A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
That's Russian language, rather than Russian ethnicity I believe. Even so, should a place with recent immigrants be able to get independence based on this? Russians in the Crimea only came in during the ethnic cleansing of the 1940s.
Crimea was part of Russia till 1954. It was even part of Russia 160 years ago at the start of the Crimean War...
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
What are we meant to do, nuke Moscow?
The era of western hegemony and intervention, such as it was, is over, after Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that we wouldn't even intervene in Syria to face Assad, I hardly see us parachuting into Odessa to fight Putin.
From now on Western governments will only put boots on the ground if the opponent is pathetically weak , or very close allies (or western nations) are directly menaced.
We could call it the Miliband Doctrine.
Syria was about internal issues, even if it was genocide in places. In Ukraine, this is one country outright invading another, entirely on the basis of an ethnic minority existing. The West is far stronger against Russia than we were against Germany in the 1930s. If British troops and US troops were dispatched to Ukraine, we wouldn't have to engage, it would scare Russia off.
This isn't about economic or military strength. This is about us being more cowardly than we used to be. It's particularly bad that the rest of Europe isn't doing anything. They only exist as democratic countries because the Brits and Americans stuck their necks out for them in the past, and now they refuse to do the same for Ukraine. If we just stand by while a full occupation of Eastern Ukraine happens, I'll be ashamed of my country.
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
Well, NATO has encroached steadily westwards ever since 1991.
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
There are red lines (as in 1939) - attacking an EU state or a NATO member are two of them, so the Baltics are safe.
But, yeah, everywhere else might be screwed.
I doubt Putin would want west Ukraine. That's just a recipe for another Chechnya. East Ukraine on the other hand...
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
Well, NATO has encroached steadily westwards ever since 1991.
No, utterly wrong. NATO has not encroached anywhere at all. We have not sent in tanks anywhere. Free and independent countries chose to voluntarily join in order to protect themselves.
All the stuff we have read or heard about is coming to light at long last, hopefully every horrible person involved in this stuff will finally be exposed. There must be a lot of people not sleeping very well at the moment.
Tom Watson really has opened a can of worms, just maybe David Icke is not such a nutjob after all.
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
There are red lines (as in 1939) - attacking an EU state or a NATO member are two of them, so the Baltics are safe.
But, yeah, everywhere else might be screwed.
It would be madness for Russia to absorb places that are full of tens of millions of people who don't want to be Russian.
There are 30 million odd ethnic Ukranians who live west of the Dneiper. How many troops would need to be permanently stationed there to keep it quiet?
It's also worth remembering that 70% of Russian tax revenues come from the oil & gas industries. If shale gas starts working in Europe and/or we start to see the big East African and Australian LNG projects come on stream, then the price Russia gets for selling gas into Europe is going in only one direction. Russia needs oil at $110 to balance its budget.
Things could get very ugly there if you combine a weak oil price or declining gas exports to Europe and an expensive occupation.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
That's Russian language, rather than Russian ethnicity I believe. Even so, should a place with recent immigrants be able to get independence based on this? Russians in the Crimea only came in during the ethnic cleansing of the 1940s.
Crimea was part of Russia till 1954. It was even part of Russia 160 years ago at the start of the Crimean War...
And Ireland was part of the UK in the 1910s. That doesn't mean we get free licence to invade.
All the stuff we have read or heard about is coming to light at long last, hopefully every horrible person involved in this stuff will finally be exposed. There must be a lot of people not sleeping very well at the moment.
Tom Watson really has opened a can of worms, just maybe David Icke is not such a nutjob after all.
My proposed response to Russia's troop movement in the Crimea is to send western troops, after formally being invited by the new government of course, to Kiev.
Perfectly legal if you accept the current government as legitimate. And it sends a non-violent signal to Russia that we are serious.
Thought we weren't allowed to comment on that general topic?
And that article's from November 2012.
An ancient accusation (though not as ancient as the PIE/NCCL story).
Cameron appointed Mrs Justice Julia Macur to examine the remit and conduct of the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in North Wales children's homes. The Waterhouse inquiry was set up by Hague when he was SoS for Wales in the latter years of the Major government.
The first stage of the Macur report was published in April of last year. It addressed the original police investigation into the North Wales allegations. A number of arrests and prosecutions followed the release of this stage of the report.
It should be noted that the accusations made against Hague and referred to in the Telegraph article were made by Steve Messham who made the original accusations against Lord McAlpine which he later retracted and apologised for. Sir Ronald Waterhouse also questioned the reliability of Messham's testimony during his inquiry calling it "complex".
This doesn't make Messham's latest allegations false but due caution should be observed in assessing them.
Best to wait for the Macur inquiry to conclude before leaping to judgement.
So, is Russia's endgame just to make Crimea even more autonomous than it already was, so that they can claim the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine is not violated, while making it Russian owned in all but name? And that in order to prop up the new authorities the West will allow that so long as Russia does not torpedo any measures needed to prop it up?
Mr. kle4, Gandalf benefited from his primary opponent (Sauron) being a bloody moron. There was one place the ring could be destroyed. It was deep in Sauron's territory, but he didn't have a single bloody orc guarding the place.
To be fair to Sauron, it was impossible for anyone holding the Ring to possess sufficient strength of will to throw it in to the Cracks of Doom without his/her own will overwhelming himself/herself.
Gandalf's plan, as Tolkien himself said in his Letters, was actually impossible without an Act of God.
As an incarnate Angel, Gandalf was betting that if they could just get it as far as humanly possible (ie to the Cracks of Doom themselves), God would place a well-judged thumb on the scales to somehow make it possible (by "an act of Providence").
As an incarnate Fallen Archangel, Sauron assumed that God wasn't bothering with the World after the Downfall of Numenor.
It was all very Catholic and religious deep down in the subtext.
My proposed response to Russia's troop movement in the Crimea is to send western troops, after formally being invited by the new government of course, to Kiev.
Perfectly legal if you accept the current government as legitimate. And it sends a non-violent signal to Russia that we are serious.
People did not vote for Yanukovych because he was Russian or a Russian lackey. Anyone who cares to read their history will see that he tried a bit of balancing off the EU & Russian influences. Putin then basically told him to make a choice. He wouldn't have made it otherwise.
Yanukovychs problem was that he brought increasing levels of corruption and dictatorship. The EU-Russia issue was just one thing that brought people out on the streets.
Secondly it wasn't as if Putin exactly threw his weight behind the guy when the sh1t came rolling in. In fact it was lukewarm.
Using election results in areas where the Party of Regions did well as a suggestion of pure Pro-Russian sentiment is a gross over simplification.
I'm not sure past promises are too relevant here. Firstly it's Boris, so we all know he spouts stuff that he doesn't really pretend to mean even at the time. Second, even as a Labour activist in London, I find it hard to get worked up about a potential one-year overlap. He'll do two jobs lazily instead of one job lazily, meh. Can't see London voters being too bothered.
