I can't help but think that some of the abuse that some PBers are directing at each other is completely outwith the MODERATORS recent strictures.v
In their likely temporary absence might I ask for some temperance of the abuse.
Thank you.
Have to agree with JackW, I have only just come back to the site today, and I am horrified by some of the vitriol spouted by some of the commentators that I have mostly respected, today.
I can only think that people are a little scared of the potential of a war that we may be sucked into by accident.
Actually, on this thread I have been told to "fuck off", called a son of a bitch, and been told I have taken a tendency to rewrite history from the far right. I feel I have remained remarkably restrained considering this. As always on this board, if you don't respond, the nasty party is allowed to continue. If you do respond, it gets treated like you are both equally responsible.
Don't worry, Nick Palmer will be along soon with his list of 'nastiest' posters. ;-)
Ukraine is going to be highly destabilising of world events for the next few months. As a small and trivial example, the winter paralympics are still to occur.
It's interesting to consider how the European elections in May *could* be affected by events over the next two months.
Ukraine traces its history to the Kievan Rus, and then after that's fragmentation to the Principality of Kiev. They have centuries of independence between them. Just because they have been brutally subjugated under a foreign empire for centuries since then does not make them any less of a nation.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
No one is saying that Kiev cannot have its happy little fascist state under EU protection. They are just saying that the right to that state does not extend to the East and South which weer never even part of the Kievan Rus Kingdom (if you really think that we should base modern borders on long lost ancient kingdoms with no continuity of existence).
I am waiting for the Dalraidians to press their claim for independence in western Scotland. That would make the whole SNP debate far more interesting.
*When we helped evacuate them in advance of the Turks and then betrayed them in camps in Mesopotamia
One of the major cultural problems in the Russia / Ukraine crisis is that both countries trace their history to the Kievian Rus (the clue being in the name).
As an aside, while the Ukraine developed along a slightly different path from Russia after the Mongol invasions and the collapse of the first Rus, Ukraine only very rarely existed as an independent state.
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The only reason it is ethnically Russian majority is because the original population of Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed back in the 1940s. The minority Tatar population today strongly supports remaining in Ukraine. Should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? Particularly under a process of illegal invasion?
Until Tsarist Russia took it over the Crimea was never at any time part of a political unit that included Ukraine. Why should they have control over it now?
The plan to call up reserves is the clearest statement that the Ukrainians know no one is going to honour any treaties. Its also a sharp reverse of the 'we will not be provoked' line trotted out by Kiev. At this point, a failure to mobilise is effectively inviting Russia in when it feels like it. Moscow isn't answering the phone so it's time to prepare to defend itself. They will fight when it comes to it.
The difficulty for the Ukrainians is this:
In doing this mobilisation Russia can self justify it as a new threat.
What exactly are they mobilising? There will be forces, they will be available, there is kit in stores, but what forces and how well organised? The problem then is how well sustained will they be? The next days will tell but some omens are not good, the navy in particular is deeply fractured and resignations abound...more of them today.
So far the signs are are that the self defense troops who formed up in the civic disturbances are not waiting to see, they are mobilising themselves. This in itself is the development of a potential second force of militias, when the Ukrainians need one military, despite the statements that these will work with the defence ministry
Y0kel: Putin will not march his Army into Kiev. They will only move into Russian majority areas, like Kharkiv and the Crimea.
We must not forget that Yanukovych won by 49-45% or so, which at that time was considered reasonably free and fair by our governments. He might not have won today. But all his supporters have not disappeared. They live in the East.
A look at the electoral map who you where the "Ukranians" support.
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The only reason it is ethnically Russian majority is because the original population of Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed back in the 1940s. The minority Tatar population today strongly supports remaining in Ukraine. Should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? Particularly under a process of illegal invasion?
I would say no. Is independence for E Ukraine a viable option? Or would that simply become a Russian puppet state?
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The reality is that nearly all states have been constructed on arbitrary lines, often according to the machinations of the previous imperial power. One only has to look at the effects of Siques-Picot in the Middle East and the near permanence of the former colonial boundaries in Africa to appreciate that this is a phenomenon by no means confined to the old Soviet empire. The one period in which self-determination was applied on a large scale (and even then not consistently) was in Europe in the aftermath of the First World War, and that had absolutely disastrous consequences.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The only reason it is ethnically Russian majority is because the original population of Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed back in the 1940s. The minority Tatar population today strongly supports remaining in Ukraine. Should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? Particularly under a process of illegal invasion?
I would say no. Is independence for E Ukraine a viable option? Or would that simply become a Russian puppet state?
Probably, yes ! But no more than Belarus.
