A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I haven't read the thread, but I 100% agree that Russia has had such a terrible experience so far, that Putin has no option but to win the war.
Simply, who is going to be frightened of Russia's military might given how the Ukrainians have defended themselves. (Plus, of course, it's not great for Russia's arms export industry. Who wants to buy their tanks or helicopters, when they can be so easily destroyed by cheap Western weapons?)
The problem with this - of course - is that it creates Putin's Afghanistan. A long lived, low level insurgency which ties down troops, costs a fortune, and happens in the context of severe economic sanctions.
Read the entire thread. 5 minutes that will really educate you. It did me, anyway
He makes an uncomfortable argument that cannot be avoided
It is an unpalatable and relevant one, undoubtedly. Grozny is the precedent. Zelenskiy is going to have think carefully - can near economic collapse push Russia to an agreement without demilitarisation except for missiles ?
If that doesn't work and with Russia gradually bombing more and more cities, he's going to have think very carefully about whether a "demilitarised" and vulnerable Ukraine, if any external guarantors can be agreed - is better than no Ukraine. At the moment that would be a very tough sell for his army , though.
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
Yes, quite right. In fact there is already far too much of an assumption in some circles that any Russian (or even British national of Russian origin) is by definition a Putin supporter.
If Putin isn't removed in the short term and (God forbid) things don't escalate outside of Ukraine to bring NATO into direct conflict then I think Russia will descend into something close to civil war.
I don't see much sign of civil war in Russia, some protests most of which are Bing sent to jail for 8 years. independent and out side media being silenced. and some Russians leaving Russia, but no civil war. As far as we can see there is no reason to think that a lot of Russians possibly a majority have swallowed his BS, and are pro his actions in Ukraine, or at lest not anti enough to protest. and even if they did decide to take up armies, its not clear where the arms would come form or who/how they would fight.
Its possible that the protest might grow, I hope they do, and if they grow large enough then maybe the police will not be able to arrest many as there will not be enough police and or police cells. but we are no where near that now but at which point do the police open fire on protests as they did in Belaruse? probably.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
How do we know it is 100% dodgy? That's surely for a court to decide. Freeze it, fine. Arbitrary seizure is not right.
I'm wondering if Abramovich is being used as an intermediary in some way. He's been advised to drop Chelsea as it is the most visible asset but has been allowed to keep other assets as long as he tries to talk Putin out of this.
In order to do so he can't make any public denunciation, even if his daughter can.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
That was not the viewpoint of the Soviets themselves in 1941. Rightly, as it turned out.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Because you regard Putin and Zelensky as if they are just as bad as each other?
I don’t, though. What a stupid accusation to make.
Then why even write the aforementioned sentence?
Because I mistakenly assumed PB wasn’t infested with virtue signalling lackwits.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes.
Because that is our treaty obligations.
We defend NATO countries, with our troops, our aircraft, and even - if necessary - our nuclear weapons.
But it is different for the Ukraine, because we don't have a treaty obligation.
Unless you're saying the UK has a duty to defend countries, irrespective of whether they have a mutual defence obligation.
Hmmn. Poor Ukraine. They should have read the small print. See it says here in the terms and conditions....
Nice democratic country but NOT a NATO member mate so, its subjugation, death and destruction, I'm afraid.
No small print, they aren't signatories. We no more send our troops against Russia for Ukraine, than Russia sends theirs against us for Iraq, or the USSR didn't directly fight the Americans in Vietnam.
What we will do is offer aid and support to Ukraine and help them. Just as the USSR aided the Vietcong rather than fought themselves.
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
Yes, quite right. In fact there is already far too much of an assumption in some circles that any Russian (or even British national of Russian origin) is by definition a Putin supporter.
My Islington friend has resiled herself to the fact that she may now never receive her inheritance (an apartment in Moscow).
On the other hand she feels vindicated that she never applied for Russian citizenship for her two children.
If Putin isn't removed in the short term and (God forbid) things don't escalate outside of Ukraine to bring NATO into direct conflict then I think Russia will descend into something close to civil war.
I don't see much sign of civil war in Russia, some protests most of which are Bing sent to jail for 8 years. independent and out side media being silenced. and some Russians leaving Russia, but no civil war. As far as we can see there is no reason to think that a lot of Russians possibly a majority have swallowed his BS, and are pro his actions in Ukraine, or at lest not anti enough to protest. and even if they did decide to take up armies, its not clear where the arms would come form or who/how they would fight.
Its possible that the protest might grow, I hope they do, and if they grow large enough then maybe the police will not be able to arrest many as there will not be enough police and or police cells. but we are no where near that now but at which point do the police open fire on protests as they did in Belaruse? probably.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes.