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
Well, NATO has encroached steadily westwards ever since 1991.
Invited by nation-states to spread steadily westward, not invited by parts of those nation-states to do so, surely? The new Ukrainian authorities are hardly angels versus Yanukovichian devils - it really doesn't seem that Yanukovich was a puppet, or that the opposition are without problems - , but just because Russia has been losing the soft power game in eastern europe since the fall of the USSR doesn't mean a return to cold war tactics to offset that is ok.
One thing that is good about all this is we can stop buying into Russian hypocrisy. Some like to support Putin internationally because he opposes western intervention and supports the integrity of nations, or at least he purports to, but the Russian's are just as hypocritical as we are in that they make decisions for their own benefit, but for some reason people seem to buy it from Putin more than they should (Ok, the West should not get involved in Syria or wherever, that's an ok view and I actually support it - but then why is Russia involved? Stopping others involving themselves is itself involvement, not even counting propping up regimes).
Ugh, the Russian's have been getting away with pretending their self interested foreign interest games are somehow more noble than the West's for too long.
This will all happen slice by slice. First Crimea. Then Donetsk. Then all of eastern Ukraine. Then the entirety. At what point does the West react? If nothing, how long before Russia starts to eye its historical territory in the Baltic?
Well, NATO has encroached steadily westwards ever since 1991.
In the company of three Scottish residents yesterday, a 70+ year old male who moved up from England years ago, a 40 something housewife whose parents moved from England 40+ years ago and her 17 year old daughter (the father’s an “ethnic Scot”).
All intend to vote NO! The 17 year old “might"change her mind.
I'm not sure past promises are too relevant here. Firstly it's Boris, so we all know he spouts stuff that he doesn't really pretend to mean even at the time. Second, even as a Labour activist in London, I find it hard to get worked up about a potential one-year overlap. He'll do two jobs lazily instead of one job lazily, meh. Can't see London voters being too bothered.
Well that's refreshing. Perhaps it would only be pundits who would give him crap for it. As I said earlier I don't think he will, but it's simple enough to find a phrase explaining that he just changed his mind for whatever reason which is acceptable to most.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
What are we meant to do, nuke Moscow?
The era of western hegemony and intervention, such as it was, is over, after Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that we wouldn't even intervene in Syria to face Assad, I hardly see us parachuting into Odessa to fight Putin.
From now on Western governments will only put boots on the ground if the opponent is pathetically weak , or very close allies (or western nations) are directly menaced.
We could call it the Miliband Doctrine.
Syria was about internal issues, even if it was genocide in places. In Ukraine, this is one country outright invading another, entirely on the basis of an ethnic minority existing. The West is far stronger against Russia than we were against Germany in the 1930s. If British troops and US troops were dispatched to Ukraine, we wouldn't have to engage, it would scare Russia off.
This isn't about economic or military strength. This is about us being more cowardly than we used to be. It's particularly bad that the rest of Europe isn't doing anything. They only exist as democratic countries because the Brits and Americans stuck their necks out for them in the past, and now they refuse to do the same for Ukraine. If we just stand by while a full occupation of Eastern Ukraine happens, I'll be ashamed of my country.
1. A lot of these Ukrainians being 'invaded' are Russians 2. A lot of them want to be Russian (and why not: Russian GDP per capita is about three times Ukraine's) 3. A lot of the Ukrainian nationalists, taking over, are actually Fascist
We should leave well alone. Realpolitik. Going into Syria made more sense than taking on Putin I this instance. And going into Syria was a crazy idea.
It's worth remembering, though, that Russian success has been because oil prices have been strong.
$60 oil and $6 European gas would be a disaster, and GDP would be a lot, lot lower
All the stuff we have read or heard about is coming to light at long last, hopefully every horrible person involved in this stuff will finally be exposed. There must be a lot of people not sleeping very well at the moment.
Tom Watson really has opened a can of worms, just maybe David Icke is not such a nutjob after all.
Nah, David Icke is a nutjob.
All that shape shifting stuff is ludicrous, at times you wonder what planet he is from.
But as far as I am aware he is the only person to have outed Savile as a necrophiliac, and that was when he was alive.
Mr. kle4, Gandalf benefited from his primary opponent (Sauron) being a bloody moron. There was one place the ring could be destroyed. It was deep in Sauron's territory, but he didn't have a single bloody orc guarding the place.
Evil cannot comprehend good was his reasoning I believe, and Sauron normally did have orcs guarding the place - he had all the border defences of Mordor and then he had tens of thousands of others in the way. That somehow the enemy managed to slip two people past the former and through the latter is not a sign that Sauron was particularly stupid I think, it would seem on the face of it that those defensive measures should have been enough. He could have put a locked door in place though.
And Sauron may not have been the brightest, but Gandalf was trying to wrangle together disparate nations and cultures into fighting together, and he didn't have an easy job of it. The biggest obstacle was them rather than Sauron. Now Rand Al Thor had to deal with that even worse, and could personally kill tens of thousands on his own by the end, so he probably trumps Gandalf I guess, despite his opponements being even dumber.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
Well, that's just about the worst image you could have picked for your argument. Photos do lie when they are cropped and photoshopped by Unionist propagandists and reprinted by their favourite journalists. That photo was one of a series of a Yes Scotland (i.e. multiparty) event and if you look further you'll find out the facts of the matter. In fact, you don't need to look further because a comment on the same web page has the basic info
Carnyx, Scott is the most prolific liar on the site. He is a turnip of the first order, and anything he posts is well ignored or taken with a bucket of salt.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
What are we meant to do, nuke Moscow?
The era of western hegemony and intervention, such as it was, is over, after Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that we wouldn't even intervene in Syria to face Assad, I hardly see us parachuting into Odessa to fight Putin.
From now on Western governments will only put boots on the ground if the opponent is pathetically weak , or very close allies (or western nations) are directly menaced.
We could call it the Miliband Doctrine.
Syria was about internal issues, even if it was genocide in places. In Ukraine, this is one country outright invading another, entirely on the basis of an ethnic minority existing. The West is far stronger against Russia than we were against Germany in the 1930s. If British troops and US troops were dispatched to Ukraine, we wouldn't have to engage, it would scare Russia off.
This isn't about economic or military strength. This is about us being more cowardly than we used to be. It's particularly bad that the rest of Europe isn't doing anything. They only exist as democratic countries because the Brits and Americans stuck their necks out for them in the past, and now they refuse to do the same for Ukraine. If we just stand by while a full occupation of Eastern Ukraine happens, I'll be ashamed of my country.
1. A lot of these Ukrainians being 'invaded' are Russians 2. A lot of them want to be Russian (and why not: Russian GDP per capita is about three times Ukraine's) 3. A lot of the Ukrainian nationalists, taking over, are actually Fascist
We should leave well alone. Realpolitik. Going into Syria made more sense than taking on Putin I this instance. And going into Syria was a crazy idea.