Talking about "independent" Ukraine. Who will pay for the gas ?
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The only reason it is ethnically Russian majority is because the original population of Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed back in the 1940s. The minority Tatar population today strongly supports remaining in Ukraine. Should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? Particularly under a process of illegal invasion?
Until Tsarist Russia took it over the Crimea was never at any time part of a political unit that included Ukraine. Why should they have control over it now?
Because those were the agreed borders upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and they were agreed to remain protected in 1994, and again in 2004. Neighbouring powers don't get to rewrite borders in foreign countries just because they change to a government you dislike.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Whether he did or did not serve in the forces is entirely irrelevant
I think one of the great problems with the former soviet countries is they were, pretty much, broken up along internal SSR boundaries, some of which were arbitrary and counter intuitive. The Crimea, for example, is, for all intents and purposes, Russian. It is more Russian than some areas which are actually in Russia. Yet, because it was in the Ukrainian SSR, it is now in the state of Ukraine.
The only reason it is ethnically Russian majority is because the original population of Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed back in the 1940s. The minority Tatar population today strongly supports remaining in Ukraine. Should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? Particularly under a process of illegal invasion?
Until Tsarist Russia took it over the Crimea was never at any time part of a political unit that included Ukraine. Why should they have control over it now?
Because it's part of an internationally-recognised state whose borders cannot be subject to revision under international law unilaterally by an external power. If residents of the Crimea wish to campaign for independence or a transfer to Russia, that is a different matter.
Besides, basing the case for which state should have the Crimea on which state it was or wasn't in several centuries ago seems of minimal relevance to the current crisis.
@JackW Putin is not a new Hitler. One does not need to read Ernest R. May's "Lessons" of the Past (New York City NY, 1973) to appreciate what a deleterious consequence on foreign policy the misuse of history can have. It is not a question of our government making mistakes in the distant past. The incumbent government proposed barely a year ago an unlawful war of aggression against another sovereign state. We are in no position to criticise the Russian Federation if it does similar things. As for the Baltic states, there is not a cat in hell's chance that Russia would move against a NATO member, for the same reasons that there is not a cat in hell's chance that the United States or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would attempt to oppose by force Russian actions in Ukraine.
Just playing Devil's Advocate, if the majority of people East of the Dneiper wanted to become part of Russia, would you advocate its annexation?
You are a devil with that question !!
Revisiting borders, especially in Europe has been a catastrophe over the last century.
My answer isn't a satisfactory one and to some extent depends on time and history. Presently I'd say no on the basis that the annexation would have been largely achieved through force of arms and such aggression should not be rewarded.
Additionally the Ukrainian borders have been settled more than once by the participants by peaceful treaty in the past twenty years. There might be a time when the issue might be revisited but certainly not in the near future.
True to form, just read through the twitter conversation between Rentoul and Good Old Dan. Obviously, Rentoul backs his article up with details of registration by union members to the Labour Party and a few others pipe into the conversation including Tory HQ. Dan is still not too happy with someone else being happy with it and after numerous of "but what about this" and "what about that" and "what about the other", over it must be near fifty tweets, Rentoul tweets "Dan, it is time for you to give up".
I supported the first Gulf War but not the second.
The fact that the UK has made mistakes in the past shouldn't preclude the present government from taking action in the future.
Surely we know the consequences of indulging Putin and accepting his probable "I have no more territorial claims in Europe" gambit.
Perhaps next he'd like to take a slice out of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and establish a corridor to Kaliningrad. How about a chunk of Belarus and Moldova ? .... and while he's at it if he absorbs Crimea and Eastern Ukraine why not annex the rest of Ukraine too .... just to keeps matters simple you understand.
And then there's a whole swathe of bits and bobs in Asia to consume ....
Sorry Jack but clearly too many people do not if the ream of excuses on here effectively to look the other way are anything to go by.
Putin is in effect a dictator he is using a dictators methods. The Russian state under him is at the least an opponent if not an outright enemy.
Dealing with dictators is not complex, its exactly the way we were all told to do it in the playground. You tell them you'll make them pay and if they actually do anything you make them pay.
Having been to the Ukraine on a few occasions the problem is that the corruption of officialdom is a serious issue. Whats worse though was that Yanukovych was becoming a dictator. These were the big drivers behind the street level ousting of him. The sidling up to Russia was just another thing on the list, no nation wants to be tied to another's yoke.
What people this end of Europe care less to see is that the newbies in power have got plenty of a rough ride from the ground level citizens. They masses have warned new government officials to work for the Ukraine, not their own pockets, to their faces.
