.
If Ukraine is asking for something, then we should trust that it's the right course and do it. The merits should not be judged based on the advantages and disadvantages "for us". They want Russia excluded from SWIFT. So that should happen. End of argument.
The only exception to that rule would be if a course of action that risked dragging NATO into direct conflict with Russia, so while we should be meeting their requests for additional weapons and resupply, we should not provide any troops on the ground or a protected air corridor within Ukraine.
Why are we so meek about this? Russia has already risked direct conflict with NATO. They started this. So what if there's a risk of direct conflict with Russia? You have to stand up to bullies and not cower in the corner. The Ukrainians are not cowering.
Russia has just as much to loose re. nuclear exchange as we do, so MAD still stands.
You've posted a lot sensible posts on the site here Gallowgate, but this isn't one of them.
I honestly disagree. With that attitude Russia could roll over half of Europe and we wouldn't do anything because it might "risk direct conflict with Russia". Where is the line?
NATO membership is as arbitrary as can be.
No, NATO membership has very clearly defined rules and limits ; an attack on one is an attack on all. So far the West's critical interests have not been endangered, and a madman is threatening exactly that if action moves directly between NATO. There's no rational sense in NATO risking everything to defend an area which is not part of it.
Do you honestly think the British public would be more willing to defend Latvia with British blood than Ukraine? It's entirely arbitrary.
But it's a line in the sand, though, and how international alliances work.
There is nothing stopping NATO countries from interfering in Ukraine - that has nothing to do with NATO itself.
Apart from an all out nuclear war and the destruction of the western world you mean.
Is it going to make a difference? Weren't you saying the other day that it's worse for Russia in terms of capital flight to remain in SWIFT?
Russian exclusion from SWIFT has many benefits for us it also had a few disadvantages for us.
I suspect a coup in Moscow will be more damaging than exclusion from SWIFT for Putin.
We won't know if it is the right decision for a few months, if not years.
If Ukraine is asking for something, then we should trust that it's the right course and do it. The merits should not be judged based on the advantages and disadvantages "for us". They want Russia excluded from SWIFT. So that should happen. End of argument.
The only exception to that rule would be if a course of action that risked dragging NATO into direct conflict with Russia, so while we should be meeting their requests for additional weapons and resupply, we should not provide any troops on the ground or a protected air corridor within Ukraine.
Why are we so meek about this? Russia has already risked direct conflict with NATO. They started this. So what if there's a risk of direct conflict with Russia? You have to stand up to bullies and not cower in the corner. The Ukrainians are not cowering.
Russia has just as much to loose re. nuclear exchange as we do, so MAD still stands.
We don't have the resources for a proxy war with Russia, public opinion is not there, and we prefer a policy of 'de escalation' even though it has been a disaster to date.
NATO does though - that's what I mean by "we".
We shouldn't seek out conflict with Russia, obviously, but I honestly am starting to doubt the value of NATO. I can see the same arguments being made if a NATO baltic state was attacked, regardless of NATO membership, and there ends NATO, especially if Trump is president.
NATO is probably fucked, but membership does mean that Putin would think twice about invading a member state. With Ukraine, he was virtually invited in as he was repeatedly assured that the US would not resist any invasion. But you are correct that we will only know if NATO works if it is tested. That day may soon arrive.
The root of much reluctance to confront Russia is public lethargy towards war following the experience of the last 20 years. Maybe these events in Ukraine will be a wake up call.
I think the nuclear 'mutually assured destruction' aspect has something to do with it. Playing chicken with this is incredibly risky. With rational actors the worst can never happen - since such weapons cannot be used - therefore they are a deterrent only in the hands of a nutcase. Like Putin might be.
Putin has done more for European unity in one week than Europe has managed in the last 10 years. However Ukraine plays out, that is hugely significant. It is a chance for a reset - among the EU 27 and between the UK and the EU. We are all learning some important lessons right now and, crucially, seem to be learning from them pretty quickly.
This is why the whole "Brexit is what Putin wants" was always nonsense. There's never been any master plan from them.
He could want it and try to help it come to pass without it being a masterplan or a big factor in the outcome.
In fact I think that this - as above - is a fair and accurate way to put it viz Putin and Brexit.
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Frankly, if London property prices crash as a result of getting dirty money out of London, that would be a good thing. I am frankly sick of hearing about ludicrously overpriced properties, of whole areas going dark because houses are bought and not lived in, of local businesses failing because there is no local population and knowing how hard it will be for my children to get onto the property ladder because of the effects of London property being treated as a bank by the crooked and corrupt of the world.
The Chinese are worse.
The Chinese regime is dreadful, but it does at least have the advantage of being led by rational actors with clearly defined and comprehensible aims, even if we don't agree with them. If Xi were anything like Putin he'd be sending the troops in to bite random chunks out of Vietnam and Mongolia and install client satraps, and threatening to nuke Bhutan if it ran away screaming into an alliance with India.
Putin is a far more dangerous and volatile proposition, and so is Russia itself. The escalating rupture to economic and cultural ties - in everything from football to banking transactions - does at least suggest that the penny is finally dropping, even (it would now appear) amongst hitherto sympathetic states like Hungary and Cyprus. If the Russians won't junk Putin and reform - and I'm betting that they won't - then the rupture should be total. We will have to deal with the buggers at the United Nations, but other than that let's have nothing more to do with them.