Because that is our treaty obligations.
We defend NATO countries, with our troops, our aircraft, and even - if necessary - our nuclear weapons.
But it is different for the Ukraine, because we don't have a treaty obligation.
Unless you're saying the UK has a duty to defend countries, irrespective of whether they have a mutual defence obligation.
Hmmn. Poor Ukraine. They should have read the small print. See it says here in the terms and conditions....
Nice democratic country but NOT a NATO member mate so, its subjugation, death and destruction, I'm afraid.
For the same reasons we did not attack Russia when they invaded Hungary, nor Czechoslovakia, nor Afghanistan, nor Chechnya. NATO is a defensive organisation, not a world's policeman. The duty of a Government is to protect its own citizens. Starting a nuclear war because we don't like what another country is doing does not do that.
It may be harsh but it is reality and all your railing against it won't change it one damn bit.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
Yes, quite right. In fact there is already far too much of an assumption in some circles that any Russian (or even British national of Russian origin) is by definition a Putin supporter.
It's a completely mad suggestion that the government brings primary legislation to target individuals and strip them of their property rights. It's the kind of stuff we'd accuse Putin of doing to his political enemies.
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
Sorry, it wasn't me that told the electorate that climate change was by far the greatest threat humanity faced.
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
Why? That makes no more sense than saying, if I think CVD or some form of cancer are the greatest threats I face, I am not going to wear a seatbelt or take precautions against sunburn. Why wouldn't I?
It makes sense because in this case the precautions against one interfere very seriously with the precautions against another.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
Would you have argued for Britain to make peace in 1940 rather than have London be bombed? Long run, the best thing for the world is a Russia forced to withdraw and Putin removed from power.
Of course the optimal outcome is Russian defeat and Putin gone. We all want that. It’s just highly improbable in the short term, and in that short term Putin could destroy half of Ukraine and kill a million Ukrainians. No one is coming to their aid, directly, because of the risk of nuclear war with Moscow
Britain in 1940 was in a much better place. An island, uninvaded, with a vast empire and a mighty navy. And a real chance of victory. And American cousins increasingly willing to help
You can’t compare them
The one possible ‘better’ outcome for Ukraine is that these hefty sanctions and world outrage split the Russian elite in super quick time, and Putin is unexpectedly toppled or muzzled. But that needs to happen in the coming days - or Ukrainian resistance will prove heroic but incredibly painful for Ukraine. It is their grievous choice as to whether the pain is worth it
Second time you posted that garbage. Anyone would think you had another agenda completely unrelated to the Ukraine.
Reading the piece it feels like political positioning, and one of a fairly small number of points where Brussels has been quicker off the mark.
Has he said the same about eg Switzerland and the Netherlands?
I think the one the BJ has seriously wrong is in not freezing the property sales etc first, and releasing them on proof that they are OK. That is a BJ faceplant.
Start(ed) talking to Russian representatives. The key issues on the agenda: 1. Immediate ceasefire 2. Armistice 3. Humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of civilians from destroyed or constantly shelled villages/cities. https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1499396344464637969
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes.
Because that is our treaty obligations.
We defend NATO countries, with our troops, our aircraft, and even - if necessary - our nuclear weapons.
But it is different for the Ukraine, because we don't have a treaty obligation.
Unless you're saying the UK has a duty to defend countries, irrespective of whether they have a mutual defence obligation.
Hmmn. Poor Ukraine. They should have read the small print. See it says here in the terms and conditions....
Nice democratic country but NOT a NATO member mate so, its subjugation, death and destruction, I'm afraid.
For the same reasons we did not attack Russia when they invaded Hungary, nor Czechoslovakia, nor Afghanistan, nor Chechnya. NATO is a defensive organisation, not a world's policeman. The duty of a Government is to protect its own citizens. Starting a nuclear war because we don't like what another country is doing does not do that.
It may be harsh but it is reality and all your railing against it won't change it one damn bit.
Nope you're right, and I guess in the end I just don't like standing around watching a bunch of bullies beat an innocent person to a pulp. Even if its for the right reasons and I am cheering the poor unfortunate victim on, it stick in my craw. It sticks in my craw big time.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
I think China will be very satisfied with the situation. Its making them look like the adults in the room, it's giving them a desperate trading partner to sell them lots of cheap gas, and buy lots of manufactured goods, it's weakening a potential future geopolitical rival.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Russia can't suddenly replace the EU with China as a market for its gas because there's only one (pretty small) pipe in existence today. They're planning a second, but it would still only be half the capacity of the original Nord Stream, and is due to be ready in 2028 (so probably more like 2030).