Obviously we can't support such basic aspirations.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
Except, in your mind, the "law" does not apply to the West. You were happy to attack Syria who have not attacked any Western country.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Whether he did or did not serve in the forces is entirely irrelevant
He asked which branch jack served in? What's wrong with that? And what's it to do with you?
Ukraine traces its history to the Kievan Rus, and then after that's fragmentation to the Principality of Kiev. They have centuries of independence between them. Just because they have been brutally subjugated under a foreign empire for centuries since then does not make them any less of a nation.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
No one is saying that Kiev cannot have its happy little fascist state under EU protection. They are just saying that the right to that state does not extend to the East and South which weer never even part of the Kievan Rus Kingdom (if you really think that we should base modern borders on long lost ancient kingdoms with no continuity of existence).
I am waiting for the Dalraidians to press their claim for independence in western Scotland. That would make the whole SNP debate far more interesting.
*When we helped evacuate them in advance of the Turks and then betrayed them in camps in Mesopotamia
One of the major cultural problems in the Russia / Ukraine crisis is that both countries trace their history to the Kievian Rus (the clue being in the name).
As an aside, while the Ukraine developed along a slightly different path from Russia after the Mongol invasions and the collapse of the first Rus, Ukraine only very rarely existed as an independent state.
Russia emerged from the Duchy of Moscow, which barely existed as a settlement at the time of the Kievan Rus. The only reason the Duchy of Moscow developed from an obscure trading post was because it collaborated with the Mongol overlords to exploit and subjugate the neighbours that were part of the Kievan Rus.
True to form, just read through the twitter conversation between Rentoul and Good Old Dan. Obviously, Rentoul backs his article up with details of registration by union members to the Labour Party and a few others pipe into the conversation including Tory HQ. Dan is still not too happy with someone else being happy with it and after numerous of "but what about this" and "what about that" and "what about the other", over it must be near fifty tweets, Rentoul tweets "Dan, it is time for you to give up".
Surely to balance it out we will get an article from Dan Hodges telling us it is a disaster for Ed Miliband. If not, I will feel robbed.
Don't hold your breath ! If Rentoul is backing Miliband, the Supreme leader may have passed signals.
Hilarious twitter spat between Rentoul and Hodges. In the end you get the feeling Rentoul gets bored with Dan making up why it is bad for Ed Miliband and tells him " it is time for you to give up".
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
Except, in your mind, the "law" does not apply to the West. You were happy to attack Syria who have not attacked any Western country.
Clearly you are as ignorant of international law as you are of your history. The Syrian government has perpetrated genocide against its own people. Under the UN Convention on genocide, it is perfectly legal, and indeed encouraged, for foreign nations to remove a government engaging in genocide.
@JackW Putin is not a new Hitler. One does not need to read Ernest R. May's "Lessons of the Past" (New York City NY, 1973) to appreciate what a deleterious consequence on foreign policy the misuse of history can have. It is not a question of our government making mistakes in the distant past. The incumbent government proposed barely a year ago an unlawful war of aggression against another sovereign state. We are in no position to criticise the Russian Federation if it does similar things. As for the Baltic states, there is not a cat in hell's chance that Russia would move against a NATO member, for the same reasons that there is not a cat in hell's chance that the United States or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would attempt to oppose by force Russian actions in Ukraine.
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
IIRC, the Crimean War and the Russo-Turkish war were both precipitated by Russia's insistence on having the right to act as protector of (Orthodox) Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Whether he did or did not serve in the forces is entirely irrelevant
He asked which branch jack served in? What's wrong with that? And what's it to do with you?
I could ask what it's to do with you. But I suspect it is because you are obsessed...
True to form, just read through the twitter conversation between Rentoul and Good Old Dan. Obviously, Rentoul backs his article up with details of registration by union members to the Labour Party and a few others pipe into the conversation including Tory HQ. Dan is still not too happy with someone else being happy with it and after numerous of "but what about this" and "what about that" and "what about the other", over it must be near fifty tweets, Rentoul tweets "Dan, it is time for you to give up".
Don't you just love Dan :-)
Oh ! Only if David won...
Dan would have a job in the Labour Party and would be helping formulate policy. Instead he is out of the party whinging like a tart.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Whether he did or did not serve in the forces is entirely irrelevant
He asked which branch jack served in? What's wrong with that? And what's it to do with you?
I could ask what it's to do with you. But I suspect it is because you are obsessed...
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
Except, in your mind, the "law" does not apply to the West. You were happy to attack Syria who have not attacked any Western country.