What outcome would be satisfactory I wonder? Even before this mess the pundit class seemed split on it not being worth provoking Putin, that Ukraine was not worth the bother in essence, or that Putin should not be allowed to have it all his own way with these power games and could be confronted successfully - now, I have no idea if there is anything Putin could do in any sphere that would make taking him on apparently worth it, in which case he really does have a free hand to play his power games as much as he wishes.
That since a lot of those in the east of Ukraine either want to be Russian, or are at the least supportive and pro-Russian enough to allow him to act in this manner against the ones now in control in Kiev, certainly strengthens his hand and makes combating him difficult though.
A mass rally has now happened against the Ukrainian government in Donetsk. I guess that will be the next place Russia invades, while the West stands by, too cowardly to do anything other than cross words.
What are we meant to do, nuke Moscow?
...
From now on Western governments will only put boots on the ground if the opponent is pathetically weak , or very close allies (or western nations) are directly menaced.
We could call it the Miliband Doctrine.
Syria was about internal issues, even if it was genocide in places. In Ukraine, this is one country outright invading another, entirely on the basis of an ethnic minority existing. The West is far stronger against Russia than we were against Germany in the 1930s. If British troops and US troops were dispatched to Ukraine, we wouldn't have to engage, it would scare Russia off.
This isn't about economic or military strength. This is about us being more cowardly than we used to be. It's particularly bad that the rest of Europe isn't doing anything. They only exist as democratic countries because the Brits and Americans stuck their necks out for them in the past, and now they refuse to do the same for Ukraine. If we just stand by while a full occupation of Eastern Ukraine happens, I'll be ashamed of my country.
1. A lot of these Ukrainians being 'invaded' are Russians 2. A lot of them want to be Russian (and why not: Russian GDP per capita is about three times Ukraine's) 3. A lot of the Ukrainian nationalists, taking over, are actually Fascist
We should leave well alone. Realpolitik. Going into Syria made more sense than taking on Putin I this instance. And going into Syria was a crazy idea.
It's worth remembering, though, that Russian success has been because oil prices have been strong.
$60 oil and $6 European gas would be a disaster, and GDP would be a lot, lot lower
The Ukraine gets a 30% discount though. Putin may be amenable to the EU picking up that tab!
The IMF $15 billion emergency financing deal to The Ukraine was suspended after the Yanukovych government refused to implement an uprating of domestic energy prices as a condition of the IMF finance.
This really isn't an inter-ethnic civil war. The issue is The Ukraine's needs for economic support becoming subverted by geo-political battles for regional influence.
Hague should be in Moscow tomorrow not Kiev. Athough his trip to Kiev was agreed following both Cameron and Merkel talking to Putin.
What we are told on the tv channels may well be at complete odds with the realpolitik.
The rising levels of desperate personal vitriol are revealing. Rattled much?
Scott I post my own opinions, I do not search the web for lies and post them as truths. I may not always be right but it is my personal opinion. You on the other hand have NO opinion.
People did not vote for Yanukovych because he was Russian or a Russian lackey. Anyone who cares to read their history will see that he tried a bit of balancing off the EU & Russian influences. Putin then basically told him to make a choice. He wouldn't have made it otherwise.
Yanukovychs problem was that he brought increasing levels of corruption and dictatorship. The EU-Russia issue was just one thing that brought people out on the streets.
Secondly it wasn't as if Putin exactly threw his weight behind the guy when the sh1t came rolling in. In fact it was lukewarm.
Using election results in areas where the Party of Regions did well as a suggestion of pure Pro-Russian sentiment is a gross over simplification.
"Secondly it wasn't as if Putin exactly threw his weight behind the guy when the sh1t came rolling in. In fact it was lukewarm."
He had to play it that way though. If he'd let Yankowotsit shoot the demonstrators the US/EU side would have got all the public support they needed. This way support is lukewarm at best.
Well, that's just about the worst image you could have picked for your argument. Photos do lie when they are cropped and photoshopped by Unionist propagandists and reprinted by their favourite journalists. That photo was one of a series of a Yes Scotland (i.e. multiparty) event and if you look further you'll find out the facts of the matter. In fact, you don't need to look further because a comment on the same web page has the basic info
Carnyx, Scott is the most prolific liar on the site. He is a turnip of the first order, and anything he posts is well ignored or taken with a bucket of salt.
I couldn't possibly comment, if only because I have not been here as long as you. But that assertion was flatly wrong and it did need to be challenged lest others think it was true.
Opinium Lab 34 ( -3 ) Con 29 ( +1 ) UKIP 19 ( +2 ) LD 10 ( +2 ) Strange poll , UKIP near peak and highest LD Opinium figure since at least 2012 .
Perhaps it was taken from the uk.isidewith.com quiz, making everyone realise how they should get in touch with their inner-Lib Dem and their Janus-like appeal.
Mr. kle4, Gandalf benefited from his primary opponent (Sauron) being a bloody moron. There was one place the ring could be destroyed. It was deep in Sauron's territory, but he didn't have a single bloody orc guarding the place.
Evil cannot comprehend good was his reasoning I believe, and Sauron normally did have orcs guarding the place - he had all the border defences of Mordor and then he had tens of thousands of others in the way. That somehow the enemy managed to slip two people past the former and through the latter is not a sign that Sauron was particularly stupid I think, it would seem on the face of it that those defensive measures should have been enough. He could have put a locked door in place though.
And Sauron may not have been the brightest, but Gandalf was trying to wrangle together disparate nations and cultures into fighting together, and he didn't have an easy job of it. The biggest obstacle was them rather than Sauron. Now Rand Al Thor had to deal with that even worse, and could personally kill tens of thousands on his own by the end, so he probably trumps Gandalf I guess, despite his opponements being even dumber.
"and Sauron normally did have orcs guarding the place - he had all the border defences of Mordor and then he had tens of thousands of others in the way."
That was the reason for Aragorn marching up to the Black Gate - to get all those covering forces to come out and fight him so Bilbo could get through to the mountain.
Mr. kle4, Gandalf benefited from his primary opponent (Sauron) being a bloody moron. There was one place the ring could be destroyed. It was deep in Sauron's territory, but he didn't have a single bloody orc guarding the place.
To be fair to Sauron, it was impossible for anyone holding the Ring to possess sufficient strength of will to throw it in to the Cracks of Doom without his/her own will overwhelming himself/herself.
Gandalf's plan, as Tolkien himself said in his Letters, was actually impossible without an Act of God.
As an incarnate Angel, Gandalf was betting that if they could just get it as far as humanly possible (ie to the Cracks of Doom themselves), God would place a well-judged thumb on the scales to somehow make it possible (by "an act of Providence").
As an incarnate Fallen Archangel, Sauron assumed that God wasn't bothering with the World after the Downfall of Numenor.
It was all very Catholic and religious deep down in the subtext.