So, the idea that Russia can turn on a dime, and switch gas exports to China is for the birds.
Yes.
Isn't the capacity of the existing China pipeline about 10% of the European ones?
Unless, I guess, Russia or China has a large fleet of LNG carriers to hand, and relevant terminal.
At the same time and on the other hand, contra to that thread, the authority of the regime, or at least the stance of one part of it, seems to be shifting at the moment. Lavrov seems to be indicating he would accept only specific weapons ( missiles ) being out of there so far, and also saying some other things that Putin didn't. If the other side is moving, even amid the awful suffering and destruction, you wouldn't weaken your own position.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
That was not the viewpoint of the Soviets themselves in 1941. Rightly, as it turned out.
True. But they had the USA and UK as fighting allies. The Ukrainians have no-one.
Two Russian MPs have submitted a draft law to parliament that would call up for military service in Ukraine any Russians detained for participating in antiwar protests
Well, that's one way of getting yourself a well-motivated, highly trained army prepared to carry out orders to commit war crimes.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
No, it's the executive using the government majority to target individuals. It's wrong and I'm not shocked you would suggest this idea tbh.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
That was not the viewpoint of the Soviets themselves in 1941. Rightly, as it turned out.
True. But they had the USA and UK as fighting allies. The Ukrainians have no-one.
Correction UK as fighting ally. But the reasonable prospect of the USA joining in. No such prospect here.
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
Is he filming a documentary, why does he broadcast such talks to his council (even though they were not shown according to the tweets)? Home consumption could surely be handled with just a statement.
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
He looks very rattled.
@maxseddon Putin: “The special operation in Ukraine is going according to plan and in full compliance with the timetable. All tasks set during the special operation in Ukraine are being accomplished successfully.”
This time, the security council was held on Putin's Zoom and they didn't even show any of its members – it was just Putin speaking in a room for a few minutes.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes.
Because that is our treaty obligations.
We defend NATO countries, with our troops, our aircraft, and even - if necessary - our nuclear weapons.
But it is different for the Ukraine, because we don't have a treaty obligation.
Unless you're saying the UK has a duty to defend countries, irrespective of whether they have a mutual defence obligation.
Hmmn. Poor Ukraine. They should have read the small print. See it says here in the terms and conditions....
Nice democratic country but NOT a NATO member mate so, its subjugation, death and destruction, I'm afraid.
For the same reasons we did not attack Russia when they invaded Hungary, nor Czechoslovakia, nor Afghanistan, nor Chechnya. NATO is a defensive organisation, not a world's policeman. The duty of a Government is to protect its own citizens. Starting a nuclear war because we don't like what another country is doing does not do that.
It may be harsh but it is reality and all your railing against it won't change it one damn bit.
Yes, and ignores that whilst it is not doing enough as far as Ukraine and many people are concerned, it is doing something, and bloody good thing too.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
I hope you’re right but I think you’re over-optimistic. Putin will want guaranteed Ukrainian ‘neutrality’ as well. No NATO or EU membership, for a start. Some role for Russia in the Ukrainian military?
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
Is he filming a documentary, why does he broadcast such talks to his council (even though they were not shown according to the tweets)? Home consumption could surely be handled with just a statement.
The pomp and ceremony makes him look more powerful.
In 1998, the Russian stock market fell by 94% and the government fell within a week. Now the Russian stocks in London (the only real Russian stock market) have fallen by 98% in two weeks. This is worse than 1998. Time for the guilty president to go!
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
Sure, Parliament could pass a bill of attainder. And the very same people who are squealing now that the government isn't doing enough would squeal about that too.
According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?
Surely that can't work for an airline in the long term anyway?
If you're going to do that then you need to physically keep your assets out of any country where your creditors can get hold of them. But, if you're an airline, your whole business model involves flying your major assets to different countries. For the time being, they aren't doing that... but when normality returns (as it will at some point) they don't really have the option of keeping their assets in Russia (unless they become a 100% domestic airline). It also buggers their chance of acquiring planes in future.
A bit like blowing both your feet off to save on buying boots
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
That won't be enough to sell as a win back home after the collapse of the Russian economy to do it. Especially with the "neo-Nazi" Ukrainian government still in place.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
Sure, Parliament could pass a bill of attainder. And the very same people who are squealing now that the government isn't doing enough would squeal about that too.
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
So it's Russian kin whose residential neighborhoods he is levelling.