International Law is something of a grey area in respect of what was proposed in Syria. There has been growing opinion (and case law, in effect), that intervention in another country is legitimate to protect a population from gross human rights abuses, which the use of chemical weapons could certainly be argued to be. That was the case in Libya - though that also had a UN mandate, which clarified the legitimacy question - as well as various other humanitarian interventions over the last 20 years.
It's amazing there are posters on here who think that an intervention to remove a government partaking in genocide is illegal, but a full out invasion - and annexation of land! - based on revanchist claims is legal.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Whether he did or did not serve in the forces is entirely irrelevant
He asked which branch jack served in? What's wrong with that? And what's it to do with you?
I could ask what it's to do with you. But I suspect it is because you are obsessed...
Obsessed with what?
(I imagine) Jack W, and who wouldn't be of such a resplendent multi-centenarian.
Ukraine traces its history to the Kievan Rus, and then after that's fragmentation to the Principality of Kiev. They have centuries of independence between them. Just because they have been brutally subjugated under a foreign empire for centuries since then does not make them any less of a nation.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
No one is saying that Kiev cannot have its happy little fascist state under EU protection. They are just saying that the right to that state does not extend to the East and South which weer never even part of the Kievan Rus Kingdom (if you really think that we should base modern borders on long lost ancient kingdoms with no continuity of existence).
I am waiting for the Dalraidians to press their claim for independence in western Scotland. That would make the whole SNP debate far more interesting.
*When we helped evacuate them in advance of the Turks and then betrayed them in camps in Mesopotamia
One of the major cultural problems in the Russia / Ukraine crisis is that both countries trace their history to the Kievian Rus (the clue being in the name).
As an aside, while the Ukraine developed along a slightly different path from Russia after the Mongol invasions and the collapse of the first Rus, Ukraine only very rarely existed as an independent state.
Russia emerged from the Duchy of Moscow, which barely existed as a settlement at the time of the Kievan Rus. The only reason the Duchy of Moscow developed from an obscure trading post was because it collaborated with the Mongol overlords to exploit and subjugate the neighbours that were part of the Kievan Rus.
But all the little Russian states that formed after the Kievian Rus collapsed after the Mongol invasions still traced their cultural heritage back to Kiev. That Moscow didn't exist in the 10th century is beside the point. The Muscovite state regarded itself as the legitimate successor of the Kievian one, not unreasonably.
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
It should be noted that the only remedy under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a reference to the United Nations' Security Council (see paragraph 4 thereof). Russia, of course, has a veto. We have the right to oppose Russia by force if it threatens us or another state upon whom we treat an attack by a foreign power as an attack upon us (i.e. a NATO member). There is no evidence at all that Putin is intent on resurrecting the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. As for Syria, the Russian Federation has consistently supported its sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom.
Surely to balance it out we will get an article from Dan Hodges telling us it is a disaster for Ed Miliband. If not, I will feel robbed.
Don't hold your breath ! If Rentoul is backing Miliband, the Supreme leader may have passed signals.
Hilarious twitter spat between Rentoul and Hodges. In the end you get the feeling Rentoul gets bored with Dan making up why it is bad for Ed Miliband and tells him " it is time for you to give up".
Absolutely classic stuff. Tomorrow - why John Rentoul backing Ed Miliband is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
Yep. I think we chose the wrong side in the Crimea, and while not militarily involved in the 1877-78 war supported the Ottomans. Look at what happened to the Orthodox, Assyrian and Armenian Christians when the Ottoman empire collapsed.
Whatever the origins of the Ukranians and their state, they do have the right to self determination. That applies to those in Crimea and the Donbass as much as those in Galicia.
The Russians have not redrawn any borders, just acted in support of minorities, something that we have done elsewhere in the world.
A federal state and fresh elections is the way forward, before the real shooting starts.
Yep I was waiting for that argument. I look forward to your proposal that the Assyrian Empire should be reformed in central Turkey (after all it still existed in some form around Lake Van up until 1918*) and that we should support them in their fight for their ancestral homelands. They would have more claim to their lands than the Kievien Rus have for the Crimea.
You've completely missed my argument. I am not using the heritage of the Kievan Rus to argue that present state borders should be based on it. I am just using its heritage as demonstrating that Ukraine has a long established identity as a nation, something dozens of Ukrainians have died for in recent weeks, and something people are appallingly denying on this thread today.
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
IIRC, the Crimean War and the Russo-Turkish war were both precipitated by Russia's insistence on having the right to act as protector of (Orthodox) Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
You made a contemptuous comment especially in relation to recent immigrants for which you have no proof and only your own prejudices to bolster.
Yours was a post unworthy of this fine site but at least we have it as a testament to your beliefs and a marker for your future contributions.