Sauron wasn't a moron, but he wasn't a subtle planner either. At this stage of his career, he relied on fear and brute force alone.
Mr. kle4, Gandalf benefited from his primary opponent (Sauron) being a bloody moron. There was one place the ring could be destroyed. It was deep in Sauron's territory, but he didn't have a single bloody orc guarding the place.
To be fair to Sauron, it was impossible for anyone holding the Ring to possess sufficient strength of will to throw it in to the Cracks of Doom without his/her own will overwhelming himself/herself.
Gandalf's plan, as Tolkien himself said in his Letters, was actually impossible without an Act of God.
As an incarnate Angel, Gandalf was betting that if they could just get it as far as humanly possible (ie to the Cracks of Doom themselves), God would place a well-judged thumb on the scales to somehow make it possible (by "an act of Providence").
As an incarnate Fallen Archangel, Sauron assumed that God wasn't bothering with the World after the Downfall of Numenor.
It was all very Catholic and religious deep down in the subtext.
Sauron wasn't a moron, but he wasn't a subtle planner either. At this stage of his career, he relied on fear and brute force alone.
I'd say that was analagous to Putin, but I don't know enough about how he operates - just the comedic interpretation of it - to say for certain.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
So are you suggesting that we (Europe that is, given I find it unbelievable that this government would act unilaterally) should invite Russia to stop selling us their gas and oil ?
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
Alan Pardew: as many people on here know, I despise football. But it was hard for me to avoid hearing about Alan Pardew's headbutting of a player from a rival team.
His excuse has made my day: ""I did not mean any damage to the guy but I have moved my head forward. I tried to push him away with my head."
1. A lot of these Ukrainians being 'invaded' are Russians 2. A lot of them want to be Russian (and why not: Russian GDP per capita is about three times Ukraine's) 3. A lot of the Ukrainian nationalists, taking over, are actually Fascist
We should leave well alone. Realpolitik. Going into Syria made more sense than taking on Putin I this instance. And going into Syria was a crazy idea.
You can always identify negative members of any side of any conflict, including highly appropriate interventions like Bosnia, the first Gulf War, Sierra Leone, the Second World War. It's still just convenient excuse making to absolve us of responsibility at the end of the day. A brave people have stood up for a Western democratic future, and we're now leaving them at the mercy of their prior colonial power. You mentioned red lines earlier. The unprovoked invasion of another country that was doing nothing wrong should be a pretty clear one.
People take the fact the world order is predominantly liberal and democratic today massively for granted. It is only because during the two world wars and the cold war, the nations with the power to do so stood up to the aggressor. Yet now no one wants to have any responsibility. The citizenry of the West is too busy getting drunk and playing on Facebook.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
So are you suggesting that we (Europe that is, given I find it unbelievable that this government would act unilaterally) should invite Russia to stop selling us their gas and oil ?
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
Well, 70% of Russian tax revenues come from oil & gas, so it's a codependency.
They can't survive without our money - and we can't survive without their energy.
That said, Europe has been diversifying away from Russian gas - there are a whole bunch of LNG import terminals built in recent years. So we could - in theory at least - pick up a chunk of the slack from abroad. Russia has limited other export options - there is no gas pipe into China, for example.
It's also worth noting that we are heading into the less energy intensive summer season, so if you're going to 'go to economic war' with Russia, now would be the time.
Alan Pardew: as many people on here know, I despise football. But it was hard for me to avoid hearing about Alan Pardew's headbutting of a player from a rival team.
His excuse has made my day: ""I did not mean any damage to the guy but I have moved my head forward. I tried to push him away with my head."
Despiscable man. Even if its all handbags and only a slight touch, he should never be in that situation. Amusingly, his response that he needs to sit down and so on, seems to have been his response when he was previously banned for pushing an assistant ref, so he learns nothing.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
So are you suggesting that we (Europe that is, given I find it unbelievable that this government would act unilaterally) should invite Russia to stop selling us their gas and oil ?
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
Well, 70% of Russian tax revenues come from oil & gas, so it's a codependency.
They can't survive without our money - and we can't survive without their energy.
That said, Europe has been diversifying away from Russian gas - there are a whole bunch of LNG import terminals built in recent years. So we could - in theory at least - pick up a chunk of the slack from abroad. Russia has limited other export options - there is no gas pipe into China, for example.
It's also worth noting that we are heading into the less energy intensive summer season, so if you're going to 'go to economic war' with Russia, now would be the time.
We could appropriate the overseas assets of Russian politicians and oligarchs.
Would yield more than Ed's tax on bankers' bonuses and would only need to be done once.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
So are you suggesting that we (Europe that is, given I find it unbelievable that this government would act unilaterally) should invite Russia to stop selling us their gas and oil ?
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
Well, 70% of Russian tax revenues come from oil & gas, so it's a codependency.
They can't survive without our money - and we can't survive without their energy.
That said, Europe has been diversifying away from Russian gas - there are a whole bunch of LNG import terminals built in recent years. So we could - in theory at least - pick up a chunk of the slack from abroad. Russia has limited other export options - there is no gas pipe into China, for example.
It's also worth noting that we are heading into the less energy intensive summer season, so if you're going to 'go to economic war' with Russia, now would be the time.
Given the parlous state of many European economies and the insanity that is EU economic policy I suspect playing Russian Roulette with energy supplies would be enough to send parts of Europe back into the dark ages. I expect Russia could hold out longer than we could......
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
So are you suggesting that we (Europe that is, given I find it unbelievable that this government would act unilaterally) should invite Russia to stop selling us their gas and oil ?
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
Rosatom announces UK nuclear new-build collaboration
Russia's state atomic energy corporation Rosatom has teamed up with Finnish utility Fortum and Rolls-Royce to explore opportunities for the construction and operation of VVER nuclear power plants in the UK.
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
Part of the reason we are in the mess is because the EU has spent so much time in recent years meddling in Ukraine affairs and effectively taunting the Russians with the motion they can do nothing about it. Now the Russians have, very late in the day, decided enough is enough the West acts all shocked and self righteous.
It is one of those classic liberal western notions. When we stick our noses into the affairs of other countries it is because we are doing for only the best of reasons. When other powers do it they are meddling or empire building. The only surprise to me is that it has taken Russia so long to say 'screw you' to the West.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
We are involved since we signed the 1994 Budapest agreement. However we can do nothing. That is an understandable course of action. As long as in so doing we recognise we have abrogated responsibility, denied our obligations, and welched on a commitment. From now on, we can tell the world and the world will know, the UK being a signatory to any agreement is worthless. Which it will be. If we do nothing.
A stream of European jihadists have traveled to Syria to wage holy war. Now a group of European neo-Nazis are traveling to Ukraine to save the white race
In early February, Fredrik Hagberg stood at the rostrum in Kiev’s City Hall, offering fraternal and comradely greetings from Sweden to the sweaty, bruised, and exhausted Ukrainian insurrectionists scattered throughout. The place was festooned with flags—some celtic crosses, a stray Confederate banner, a standard for the political party Svoboda, whose members essentially controlled the building—reflecting the dubious politics of its occupiers.