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
It's worth keeping in mind that Zelensky has domestic opponents too, nearly all of whom are much more nationalist (and often more corrupt) than he is. At the moment he clearly has overwhelming support as the war leader, and he could probably sell a deal guaranteeing neutrality and not stationing foreign missiles on Ukraine's soil. Signing away Crimea and the eastern provinces (especially if expanded to form a coherent land mass) would come under massive attack from extremist rivals. The Minsk deal, recognising them as a partly self-governing region like Scotland within a unified Ukraine looks much easier to achieve, and also more durable than insisting that they are governed from Kyiv down to the finest detail.
It's not up to us to tell them what to do, and unless Russia halts the war it's moot anyway. But it's important to recognise that he has a balancing act in negotiations.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
Sure, Parliament could pass a bill of attainder. And the very same people who are squealing now that the government isn't doing enough would squeal about that too.
And this time they’d be right.
If I was in power, I would put forward a Bill of Attainder. All the oligarchs. Not confiscation - death. Plus a couple of names from the opposition who were complaining about the process taking too long.
"Hey, justice requires sacrifices - aren't you prepared to be one of them?"
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
I said maximalist, you say extreme.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
Zelensky would make a tactical mistake if he publicly offered to compromise. In talks or via covert channels he may decide he has to in order to avoid extreme levels of civilian casualties.
Deep down I think he's a family man and probably open to compromise.
I would not support removing any sanctions on Russia though.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
Sure, Parliament could pass a bill of attainder. And the very same people who are squealing now that the government isn't doing enough would squeal about that too.
Anybody rejecting the idea of a bill of attainder is hardly "squealing". Bills of attainder are tyranny, pure and simple.
Indeed. But it's what IshmaelZ is effectively asking for.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would continue to mention Brexit in a thread about Ukraine / sanctions.
Anyone reading Scott's posts would understand why the reference was made.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
No, it's the executive using the government majority to target individuals. It's wrong and I'm not shocked you would suggest this idea tbh.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
No, you just don't have so much as a fail at O Level understanding of the constitution. The legislature is the legislature. It legislates. The courts "properly test" things by reference to the legislation, not to some ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness floating around over their heads.
Why do you condemn this as "targeting individuals"? I mean, drunk driving legislation targets the individuals who drink drive. Is that a problem?
If you have access to any reputable sources, look what we legislated to do to individuals' property at short notice and on the most tenuous grounds during WW2.
and btw if you have been misled by my proposed Take Roman's Assets away Act in previous thread, that was a JOKE.
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.” https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
Sure, Parliament could pass a bill of attainder. And the very same people who are squealing now that the government isn't doing enough would squeal about that too.
Anybody rejecting the idea of a bill of attainder is hardly "squealing". Bills of attainder are tyranny, pure and simple.
Indeed. But it's what IshmaelZ is effectively asking for.
Like I say, don't hold your breath.
A bill or indeed an Act of Attainder is not legislation, and indeed that is the main theoretical objection to it, that it's the legislature acting judicially. So your point is?
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
I said maximalist, you say extreme.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
Zelensky would make a tactical mistake if he publicly offered to compromise. In talks or via covert channels he may decide he has to in order to avoid extreme levels of civilian casualties.
Deep down I think he's a family man and probably open to compromise.
I would not support removing any sanctions on Russia though.
I think you are probably right. From Zelensky we can attribute a degree of rationality and very good media management and tactics and personal courage. Events might yet save him from having to make a hard deal though. I'm pretty confident the damage to Russia economically is going to be huge unless Putin is removed soon.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
I hope you’re right but I think you’re over-optimistic. Putin will want guaranteed Ukrainian ‘neutrality’ as well. No NATO or EU membership, for a start. Some role for Russia in the Ukrainian military?
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
The Ukrainians have a British 1940 mindset about this.
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary for years, if necessary alone.At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, willdefend to the death their native soil,aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
It's worth keeping in mind that Zelensky has domestic opponents too, nearly all of whom are much more nationalist (and often more corrupt) than he is. At the moment he clearly has overwhelming support as the war leader, and he could probably sell a deal guaranteeing neutrality and not stationing foreign missiles on Ukraine's soil. Signing away Crimea and the eastern provinces (especially if expanded to form a coherent land mass) would come under massive attack from extremist rivals. The Minsk deal, recognising them as a partly self-governing region like Scotland within a unified Ukraine looks much easier to achieve....
Given Macron's report of Putin's conversation this afternoon, I think such talk is fanciful at the moment. You have a rational leader on one side, and... something else on the other.
Reposting this as it got lost in Malmsebury's excellent, but somewhat voluminous, covid update.
On topic: Erdington was also the most LEAVE seat in Birmingham: 63% to 37%.
I don't think it's a shoo-in for Labour.