Clearly we've dragged one skeleton out of your cupboard for Mr Farage's delectation.
"..the Tories have the lowest proportion of women supporters but only just: 46 per cent of Tory supporters are women, compared with 47 for Labour and 48 for the Lib Dems.
All parties appear to over-represent men and under-represent women because female voters are disproportionately likely to be “don’t knows”."
But all the little Russian states that formed after the Kievian Rus collapsed after the Mongol invasions still traced their cultural heritage back to Kiev. That Moscow didn't exist in the 10th century is beside the point. The Muscovite state regarded itself as the legitimate successor of the Kievian one, not unreasonably.
Most of the states that emerged after Kiev was crushed by the Mongols were the pre-existing principalities in the federation: Galicia, Polotsk, Pinsk etc. Moscow wasn't among them. I struggle to see how you can claim to be the legitimate successor to a country when you emerged by collaborating with its annihilator and exploiting its actual successors. Kiev's main cultural legacy was constitutionalism and guaranteed rights, while Moscow has always been based on despotic Mongol-style governance.
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
You made a contemptuous comment especially in relation to recent immigrants for which you have no proof and only your own prejudices to bolster.
Yours was a post unworthy of this fine site but at least we have it as a testament to your beliefs and a marker for your future contributions.
Clearly we've dragged one skeleton out of your cupboard for Mr Farage's delectation.
Interestingly we see in the Populus mega poll on the FT that 98% of Ukip supporters are white. I suspect such attitudes are one reason why that number is so high.
True to form, just read through the twitter conversation between Rentoul and Good Old Dan. Obviously, Rentoul backs his article up with details of registration by union members to the Labour Party and a few others pipe into the conversation including Tory HQ. Dan is still not too happy with someone else being happy with it and after numerous of "but what about this" and "what about that" and "what about the other", over it must be near fifty tweets, Rentoul tweets "Dan, it is time for you to give up".
Don't you just love Dan :-)
Oh ! Only if David won...
Dan would have a job in the Labour Party and would be helping formulate policy. Instead he is out of the party whinging like a tart.
It's worse than that - he now no longer has any serious contacts in the party as no-one will talk to him, worth remembering before any of our Conservative friends take solace in his views.
Interesting stuff. I was a bit surprised by this sentence:
The survey shows that the only demographic groups among whom Labour does not have a lead over the Tories is the over-55s (Con 39, Lab 26) and the top AB social groups (Con 38, Lab 32).
As with the Roman Empire, eastern Ukraine is showing the danger of large scale immigration of people with no loyalty to your country. In a lot of these cities putting up Russian flags, Russians aren't anywhere near a majority, yet could still be split off. And at that point I'm sure Ukrainians will be kicked out of Russia's new puppet state.
Rubbish. That implies there was a Ukrainian polis in existence prior to Russian arrivals. This is simply not the case. The 'natives' if you wish to use such terms are the same of the same Rus origins as those in Moscow. Nor was Eastern Ukraine ever part of either the Lithuanian or Polish kingdoms that included Western Ukraine. The country itself has no historical cohesion beyond Soviet internal borders and the idea that the ethnic Russians in the East are any less 'native' than the Polish descendants in th West is simply wrong.
Socrates, Britain now has a very large immigrant population with dubious loyalty to our country. Will you concur that by welcoming these people the last decade, our elites have put this country in danger, in times of crisis?
What a disgraceful comment.
A notable number of immigrants serve in the armed forces and their forebears served and died for our nation in two world wars and before and since. One of our most recent holders of the VC, Johnson Beharry, is an immigrant.
Shame on you.
First, Why don't you read carefully what I wrote. I was referring to immigrants of the last decade only; they certainly never served en mass in our armed services. And further I was making a point with Socrates' argument re Ukrainian Russian immigrants.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
You made a contemptuous comment especially in relation to recent immigrants for which you have no proof and only your own prejudices to bolster.
Yours was a post unworthy of this fine site but at least we have it as a testament to your beliefs and a marker for your future contributions.
Clearly we've dragged one skeleton out of your cupboard for Mr Farage's delectation.
Interestingly we see in the Populus mega poll on the FT that 98% of Ukip supporters are white. I suspect such attitudes are one reason why that number is so high.
But most immigrants in the last decade, thise thatmike was referring to, are white aren't they?
We can start abiding by the Montreux Convention when Russia starts abiding by the Budapest Memorandum.
That kind of an attitude is a recipe for the abnegation of the principles of the United Nations' Charter and a return to the rule of strongmen. Unless we are in a state of war with a foreign power or potentate, we cannot selectively ignore our obligations to them under international law.