Revolutionary tourists, thrill seekers, and parachute journalists suffused Kiev. Sen. John McCain, actress Hayden Panettiere, and French intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy roused massive crowds with paeans to freedom and national sovereignty, while offering moral support to the opposition forces led by former boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko.
But Hagberg, a square-jawed and baby-faced member of the Swedish armed forces, had a darker message.
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
The tape recording of the US state department discussing who should and shouldn't be allowed into the new "democratic" Ukraine government after the coup.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
We are involved since we signed the 1994 Budapest agreement. However we can do nothing. That is an understandable course of action. As long as in so doing we recognise we have abrogated responsibility, denied our obligations, and welched on a commitment. From now on, we can tell the world and the world will know, the UK being a signatory to any agreement is worthless. Which it will be. If we do nothing.
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
Part of the reason we are in the mess is because the EU has spent so much time in recent years meddling in Ukraine affairs and effectively taunting the Russians with the motion they can do nothing about it. Now the Russians have, very late in the day, decided enough is enough the West acts all shocked and self righteous.
It is one of those classic liberal western notions. When we stick our noses into the affairs of other countries it is because we are doing for only the best of reasons. When other powers do it they are meddling or empire building. The only surprise to me is that it has taken Russia so long to say 'screw you' to the West.
Yes, I get it - the West plays power games and that is bad. But if we should do nothing because power games are bad, why are others, like Russia, apparently allowed to play power games? Because while ours may be wrong - or at the best, mostly self interested but beneficial as well - they won't stop playing power games just because we do.
It's not self righteous at all. In fact I am glad the Russian's involvement puts paid to the myth they like to give that their foreign affairs are not the same political games as everyone else (As you state, we do the same, which while wrong shows it is not a classical liberal western notion - we just place a higher emphasis on it). They mess around with other nations, and so do we. If we do not, it won't stop them from doing it, and if they stop, it won't stop us from doing it. So how does throwing our hands up and saying 'Anything you do is fair game, Vladimir' make a better situation than even the confused dithering response that Russia is getting.
It is confused, and there appears no consensus on how far we should go (except that it mustn't upset the Russians too much) or if we should do anything, but even if doing nothing is the right course to take in this situation, pretending it is not our concern, or that the Russians would not be playing their own games regardless of what we did (that is, in essence blaming us for provocation), is not credible I think.
"We remind that under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom guarantee independence, integrity and security to Ukraine."
Do nothing and the world and our allies will know the UK's word is meaningless.
Given the parlous state of many European economies and the insanity that is EU economic policy I suspect playing Russian Roulette with energy supplies would be enough to send parts of Europe back into the dark ages. I expect Russia could hold out longer than we could......
Actually, the European economies that are most dependent on Russian gas are (perhaps fortuitously) the ones who are in least economic distress: particularly Germany, Poland, and Austria.
Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain all get their gas from North Africa. Ireland gets their gas from us for now, although Corib will - at least temporarily - make Ireland self sufficient in gas.
I agree, in general, that we shouldn't play Russian roulette (so to speak), but the same is true of the Russian government.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
We are involved since we signed the 1994 Budapest agreement. However we can do nothing. That is an understandable course of action. As long as in so doing we recognise we have abrogated responsibility, denied our obligations, and welched on a commitment. From now on, we can tell the world and the world will know, the UK being a signatory to any agreement is worthless. Which it will be. If we do nothing.
We don't do nothing.
We comply with our treaty obligations under clause 6.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
The tape recording of the US state department discussing who should and shouldn't be allowed into the new "democratic" Ukraine government after the coup.
Distinct kipper leanings from the State Department there.
State Dept Official Caught on Tape: ‘F**k the EU’
A senior official’s private conversation got taped and put on YouTube, and as she’s planning a deal to end the crisis in Ukraine, she has some harsh words for her European Union counterparts as well as Ukrainian opposition leader Vitali Klitschko.
U.S. diplomat plays down leaked call; Germany's Merkel angry
(Reuters) - A top U.S. diplomat tried to play down the damage to Washington's diplomacy in Ukraine from a leaked telephone call on Friday, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel called an obscene remark about the EU "absolutely unacceptable."
How is that we have not learned that sticking our noses in to other peoples' affairs always ends badly and so should never interfere ever apparently - no matter the moral reasons, no matter the benefit to this nation or others, nothing apparently, if it happens over the English Channel it is none of our business - and yet it is totally fine for other nations to interfere in others' business and we are not even supposed to comment, let alone do anything?
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
The tape recording of the US state department discussing who should and shouldn't be allowed into the new "democratic" Ukraine government after the coup.
Ok, and? All sides are involving themselves in a power game about the future of Ukraine, trying to manipulate things to achieve the best outcome for themselves personally. If our allies' interventions for our or their benefit is wrong, so is Russia's, and to do nothing moving forward as a matter of principle (rather than because it turns out doing nothing really is the best strategic option for us and, one hopes, the people of Ukraine), is essentially saying that it is totally wrong for us to involve ourselves, but it is totally fine for other sides to do so as we would decide giving them a free hand is always better than doing anything.
Fairly clever of, presumably, the Russian's to release the recording though, as Richard Tyndall is right that we like to think we only act out of benefit of others, and hearing a frank assessment of who needs to be told what and why from outsiders is a blow to here.
"We remind that under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom guarantee independence, integrity and security to Ukraine."
Do nothing and the world and our allies will know the UK's word is meaningless.
Our Government's word is meaningless these days anyway. Our government is simply too impotent to honour such agreements.
re: Ukraine - clearly we have to do something - we have signed a guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity (Budapest 94) under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we have pledged to support a non-nuclear state when threaten by or invaded by a nuclear one. If our word and our treaties are to mean anything we must act against Russia.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
We should do exactly nothing.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
We are involved since we signed the 1994 Budapest agreement. However we can do nothing. That is an understandable course of action. As long as in so doing we recognise we have abrogated responsibility, denied our obligations, and welched on a commitment. From now on, we can tell the world and the world will know, the UK being a signatory to any agreement is worthless. Which it will be. If we do nothing.
I am not sure the 1994 agreement had a clause for provoking the crisis in the first place. As far as I am concerned the West abrogated responsibility as soon as they started meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs to try and draw them away from Russia.
Tories nationalise Chelsea FC. Premier League Season in chaos.
Still given most football teams are urban it won't make any difference to Cameron's vote share.......
But it will do wonders for Osborne's reputation as a man in touch with the people.
How do you work that one out then? Its World Cup Year. If the season ended in chaos the government would get the blame for our failure in Brazil. Still it would probably give Alex Salmond a laugh just before the referendum.....
Tories nationalise Chelsea FC. Premier League Season in chaos.