But Dave Nellist is standing which feels about right for being back in the Cold War days.
If partygate hadn't happened, this could have been interesting. It just feels like it will be an easy labour win - too many people irritated by the hypocrisy in No 10.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
I hope you’re right but I think you’re over-optimistic. Putin will want guaranteed Ukrainian ‘neutrality’ as well. No NATO or EU membership, for a start. Some role for Russia in the Ukrainian military?
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
The Ukrainians have a British 1940 mindset about this.
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary for years, if necessary alone.At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, willdefend to the death their native soil,aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
There's no question the Ukrainians have shown incredible bravery and indeed heroism, but like others I'm wary of transposing Britain's 1940 position onto them. Britain was still a great power, after all. The history of the entire region is also much more complex than that, with everyone investing their own historical experiences and symbolisms of the war onto it.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
I hope you’re right but I think you’re over-optimistic. Putin will want guaranteed Ukrainian ‘neutrality’ as well. No NATO or EU membership, for a start. Some role for Russia in the Ukrainian military?
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
The Ukrainians have a British 1940 mindset about this.
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary for years, if necessary alone.At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, willdefend to the death their native soil,aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
They have been heroic so far, but like others, I'm wary of transposing Britain's 1940 position onto them. Britain was still a great power, after all. The history of the entire region is also much more complex than that.
Britain was more powerful than Ukraine in 1940 but Germany was more powerful than current Russia too.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes because that is what we have agreed. IF Putin attacks a NATO country then we have no choice but to get involved and fight. But that will probably be the end of all of us one way or another. We do have a choice about Ukraine because we have no commitment to support them.
Both cases end up with us in a nuclear war with Russia. In the case of Ukraine we can choose not to take that step. And that is absolutely what we are right to do.
We *do* have a choice if Putin attacks a NATO country (eg a Baltic state) and the (unlikely but possible) choice might be to not defend it, NATO or no NATO, for the same reason we aren't defending Ukraine - the risk of nuclear war. But it doesn't matter. It's not the point. The point is that Vladimir Putin BELIEVES we would fight if he did this - that his calculations include an assumption that to attack a NATO state is a genuine blood red line which if crossed will trigger direct NATO engagement and retaliation. This is all that's important on this "MAD" aspect right now and all we (ie the US) can really do. And Biden is doing it. The messaging of 'Ukraine and no further' is clear as a bell.
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
He might be mad enough to try a Stalinist purge of any of the elite who oppose him.
No might about it. I am sure he would. He knows that if he falls he is quite unlikely to get a pleasant retirement. He is said to be obsessed with the videos of Gaddafi’s final moments: beaten, sodomised, then butchered.
Sodomised only with a bayonet, mind.
'Phew, some good news' thought Muammar in his final moments.
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
I hope you’re right but I think you’re over-optimistic. Putin will want guaranteed Ukrainian ‘neutrality’ as well. No NATO or EU membership, for a start. Some role for Russia in the Ukrainian military?
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
The Ukrainians have a British 1940 mindset about this.
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary for years, if necessary alone.At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, willdefend to the death their native soil,aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
They have been heroic so far, but like others, I'm wary of transposing Britain's 1940 position onto them. Britain was still a great power, after all. The history of the entire region is also much more complex than that.
Britain was more powerful than Ukraine in 1940 but Germany was more powerful than current Russia too.
Still much nearer in size and resources to draw on, though.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
The Azov battalion in the far south-east does contain a few neo-nazis, unfortunately. The fact that Putin has wildly blown this up into an authoritarian pretext to destroy the entire world shouldn't make that a taboo subject, necessarily, i think.
The reason for that is that this is a key part of Putin's paranoia - he thinks that all Ukrainians are anti-Eurasians "out to destroy Russia" for the sake of Europe. It's ironically very parallel to Hitler's view of the Slavs, or even the Jews.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I just tried to read up on the state of their Parliament and politics. I failed! That’s going to take some deeper reading. No lazy U.K. political parallels to be made it seems.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
No, it's the executive using the government majority to target individuals. It's wrong and I'm not shocked you would suggest this idea tbh.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
No, you just don't have so much as a fail at O Level understanding of the constitution. The legislature is the legislature. It legislates. The courts "properly test" things by reference to the legislation, not to some ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness floating around over their heads.
Why do you condemn this as "targeting individuals"? I mean, drunk driving legislation targets the individuals who drink drive. Is that a problem?
If you have access to any reputable sources, look what we legislated to do to individuals' property at short notice and on the most tenuous grounds during WW2.
and btw if you have been misled by my proposed Take Roman's Assets away Act in previous thread, that was a JOKE.