O/T slightly.. I wonder if the Beijing Govt will be as tolerant towards the Islamic group that slaughtered 30+ of its citizens today, as Western Govt's seem to be
Russian navy navigation of the Bosphorus Straits is actually subject to agreement.
Kill the agreement.
That would be a very smart move. No entry of Russian ships through the Bosphorus until Ukraine's territorial integrity is restored.
May I suggest that would be an utterly stupid thing to do. President Putin will have leaned from the UK and its allies that the UN doesn't really matter and if a country has the power it can do what it wants (witness Iraq 2003 and more recently the abuse of the no-fly zone agreed for Libya). For the Western powers to breach further international agreements would not be a sensible idea.
No country is going to do anything to help the Ukraine and the best thing that we can do is to try and rebuild (or even build) respect for the UN and in the meantime emulate Russia in rebuilding our defences, especially where they are vulnerable to Russian attention in the future (in other words rebuild the RN).
But all the little Russian states that formed after the Kievian Rus collapsed after the Mongol invasions still traced their cultural heritage back to Kiev. That Moscow didn't exist in the 10th century is beside the point. The Muscovite state regarded itself as the legitimate successor of the Kievian one, not unreasonably.
Most of the states that emerged after Kiev was crushed by the Mongols were the pre-existing principalities in the federation: Galicia, Polotsk, Pinsk etc. Moscow wasn't among them. I struggle to see how you can claim to be the legitimate successor to a country when you emerged by collaborating with its annihilator and exploiting its actual successors. Kiev's main cultural legacy was constitutionalism and guaranteed rights, while Moscow has always been based on despotic Mongol-style governance.
In one sense, it doesn't really matter what you think, or what I think. It's how Russians and Ukrainians view their cultural heritage that counts.
However, while I agree that the Muscovite state was a much darker beast than the pre-Mongol conquest principalities, that is perhaps to be expected and not unique to Russia. The Islamic world has never really recovered from the destruction of the Caliphate at the same time.
In terms of legitimate successors, I imagine the argument would be that the Kievian Rus was what was there before the Mongols, and Muscovy was what reunited the same lands (and more), the same people, and overthrew their conquerors. They were all 'of the Rus' - or Russians.
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
It should be noted that the only remedy under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a reference to the United Nations' Security Council (see paragraph 4 thereof). Russia, of course, has a veto. We have the right to oppose Russia by force if it threatens us or another state upon whom we treat an attack by a foreign power as an attack upon us (i.e. a NATO member). There is no evidence at all that Putin is intent on resurrecting the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. As for Syria, the Russian Federation has consistently supported its sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom.
Wind the clock back six months.
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
11% of the popular vote, and only parts of them are far right. How on Earth this is supposed to represent the new Ukrainian government is hilarious. The current President is a former communist, for fuck's sake.
This little Crimean spat demonstrates one of the advantage of not having to rely on Russian gas. Fire up the Fracking engines. Let the NIMBYs import from Russia, we good guys can take the money and live on what's underground.
Do I get a Private Eye prize for connecting International affairs to domestic arguments?
Stories have it that segments of the Ukrainian Navy have refused the order from their now resigned/sacked commander (2 days on the job) to down tools and defect.
I first mentioned the Ukrainian navy's major issues a few days ago.
As regards the Montreux agreement there are restrictions on Russian military naval vessels. The key to the move is turning the Russian Black Sea fleet to a fleet in a lake.
Just as a quick summary by the way of NATO moves to keep a handle on the situation (bear in mind this time last week I pointed out how a number of NATO nations bordering Ukraine went on heightened alert well before the Russians started this move so the below is additional)
1. Two US vessels including an intelligence vessel are in the area. 2. A 2nd European naval intelligence vessel will be there by Tuesday 3. US carrier group has been placed at readiness 4. NATO fast jet aircraft are reported patrolling the airspace near Ukraine, i.e. over the Black Sea
Russian navy navigation of the Bosphorus Straits is actually subject to agreement.
Kill the agreement.
That would be a very smart move. No entry of Russian ships through the Bosphorus until Ukraine's territorial integrity is restored.
May I suggest that would be an utterly stupid thing to do. President Putin will have leaned from the UK and its allies that the UN doesn't really matter and if a country has the power it can do what it wants (witness Iraq 2003 and more recently the abuse of the no-fly zone agreed for Libya). For the Western powers to breach further international agreements would not be a sensible idea.
No country is going to do anything to help the Ukraine and the best thing that we can do is to try and rebuild (or even build) respect for the UN and in the meantime emulate Russia in rebuilding our defences, especially where they are vulnerable to Russian attention in the future (in other words rebuild the RN).