Still given most football teams are urban it won't make any difference to Cameron's vote share.......
But it will do wonders for Osborne's reputation as a man in touch with the people.
How do you work that one out then? Its World Cup Year. If the season ended in chaos the government would get the blame for our failure in Brazil. Still it would probably give Alex Salmond a laugh just before the referendum.....
You are missing Cam's secret trick.
Second Osborne to the FA for the duration of the World Cup.
I am not sure the 1994 agreement had a clause for provoking the crisis in the first place. As far as I am concerned the West abrogated responsibility as soon as they started meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs to try and draw them away from Russia.
The West is fully within its rights to make offers to Ukraine, as is Russia. Yokel pointed out that while Yanukovich was not simply Russia's man in Ukraine, Russia made him choose between the West or Russia and he made a choice, one which many of his people support. Many however do not and protested, allowing the West an avenue to put more pressure of their own. Why is it that this is only the West's fault again? Seems like Ukraine is split between what it wants, and more powerful nations are using that.
I remain unclear why in this game of international relations you seem to regard the West as the sole selfish player and instigator, without a hint of question as to why it is fine for Russia to act in the same way, only more brazenly thanks to their larger interest on the ground. How arrogant and provocative have we been that we tried to draw Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanaia, Slovakia, Poland etc etc into 'The West'? How dare we interfere in Serbia's affairs? How dare the EEC try to draw us away, successfully, from the USA and Commonwealth, a brazen interference in our internal affairs no doubt.
I've said enough on the matter, so I'll try not to again, but I am baffled that the implication that some are putting around is that since our involvement is and must always have been selfish and wrong, there is no problem with Russia doing whatever it wants, even if that is the same thing the West should not have been doing. We interfere, totally wrong, we should do nothing (and I stress, that might well be the right move after assessing things). They interfere...we are totally wrong, we should do nothing.
Given the parlous state of many European economies and the insanity that is EU economic policy I suspect playing Russian Roulette with energy supplies would be enough to send parts of Europe back into the dark ages. I expect Russia could hold out longer than we could......
Actually, the European economies that are most dependent on Russian gas are (perhaps fortuitously) the ones who are in least economic distress: particularly Germany, Poland, and Austria.
Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain all get their gas from North Africa. Ireland gets their gas from us for now, although Corib will - at least temporarily - make Ireland self sufficient in gas.
I agree, in general, that we shouldn't play Russian roulette (so to speak), but the same is true of the Russian government.
If you believe that the Russian Government works to the same set of values as a Western liberal democracy then so be it we will just have to differ. Russia can afford to do this Western Europe cannot.
Tories nationalise Chelsea FC. Premier League Season in chaos.
Still given most football teams are urban it won't make any difference to Cameron's vote share.......
But it will do wonders for Osborne's reputation as a man in touch with the people.
How do you work that one out then? Its World Cup Year. If the season ended in chaos the government would get the blame for our failure in Brazil. Still it would probably give Alex Salmond a laugh just before the referendum.....
You are missing Cam's secret trick.
Second Osborne to the FA for the duration of the World Cup.
But the FA is discredited already. There is no need for Osborne to make it worse.....
Tories nationalise Chelsea FC. Premier League Season in chaos.
Still given most football teams are urban it won't make any difference to Cameron's vote share.......
But it will do wonders for Osborne's reputation as a man in touch with the people.
How do you work that one out then? Its World Cup Year. If the season ended in chaos the government would get the blame for our failure in Brazil. Still it would probably give Alex Salmond a laugh just before the referendum.....
You are missing Cam's secret trick.
Second Osborne to the FA for the duration of the World Cup.
But the FA is discredited already. There is no need for Osborne to make it worse.....
Discredited?
Isn't that what George has achieved with the UK economy?
Ok, and? All sides are involving themselves in a power game about the future of Ukraine, trying to manipulate things to achieve the best outcome for themselves personally. If our allies' interventions for our or their benefit is wrong, so is Russia's, and to do nothing moving forward as a matter of principle (rather than because it turns out doing nothing really is the best strategic option for us and, one hopes, the people of Ukraine), is essentially saying that it is totally wrong for us to involve ourselves, but it is totally fine for other sides to do so as we would decide giving them a free hand is always better than doing anything.
Fairly clever of, presumably, the Russian's to release the recording though, as Richard Tyndall is right that we like to think we only act out of benefit of others, and hearing a frank assessment of who needs to be told what and why from outsiders is a blow to here.
You said
"Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs."
and
"And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either."
The tape recording shows there was lots of nose sticking - including the US state department deciding who was going to be in the government afterwards.
Given the parlous state of many European economies and the insanity that is EU economic policy I suspect playing Russian Roulette with energy supplies would be enough to send parts of Europe back into the dark ages. I expect Russia could hold out longer than we could......
Actually, the European economies that are most dependent on Russian gas are (perhaps fortuitously) the ones who are in least economic distress: particularly Germany, Poland, and Austria.
Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain all get their gas from North Africa. Ireland gets their gas from us for now, although Corib will - at least temporarily - make Ireland self sufficient in gas.
I agree, in general, that we shouldn't play Russian roulette (so to speak), but the same is true of the Russian government.
If you believe that the Russian Government works to the same set of values as a Western liberal democracy then so be it we will just have to differ. Russia can afford to do this Western Europe cannot.
70% of Russian government revenues come from oil & gas taxation.
The Russian government simply cannot function without energy exports to Europe.
ComRes had labour at 33% near the end of January. Somewhat puzzling why the unobservant can't remember that on here since the ensuing PB hysteria over the 33-32 near crossover was kind of hard to miss.
The more interesting thing from Opinium is the kippers bump up from 17 to 19 simply because Opinium have had them rock steady on 17 for their last four polls and from the end of December.
Way too soon and too small for it to be anything other than interesting and worth keeping an eye on of course, but it would be somewhat surprising if Cameron's Cast Iron Immigration Pledge exploding in his face had no effect at all.
ComRes had labour at 33% near the end of January. Somewhat puzzling why the unobservant can't remember that on here since the ensuing PB hysteria over the 33-32 near crossover was kind of hard to miss.
The more interesting thing from Opinium is the kippers bump up from 17 to 19 simply because Opinium have had them rock steady on 17 for their last four polls and from the end of December.
Way too soon and too small for it to be anything other than interesting and worth keeping an eye on of course, but it would be somewhat surprising if Cameron's Cast Iron Immigration Pledge exploding in his face had no effect at all.
That'll be why I stated it was "certainly one of the very few times" it has gone below 35. But you surely observed that.
Comments
This isn't about economic or military strength. This is about us being more cowardly than we used to be. It's particularly bad that the rest of Europe isn't doing anything. They only exist as democratic countries because the Brits and Americans stuck their necks out for them in the past, and now they refuse to do the same for Ukraine. If we just stand by while a full occupation of Eastern Ukraine happens, I'll be ashamed of my country.