Actually as I understood it the courts test things by reference to legislation AND precedent - the accumulated decisions of previous cases - which could indeed be regarded as an 'ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness'.
4/ Four layers to the global excommunication of Russia:
1. Finance: SWIFT, central bank sanctions 2. Corporate: Apple, BP, Shell, etc have boycotted the country 3. Culture: Bans at FIFA, IOC, Glasgow, cat shows… 4. Human: Many Russians themselves are trying to leave
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
It's worth keeping in mind that Zelensky has domestic opponents too, nearly all of whom are much more nationalist (and often more corrupt) than he is. At the moment he clearly has overwhelming support as the war leader, and he could probably sell a deal guaranteeing neutrality and not stationing foreign missiles on Ukraine's soil. Signing away Crimea and the eastern provinces (especially if expanded to form a coherent land mass) would come under massive attack from extremist rivals. The Minsk deal, recognising them as a partly self-governing region like Scotland within a unified Ukraine looks much easier to achieve, and also more durable than insisting that they are governed from Kyiv down to the finest detail.
It's not up to us to tell them what to do, and unless Russia halts the war it's moot anyway. But it's important to recognise that he has a balancing act in negotiations.
That's part of why Russia's recognition of the territories might make his job harder, since would Russia accept Ukraine conceding those areas as self governing (and in reality if not law independent)?
Not going to be easy for Zelensky, but a sustained defence buys him more capability to set his terms.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
Yesterday I suggested Abramovich sale proceeds from Chelsea should be seized and today London pro Russia lawyers the same to have many, quite rightly, attack me for disregarding the law, and now we have the same ones going gung-ho over the fact we have not done that which I suggested
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
They certainly have a more let's say nuanced relationship with anti semitism than we do. It is no accident that pogrom originally means the massacre by Russians of Jews in eastern Europe. So I suspect the jewish stuff is not so important, it basically means the opposition in the GPW.
Putin has also just accused "neo-nazis" of shooting Chinese students in Kharkiv, which suggests he's struggling to keep China on side.
He tried that with India as well, and unfortunately Indian nationalists are as plentiful as they are mind-numbingly stupid, so it did have an effect there.
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
Sorry, it wasn't me that told the electorate that climate change was by far the greatest threat humanity faced.
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
Are you retarded?
I ask that in all seriousness, because I don't know if you've noticed this, but the world changes from time-to-time.
Hitler wasn't the greatest threat to the world in 1930. But he was in 1939.
The world changed.
Now, I am not a climate change doomsayer. I think the earth has warmed, but I don't think it is warming as quickly as is forecast, and I believe in our ability to adapt.
But I do believe that moving towards alternative energy production is a generally good idea, irrespective. I don't think shipping tens of billions of pounds off to people who don't like us (whether in Saudi or Russia) is a smart idea.
And I would sure as shit push the button. Because unless you are willing to press it, it has no value. (See The Three Body Problem trilogy.)
You know why knows that? Boris. You know who else knows that? Macron. And you know who else? Biden. I have no doubt that we would do the right thing in the event of a nuclear strike on us. We would press the button, because we have to be willing to press the button.
Swedish defence minister on main news telling viewers to ignore American “propaganda” (his word) claiming Russia about to attack Finland and Sweden.
Swedes don’t “do” angry, but if they did, he was there.
US would be wise to do teamwork a bit better.
Although...
"Two SU27 fighters and two SU24 fighter-bombers from 🇷🇺 air force briefly violated 🇸🇪 airspace East of the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea today. They were intercepted by 🇸🇪 Gripen fighters."
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
No, it's the executive using the government majority to target individuals. It's wrong and I'm not shocked you would suggest this idea tbh.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
No, you just don't have so much as a fail at O Level understanding of the constitution. The legislature is the legislature. It legislates. The courts "properly test" things by reference to the legislation, not to some ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness floating around over their heads.
Why do you condemn this as "targeting individuals"? I mean, drunk driving legislation targets the individuals who drink drive. Is that a problem?
If you have access to any reputable sources, look what we legislated to do to individuals' property at short notice and on the most tenuous grounds during WW2.
and btw if you have been misled by my proposed Take Roman's Assets away Act in previous thread, that was a JOKE.
Actually as I understood it the courts test things by reference to legislation AND precedent - the accumulated decisions of previous cases - which could indeed be regarded as an 'ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness'.
Not so. Precedent is at least in theory every bit as strictly defined, in the case law, as legislation is, and legislation overrules it in the same way as it overrules preexisting incompatible legislation.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
There are actual real neo Nazis, the Azov brigade, who are fighting for the Ukrainians.