Indeed. It's a far away country of which we know little.
We can start abiding by the Montreux Convention when Russia starts abiding by the Budapest Memorandum.
That kind of an attitude is a recipe for the abnegation of the principles of the United Nations' Charter and a return to the rule of strongmen. Unless we are in a state of war with a foreign power or potentate, we cannot selectively ignore our obligations to them under international law.
And how, exactly, are we supposed to uphold the principles of the UN Charter if we do nothing while Russia abrogates them? We aren't selectively ignoring our obligations. We would be making consequences for a specific abrogation of a much more fundamental part of international law: territorial integrity.
Do man-made boundaries triumph over self-determination ?
You mean like that between England and Scotland?
This must be good for the Yes campaign. I'd be very happy at the moment to belong to a country too wee, too poor and too stupid to have signed the Budapest Memorandum or to belong to the G8 or to have to pretend to have a position on any of this stuff.
11% of the popular vote, and only parts of them are far right. How on Earth this is supposed to represent the new Ukrainian government is hilarious. The current President is a former communist, for fuck's sake.
5 members of Svoboda are in the new govt (I presume Cabinet?)
"..the Tories have the lowest proportion of women supporters but only just: 46 per cent of Tory supporters are women, compared with 47 for Labour and 48 for the Lib Dems.
All parties appear to over-represent men and under-represent women because female voters are disproportionately likely to be “don’t knows”."
Funnily enough the poll in the Sun yesterday on independence also showed that far more women than men are undecided. Perhaps they are generally a bit more thoughtful than us!
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
It should be noted that the only remedy under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a reference to the United Nations' Security Council (see paragraph 4 thereof). Russia, of course, has a veto. We have the right to oppose Russia by force if it threatens us or another state upon whom we treat an attack by a foreign power as an attack upon us (i.e. a NATO member). There is no evidence at all that Putin is intent on resurrecting the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. As for Syria, the Russian Federation has consistently supported its sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom.
Wind the clock back six months.
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
Relax Jack! I'm sure Uncle Vladimir has no designs on Auchentennach and your cache of fine pasties!
"You just don't in the 21st-Century behave in 19th-Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext," Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation.
Are you referring to events in Iraq in 2003, Mr. Kerry?
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
A weak argument. The question is not what we expected six months ago, but what actions are available to us now. Opposing by force Russian military action in Ukraine is a road to perdition. No doubt the citizens of the Baltic states feel less safe than they did a fortnight ago. Well-informed citizens in the United Kingdom ought to feel less safe than they did a fortnight ago. There has after all been a manifest deterioration in the international situation. The chance of a Russian annexation of the Baltic States remains, however, minute.
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
It should be noted that the only remedy under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a reference to the United Nations' Security Council (see paragraph 4 thereof). Russia, of course, has a veto. We have the right to oppose Russia by force if it threatens us or another state upon whom we treat an attack by a foreign power as an attack upon us (i.e. a NATO member). There is no evidence at all that Putin is intent on resurrecting the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. As for Syria, the Russian Federation has consistently supported its sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom.
Wind the clock back six months.
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
Jack, as someone who has been on PB longer than most and read many of your posts you are a man who it is hard to disagree with. I suspect this must be a very frightening and dark time for the people of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. By indulging Putin further we are utterly betraying those people. I very much doubt his ambitions end at the borders of Crimea.
Stories have it that segments of the Ukrainian Navy have refused the order from their now resigned/sacked commander (2 days on the job) to down tools and defect.
I first mentioned the Ukrainian navy's major issues a few days ago.
As regards the Montreux agreement there are restrictions on Russian military naval vessels. The key to the move is turning the Russian Black Sea fleet to a fleet in a lake.
Just as a quick summary by the way of NATO moves to keep a handle on the situation (bear in mind this time last week I pointed out how a number of NATO nations bordering Ukraine went on heightened alert well before the Russians started this move so the below is additional)
1. Two US vessels including an intelligence vessel are in the area. 2. A 2nd European naval intelligence vessel will be there by Tuesday 3. US carrier group has been placed at readiness 4. NATO fast jet aircraft are reported patrolling the airspace near Ukraine, i.e. over the Black Sea
Can you point out what parts of the convention limit Russians ability to cross the Bosphorus? As far as I am aware only non-Black sea powers can be restricted according to the convention (apart from the caveat regarding aircraft carriers).
Russian navy navigation of the Bosphorus Straits is actually subject to agreement.
Kill the agreement.
That would be a very smart move. No entry of Russian ships through the Bosphorus until Ukraine's territorial integrity is restored.