Tom Watson really has opened a can of worms, just maybe David Icke is not such a nutjob after all.
Here's your map of native Ukrainian speakers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_census_2001_Ukrainians.svg
There are 30 million odd ethnic Ukranians who live west of the Dneiper. How many troops would need to be permanently stationed there to keep it quiet?
It's also worth remembering that 70% of Russian tax revenues come from the oil & gas industries. If shale gas starts working in Europe and/or we start to see the big East African and Australian LNG projects come on stream, then the price Russia gets for selling gas into Europe is going in only one direction. Russia needs oil at $110 to balance its budget.
Things could get very ugly there if you combine a weak oil price or declining gas exports to Europe and an expensive occupation.
Compare that map with this one of the 2012 parliament elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukr_elections_2012_multimandate_okruhs.png
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100261417/can-ukraine-avoid-partition/
My proposed response to Russia's troop movement in the Crimea is to send western troops, after formally being invited by the new government of course, to Kiev.
Perfectly legal if you accept the current government as legitimate. And it sends a non-violent signal to Russia that we are serious.
Cameron appointed Mrs Justice Julia Macur to examine the remit and conduct of the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in North Wales children's homes. The Waterhouse inquiry was set up by Hague when he was SoS for Wales in the latter years of the Major government.
The first stage of the Macur report was published in April of last year. It addressed the original police investigation into the North Wales allegations. A number of arrests and prosecutions followed the release of this stage of the report.
It should be noted that the accusations made against Hague and referred to in the Telegraph article were made by Steve Messham who made the original accusations against Lord McAlpine which he later retracted and apologised for. Sir Ronald Waterhouse also questioned the reliability of Messham's testimony during his inquiry calling it "complex".
This doesn't make Messham's latest allegations false but due caution should be observed in assessing them.
Best to wait for the Macur inquiry to conclude before leaping to judgement.
Gandalf's plan, as Tolkien himself said in his Letters, was actually impossible without an Act of God.
As an incarnate Angel, Gandalf was betting that if they could just get it as far as humanly possible (ie to the Cracks of Doom themselves), God would place a well-judged thumb on the scales to somehow make it possible (by "an act of Providence").
As an incarnate Fallen Archangel, Sauron assumed that God wasn't bothering with the World after the Downfall of Numenor.
It was all very Catholic and religious deep down in the subtext.
People did not vote for Yanukovych because he was Russian or a Russian lackey. Anyone who cares to read their history will see that he tried a bit of balancing off the EU & Russian influences. Putin then basically told him to make a choice. He wouldn't have made it otherwise.
Yanukovychs problem was that he brought increasing levels of corruption and dictatorship. The EU-Russia issue was just one thing that brought people out on the streets.
Secondly it wasn't as if Putin exactly threw his weight behind the guy when the sh1t came rolling in. In fact it was lukewarm.
Using election results in areas where the Party of Regions did well as a suggestion of pure Pro-Russian sentiment is a gross over simplification.
One thing that is good about all this is we can stop buying into Russian hypocrisy. Some like to support Putin internationally because he opposes western intervention and supports the integrity of nations, or at least he purports to, but the Russian's are just as hypocritical as we are in that they make decisions for their own benefit, but for some reason people seem to buy it from Putin more than they should (Ok, the West should not get involved in Syria or wherever, that's an ok view and I actually support it - but then why is Russia involved? Stopping others involving themselves is itself involvement, not even counting propping up regimes).
Ugh, the Russian's have been getting away with pretending their self interested foreign interest games are somehow more noble than the West's for too long.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568092/Daily-Mail-Comment-Paedophile-Information-Exchange-Cant-Left-make-mistake.html
$60 oil and $6 European gas would be a disaster, and GDP would be a lot, lot lower
But as far as I am aware he is the only person to have outed Savile as a necrophiliac, and that was when he was alive.
Well, NATO has been encroaching steadily EASTWARDS since 1991!
Evil cannot comprehend good was his reasoning I believe, and Sauron normally did have orcs guarding the place - he had all the border defences of Mordor and then he had tens of thousands of others in the way. That somehow the enemy managed to slip two people past the former and through the latter is not a sign that Sauron was particularly stupid I think, it would seem on the face of it that those defensive measures should have been enough. He could have put a locked door in place though.
And Sauron may not have been the brightest, but Gandalf was trying to wrangle together disparate nations and cultures into fighting together, and he didn't have an easy job of it. The biggest obstacle was them rather than Sauron. Now Rand Al Thor had to deal with that even worse, and could personally kill tens of thousands on his own by the end, so he probably trumps Gandalf I guess, despite his opponements being even dumber.
Equally clearly we aren't going to get into a shooting war directly with Russia. So what to do? Economic sanctions are clearly one thing but mostly we should make it clear that we will support proxies in an insurgency, an insurgency that will be as long as a costly as that in Afghanistan in the '80s - I'm sure our Polish friends would be more than happy to help out.
Most importantly the West has to do what it says it will do. Whatever that is.
The rising levels of desperate personal vitriol are revealing. Rattled much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
That since a lot of those in the east of Ukraine either want to be Russian, or are at the least supportive and pro-Russian enough to allow him to act in this manner against the ones now in control in Kiev, certainly strengthens his hand and makes combating him difficult though.
The IMF $15 billion emergency financing deal to The Ukraine was suspended after the Yanukovych government refused to implement an uprating of domestic energy prices as a condition of the IMF finance.
This really isn't an inter-ethnic civil war. The issue is The Ukraine's needs for economic support becoming subverted by geo-political battles for regional influence.
Hague should be in Moscow tomorrow not Kiev. Athough his trip to Kiev was agreed following both Cameron and Merkel talking to Putin.
What we are told on the tv channels may well be at complete odds with the realpolitik.
Strange poll , UKIP near peak and highest LD Opinium figure since at least 2012 .
More seriously; do you believe that an independent Scotland - unlike those useless Brits - would send troops to Kiev?
He had to play it that way though. If he'd let Yankowotsit shoot the demonstrators the US/EU side would have got all the public support they needed. This way support is lukewarm at best.
judo innit
Voters just want to give compouter backache.
That was the reason for Aragorn marching up to the Black Gate - to get all those covering forces to come out and fight him so Bilbo could get through to the mountain.
edit: Frodo
Tony Blair wouldn't have allowed a Russian invasion of Ukraine. He'd have invaded Kazakhstan already
Only one thing to do in a crisis. Send in the NeoCon chickenhawks!
More seriously they could probably get away with banning Gazprom's adverts on Champion's League nights but that's about it.
Russia has Europe by the short and curlies. We'll do nothing except make those strange mewing noises (oh please Mr Putin don't throw your weight around) that impotent nations make......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector
His excuse has made my day: ""I did not mean any damage to the guy but I have moved my head forward. I tried to push him away with my head."