But what Russia are doing is conflating that fact with all Ukrainians fighting as having this idealogy, which is clearly false. And obviously not mentioning their own Wager group are rather Nazi supporting too.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes because that is what we have agreed. IF Putin attacks a NATO country then we have no choice but to get involved and fight. But that will probably be the end of all of us one way or another. We do have a choice about Ukraine because we have no commitment to support them.
Both cases end up with us in a nuclear war with Russia. In the case of Ukraine we can choose not to take that step. And that is absolutely what we are right to do.
We *do* have a choice if Putin attacks a NATO country (eg a Baltic state) and the (unlikely but possible) choice might be to not defend it, NATO or no NATO, for the same reason we aren't defending Ukraine - the risk of nuclear war. But it doesn't matter. It's not the point. The point is that Vladimir Putin BELIEVES we would fight if he did this - that his calculations include an assumption that to attack a NATO state is a genuine blood red line which if crossed will trigger direct NATO engagement and retaliation. This is all that's important on this "MAD" aspect right now and all we (ie the US) can really do. And Biden is doing it. The messaging of 'Ukraine and no further' is clear as a bell.
Well given we already have troops in those countries then unless you are suggesting we withdraw them now in advance of any possible attack then we don't have a choice. Deciding to withdraw them once they are already fighting would probably be impractical.
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
It's worth keeping in mind that Zelensky has domestic opponents too, nearly all of whom are much more nationalist (and often more corrupt) than he is. At the moment he clearly has overwhelming support as the war leader, and he could probably sell a deal guaranteeing neutrality and not stationing foreign missiles on Ukraine's soil. Signing away Crimea and the eastern provinces (especially if expanded to form a coherent land mass) would come under massive attack from extremist rivals. The Minsk deal, recognising them as a partly self-governing region like Scotland within a unified Ukraine looks much easier to achieve....
Given Macron's report of Putin's conversation this afternoon, I think such talk is fanciful at the moment. You have a rational leader on one side, and... something else on the other.
Makes negotiations hard too. Do you believe the Russian rep is empowered or not?
Two Russian MPs have submitted a draft law to parliament that would call up for military service in Ukraine any Russians detained for participating in antiwar protests
Well, that's one way of getting yourself a well-motivated, highly trained army prepared to carry out orders to commit war crimes.
Comments
If that doesn't work and with Russia gradually bombing more and more cities, he's going to have think very carefully about whether a "demilitarised" and vulnerable Ukraine, if any external guarantors can be agreed - is better than no Ukraine. At the moment that would be a very tough sell for his army , though.
Its possible that the protest might grow, I hope they do, and if they grow large enough then maybe the police will not be able to arrest many as there will not be enough police and or police cells. but we are no where near that now but at which point do the police open fire on protests as they did in Belaruse? probably.
I'm wondering if Abramovich is being used as an intermediary in some way. He's been advised to drop Chelsea as it is the most visible asset but has been allowed to keep other assets as long as he tries to talk Putin out of this.
In order to do so he can't make any public denunciation, even if his daughter can.
What we will do is offer aid and support to Ukraine and help them. Just as the USSR aided the Vietcong rather than fought themselves.
On the other hand she feels vindicated that she never applied for Russian citizenship for her two children.
It may be harsh but it is reality and all your railing against it won't change it one damn bit.
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
Britain in 1940 was in a much better place. An island, uninvaded, with a vast empire and a mighty navy. And a real chance of victory. And American cousins increasingly willing to help
You can’t compare them
The one possible ‘better’ outcome for Ukraine is that these hefty sanctions and world outrage split the Russian elite in super quick time, and Putin is unexpectedly toppled or muzzled. But that needs to happen in the coming days - or Ukrainian resistance will prove heroic but incredibly painful for Ukraine. It is their grievous choice as to whether the pain is worth it
Has he said the same about eg Switzerland and the Netherlands?
I think the one the BJ has seriously wrong is in not freezing the property sales etc first, and releasing them on proof that they are OK. That is a BJ faceplant.
1. Immediate ceasefire
2. Armistice
3. Humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of civilians from destroyed or constantly shelled villages/cities.
https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1499396344464637969
"I will never abandon my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people [...] but the way the battle is going shows we are fighting neo-Nazis."
He claims Ukraine is using civilians and foreigners as "human shields."
Essentially Putin is responding to the international criticism of the huge civilian toll of the war in Ukraine – even from allies – by saying it’s all Ukrainians Nazis who did it. “Our soldiers and officers are trying to prevent civilian casualties and suffer losses themselves.”