I think like everyone, Putin's actions are pulling him ever closer to the thing he fears most, the disintegration of his state apparatus at the hands of the West. After his formative experiences in the collapse of the GDR, when he called for back up and it never came, his whole career has been built on preventing this from happening, but his own actions will bring it about. We can scream 'Yes' at something and it will come; we can scream 'No' at something and it will still come.
But sorry, in no way is Russia more of a threat to us than China. They haven't unleashed a pandemic on us for one thing.
So what you're saying is, it is less bad to be killed by a Dictator controlling enough nuclear radiation to destroy the World tens of times over than it is an uncontrolled release of a deadly contagious virus?
Is it going to make a difference? Weren't you saying the other day that it's worse for Russia in terms of capital flight to remain in SWIFT?
Russian exclusion from SWIFT has many benefits for us it also had a few disadvantages for us.
I suspect a coup in Moscow will be more damaging than exclusion from SWIFT for Putin.
We won't know if it is the right decision for a few months, if not years.
If Ukraine is asking for something, then we should trust that it's the right course and do it. The merits should not be judged based on the advantages and disadvantages "for us". They want Russia excluded from SWIFT. So that should happen. End of argument.
The only exception to that rule would be if a course of action that risked dragging NATO into direct conflict with Russia, so while we should be meeting their requests for additional weapons and resupply, we should not provide any troops on the ground or a protected air corridor within Ukraine.
Why are we so meek about this? Russia has already risked direct conflict with NATO. They started this. So what if there's a risk of direct conflict with Russia? You have to stand up to bullies and not cower in the corner. The Ukrainians are not cowering.
Russia has just as much to loose re. nuclear exchange as we do, so MAD still stands.
You've posted a lot sensible posts on the site here Gallowgate, but this isn't one of them.
I honestly disagree. With that attitude Russia could roll over half of Europe and we wouldn't do anything because it might "risk direct conflict with Russia". Where is the line?
NATO membership is as arbitrary as can be.
No, NATO membership has very clearly defined rules and limits ; an attack on one is an attack on all. So far the West's critical interests have not been endangered, and a madman is threatening exactly that if action moves directly between NATO. There's no rational sense in NATO risking everything to defend an area which is not part of it.
Do you honestly think the British public would be more willing to defend Latvia with British blood than Ukraine? It's entirely arbitrary.
But it's a line in the sand, though, and how international alliances work.
There is nothing stopping NATO countries from interfering in Ukraine - that has nothing to do with NATO itself.
Apart from an all out nuclear war and the destruction of the western world you mean.
The same would apply if Russia invaded Latvia. Or would you be making the same arguments to justify not meeting the defensive obligation in that scenario?
I don't agree with your take on this crisis - I'm less inclined to escalate it - but I do think you're right in how you're looking at NATO. It's neither a red herring nor gospel but it's closer to the first than the second. If a country is attacked, whether the US will defend it militarily depends on the perceived risk/reward calculus of their leadership at the time. If it passes that test, NATO or no NATO, it will be defended by them. If it doesn't, NATO or no NATO, it won't.
Is it going to make a difference? Weren't you saying the other day that it's worse for Russia in terms of capital flight to remain in SWIFT?
Russian exclusion from SWIFT has many benefits for us it also had a few disadvantages for us.
I suspect a coup in Moscow will be more damaging than exclusion from SWIFT for Putin.
We won't know if it is the right decision for a few months, if not years.
If Ukraine is asking for something, then we should trust that it's the right course and do it. The merits should not be judged based on the advantages and disadvantages "for us". They want Russia excluded from SWIFT. So that should happen. End of argument.
The only exception to that rule would be if a course of action that risked dragging NATO into direct conflict with Russia, so while we should be meeting their requests for additional weapons and resupply, we should not provide any troops on the ground or a protected air corridor within Ukraine.
Why are we so meek about this? Russia has already risked direct conflict with NATO. They started this. So what if there's a risk of direct conflict with Russia? You have to stand up to bullies and not cower in the corner. The Ukrainians are not cowering.
Russia has just as much to loose re. nuclear exchange as we do, so MAD still stands.
You've posted a lot sensible posts on the site here Gallowgate, but this isn't one of them.
I honestly disagree. With that attitude Russia could roll over half of Europe and we wouldn't do anything because it might "risk direct conflict with Russia". Where is the line?
NATO membership is as arbitrary as can be.
No, NATO membership has very clearly defined rules and limits ; an attack on one is an attack on all. So far the West's critical interests have not been endangered, and a madman is threatening exactly that if action moves directly between NATO. There's no rational sense in NATO risking everything to defend an area which is not part of it.
Do you honestly think the British public would be more willing to defend Latvia with British blood than Ukraine? It's entirely arbitrary.
For the public, yes, but national agreements between governments are a bit more cold blooded.
Comments
Or in your terminology about half way to the edge of the world.
In fact I think that this - as above - is a fair and accurate way to put it viz Putin and Brexit.
It's a theory.