I genuinely LOLed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26402044
People take the fact the world order is predominantly liberal and democratic today massively for granted. It is only because during the two world wars and the cold war, the nations with the power to do so stood up to the aggressor. Yet now no one wants to have any responsibility. The citizenry of the West is too busy getting drunk and playing on Facebook.
They can't survive without our money - and we can't survive without their energy.
That said, Europe has been diversifying away from Russian gas - there are a whole bunch of LNG import terminals built in recent years. So we could - in theory at least - pick up a chunk of the slack from abroad. Russia has limited other export options - there is no gas pipe into China, for example.
It's also worth noting that we are heading into the less energy intensive summer season, so if you're going to 'go to economic war' with Russia, now would be the time.
It is partly our meddling so far that has brought about this sorry state of affairs. We still haven't learned that sticking our noses into other people's affairs always ends badly.
The best response we could make to the current crisis is to say that it is up to the Ukraine and Russia to sort it out between them and that we will play no part in that process.
Would yield more than Ed's tax on bankers' bonuses and would only need to be done once.
Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs.
Look, I don't know what should be done, and it does seem like there's nothing we can do as we are not prepared to confront the most involved other nation, but it is simply absurd to trot out these 'should nevar evar interfere' cliches by categorizing things as never part of our affairs, when that is just not true. It is not as much our affair as Russia's, given its historic ties, but the EU as a factor is significant and we are a part of it, making it our business. Even ignoring that, as a significant world power, the relations of other equal or greater powers is of interest to us, as is ours to theirs.
And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either. Yes, Crimea used to belong to Russia, and has many ethnically Russian people, and has asked for support, but it is legally in Ukraine, so is none of Russia's concernm right?
Given the parlous state of many European economies and the insanity that is EU economic policy I suspect playing Russian Roulette with energy supplies would be enough to send parts of Europe back into the dark ages. I expect Russia could hold out longer than we could......
Oops.
It is one of those classic liberal western notions. When we stick our noses into the affairs of other countries it is because we are doing for only the best of reasons. When other powers do it they are meddling or empire building. The only surprise to me is that it has taken Russia so long to say 'screw you' to the West.
http://news.yahoo.com/james-tague-key-jfk-assassination-witness-dies-175758762.html
A stream of European jihadists have traveled to Syria to wage holy war. Now a group of European neo-Nazis are traveling to Ukraine to save the white race
In early February, Fredrik Hagberg stood at the rostrum in Kiev’s City Hall, offering fraternal and comradely greetings from Sweden to the sweaty, bruised, and exhausted Ukrainian insurrectionists scattered throughout. The place was festooned with flags—some celtic crosses, a stray Confederate banner, a standard for the political party Svoboda, whose members essentially controlled the building—reflecting the dubious politics of its occupiers.
Revolutionary tourists, thrill seekers, and parachute journalists suffused Kiev. Sen. John McCain, actress Hayden Panettiere, and French intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy roused massive crowds with paeans to freedom and national sovereignty, while offering moral support to the opposition forces led by former boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko.
But Hagberg, a square-jawed and baby-faced member of the Swedish armed forces, had a darker message.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/the-swedish-neo-nazis-of-kiev.html
The tape recording of the US state department discussing who should and shouldn't be allowed into the new "democratic" Ukraine government after the coup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOwfeoDX2o
It's not self righteous at all. In fact I am glad the Russian's involvement puts paid to the myth they like to give that their foreign affairs are not the same political games as everyone else (As you state, we do the same, which while wrong shows it is not a classical liberal western notion - we just place a higher emphasis on it). They mess around with other nations, and so do we. If we do not, it won't stop them from doing it, and if they stop, it won't stop us from doing it. So how does throwing our hands up and saying 'Anything you do is fair game, Vladimir' make a better situation than even the confused dithering response that Russia is getting.
It is confused, and there appears no consensus on how far we should go (except that it mustn't upset the Russians too much) or if we should do anything, but even if doing nothing is the right course to take in this situation, pretending it is not our concern, or that the Russians would not be playing their own games regardless of what we did (that is, in essence blaming us for provocation), is not credible I think.
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2014/february/01-03-02/
"We remind that under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom guarantee independence, integrity and security to Ukraine."
Do nothing and the world and our allies will know the UK's word is meaningless.
Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain all get their gas from North Africa. Ireland gets their gas from us for now, although Corib will - at least temporarily - make Ireland self sufficient in gas.
I agree, in general, that we shouldn't play Russian roulette (so to speak), but the same is true of the Russian government.
We comply with our treaty obligations under clause 6.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Sorted!
Distinct kipper leanings from the State Department there.
Fairly clever of, presumably, the Russian's to release the recording though, as Richard Tyndall is right that we like to think we only act out of benefit of others, and hearing a frank assessment of who needs to be told what and why from outsiders is a blow to here.
I can just see the headlines.
Tories nationalise Chelsea FC. Premier League Season in chaos.
Still given most football teams are urban it won't make any difference to Cameron's vote share.......
But it will do wonders for Osborne's reputation as a man in touch with the people.
Second Osborne to the FA for the duration of the World Cup.
I remain unclear why in this game of international relations you seem to regard the West as the sole selfish player and instigator, without a hint of question as to why it is fine for Russia to act in the same way, only more brazenly thanks to their larger interest on the ground. How arrogant and provocative have we been that we tried to draw Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanaia, Slovakia, Poland etc etc into 'The West'? How dare we interfere in Serbia's affairs? How dare the EEC try to draw us away, successfully, from the USA and Commonwealth, a brazen interference in our internal affairs no doubt.
I've said enough on the matter, so I'll try not to again, but I am baffled that the implication that some are putting around is that since our involvement is and must always have been selfish and wrong, there is no problem with Russia doing whatever it wants, even if that is the same thing the West should not have been doing. We interfere, totally wrong, we should do nothing (and I stress, that might well be the right move after assessing things). They interfere...we are totally wrong, we should do nothing.
BBC News - Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26394980 …
Pras @247pk 3m
Russia warns Ukraine may lose gas discount MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) - Russia issued several warnings on Saturday th... http://ift.tt/1dNoocH
Very dangerous.
Isn't that what George has achieved with the UK economy?
"Apparently the UK and the West alone are not allowed to stick their noses into other people's affairs."
and
"And if you believe we, and so presumably others, should not stick their noses into other peoples' affairs, Russia should not be involved either."
The tape recording shows there was lots of nose sticking - including the US state department deciding who was going to be in the government afterwards.
The Russian government simply cannot function without energy exports to Europe.
The more interesting thing from Opinium is the kippers bump up from 17 to 19 simply because Opinium have had them rock steady on 17 for their last four polls and from the end of December.
Way too soon and too small for it to be anything other than interesting and worth keeping an eye on of course, but it would be somewhat surprising if Cameron's Cast Iron Immigration Pledge exploding in his face had no effect at all.
No need to get upset if you can't remember the near crossover hysteria on PB.