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499428529964036103
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
And I am proud of that fact.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
Isn't the capacity of the existing China pipeline about 10% of the European ones?
Unless, I guess, Russia or China has a large fleet of LNG carriers to hand, and relevant terminal.
Two Russian MPs have submitted a draft law to parliament that would call up for military service in Ukraine any Russians detained for participating in antiwar protests
Well, that's one way of getting yourself a well-motivated, highly trained army prepared to carry out orders to commit war crimes.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
The lowliest fool really can rise to the very top with the right degree of luck, bluff, and friendship.
@maxseddon
Putin: “The special operation in Ukraine is going according to plan and in full compliance with the timetable. All tasks set during the special operation in Ukraine are being accomplished successfully.”
This time, the security council was held on Putin's Zoom and they didn't even show any of its members – it was just Putin speaking in a room for a few minutes.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1499431701537333254
As an alternative to total destruction, Zelenskyy might be able to sell it
there is no "for services to", which seems fair. https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1499432717859102721/photo/1
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1499433299822923777
It's not up to us to tell them what to do, and unless Russia halts the war it's moot anyway. But it's important to recognise that he has a balancing act in negotiations.
"Hey, justice requires sacrifices - aren't you prepared to be one of them?"
I would not support removing any sanctions on Russia though.
Why do you condemn this as "targeting individuals"? I mean, drunk driving legislation targets the individuals who drink drive. Is that a problem?
If you have access to any reputable sources, look what we legislated to do to individuals' property at short notice and on the most tenuous grounds during WW2.
and btw if you have been misled by my proposed Take Roman's Assets away Act in previous thread, that was a JOKE.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-03-22/h_3dfca976b44c492b7f4eefcb7a6dc37e
‘Craziest 2 minutes of TV news ever, with opposing guests on the Ukraine war hosted by Indian TV. the ending is a MUST watch.🤦’
https://twitter.com/skbozphd/status/1499298691156705282?s=21
S 32 +3
V 9 -1
MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2
(Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1
SD 19 nc
KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1
L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2
(Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
A bill or indeed an Act of Attainder is not legislation, and indeed that is the main theoretical objection to it, that it's the legislature acting judicially. So your point is?
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny if necessary for years, if necessary alone.At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, willdefend to the death their native soil,aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
You have a rational leader on one side, and... something else on the other.
Swedes don’t “do” angry, but if they did, he was there.
US would be wise to do teamwork a bit better.
Again, evidence that he's getting very rattled, which of course is dangerous.
The scumbags picked a good week to bury that one.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1499364396887420931
If ever there was an example of grade inflation it's Gavin Williamson being given a knighthood.
The reason for that is that this is a key part of Putin's paranoia - he thinks that all Ukrainians are anti-Eurasians "out to destroy Russia" for the sake of Europe. It's ironically very parallel to Hitler's view of the Slavs, or even the Jews.
1. Finance: SWIFT, central bank sanctions
2. Corporate: Apple, BP, Shell, etc have boycotted the country
3. Culture: Bans at FIFA, IOC, Glasgow, cat shows…
4. Human: Many Russians themselves are trying to leave
https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1499438129337573380
Not going to be easy for Zelensky, but a sustained defence buys him more capability to set his terms.
I ask that in all seriousness, because I don't know if you've noticed this, but the world changes from time-to-time.
Hitler wasn't the greatest threat to the world in 1930. But he was in 1939.
The world changed.
Now, I am not a climate change doomsayer. I think the earth has warmed, but I don't think it is warming as quickly as is forecast, and I believe in our ability to adapt.
But I do believe that moving towards alternative energy production is a generally good idea, irrespective. I don't think shipping tens of billions of pounds off to people who don't like us (whether in Saudi or Russia) is a smart idea.
And I would sure as shit push the button. Because unless you are willing to press it, it has no value. (See The Three Body Problem trilogy.)
You know why knows that? Boris. You know who else knows that? Macron. And you know who else? Biden. I have no doubt that we would do the right thing in the event of a nuclear strike on us. We would press the button, because we have to be willing to press the button.
"Two SU27 fighters and two SU24 fighter-bombers from 🇷🇺 air force briefly violated 🇸🇪 airspace East of the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea today. They were intercepted by 🇸🇪 Gripen fighters."
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1499217465749954565?s=20&t=QWJ4RU8lLFc7i6HqS1FXKQ
But what Russia are doing is conflating that fact with all Ukrainians fighting as having this idealogy, which is clearly false. And obviously not mentioning their own Wager group are rather Nazi supporting too.
Mutual defence treaty = we defend.
No mutual defence treaty = we don't.
That is, by the way, the way it has always worked.
It's beyond farce.