May I suggest that would be an utterly stupid thing to do. President Putin will have leaned from the UK and its allies that the UN doesn't really matter and if a country has the power it can do what it wants (witness Iraq 2003 and more recently the abuse of the no-fly zone agreed for Libya). For the Western powers to breach further international agreements would not be a sensible idea.
No country is going to do anything to help the Ukraine and the best thing that we can do is to try and rebuild (or even build) respect for the UN and in the meantime emulate Russia in rebuilding our defences, especially where they are vulnerable to Russian attention in the future (in other words rebuild the RN).
What's your red line with Putin ?
Swallowing the rest of Ukraine? .... or perhaps a trumped up incident in Latvia or Estonia involving protecting ethnic Russians - both states have over 25% ethnic Russians.
What level of Russian expansionism is, armed with a UN veto, acceptable before sanctions, whether they be cultural, economic or military are implemented ?
And how, exactly, are we supposed to uphold the principles of the UN Charter if we do nothing while Russia abrogates them? We aren't selectively ignoring our obligations. We would be making consequences for a specific abrogation of a much more fundamental part of international law: territorial integrity.
Unfortunately, because of the constitution of the Security Council, there is very little that we can do to uphold the principles of the Charter or of the Budapest Memorandum. Such is life. Unfortunately, the only way Russia could be repelled by force is if the Ukrainian government invoked its right to self-defence. That would be its right, but it is understandable that it is reluctant to use it. We may also impose with our allies such diplomatic pressure and sanctions against Russia as we deem necessary and expedient. What we may not do is to start selectively ignoring our own commitments under international law, which would only encourage every country in a diplomatic dispute with Her Majesty's Government to do the same thing, on the specious justification that some item of our foreign policy had offended them.
It doesn't matter whether you think suspending the Terms of the Montreux Convention regarding Russian military vessels is good or bad.
Its on the list of options for escalation. None of you knew it was there so I'm giving you the information.
Is it, realistically? What happens if Russia decides to sail a ship through anyway? Do NATO forces fire on it?
David. No idea, not my remit.
Rob there is a restriction on the number of military vessels crossing at any one time under that Convention. It was a frequent Cold War sore point. My understanding is that it still exists. All I know is that its there as an option.
On David Owen, surprisingly good news for Ed M as Owen is a Eurosceptic and indeed in 1987 was said to prefer Thatcher to Kinnock (Ed's mentor) in the event of a hung parliament. Several senior Tories also used to be SDP and work for Owen, including Danny Finkelstein, Greg Clark and Chris Grayling, Andrew Lansley and David Mundell. Surprisingly, there are more ex SDP senior Tories than LDs now (the LDs being Vince Cable, Tom McNally and Paul Burstow, though Huhne and Charles Kennedy were also SDP). Tories will argue Owen was a Labour MP originally and a Labour Foreign Secretary, but it does show Miliband is capable of winning moderate, intellectual social democrats, and not just the anti war LDs
Who would have thought a few years after signing binding treaties recognizing Ukrainian borders that Putin would seek to annex huge chunks of that same country. And what if Putin decides to annex the rest of Ukraine and then emboldened moves against other states.
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
It should be noted that the only remedy under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a reference to the United Nations' Security Council (see paragraph 4 thereof). Russia, of course, has a veto. We have the right to oppose Russia by force if it threatens us or another state upon whom we treat an attack by a foreign power as an attack upon us (i.e. a NATO member). There is no evidence at all that Putin is intent on resurrecting the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. As for Syria, the Russian Federation has consistently supported its sovereignty and territorial integrity, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom.
Wind the clock back six months.
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
Relax Jack! I'm sure Uncle Vladimir has no designs on Auchentennach and your cache of fine pasties!
Comments
Ukraine is going to be highly destabilising of world events for the next few months. As a small and trivial example, the winter paralympics are still to occur.
It's interesting to consider how the European elections in May *could* be affected by events over the next two months.
As an aside, while the Ukraine developed along a slightly different path from Russia after the Mongol invasions and the collapse of the first Rus, Ukraine only very rarely existed as an independent state.
We must not forget that Yanukovych won by 49-45% or so, which at that time was considered reasonably free and fair by our governments. He might not have won today. But all his supporters have not disappeared. They live in the East.
A look at the electoral map who you where the "Ukranians" support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010
They haven't changed that much since !
I'm defending Ukraine's territorial integrity today on the basis that territorial integrity is a fundamental part of international law, and that Russia is conducting an aggressively and blatantly illegal invasion. Even if the Russians in eastern Ukraine weren't recent immigrants, there's still no grounds in international law for doing this. Russia is acting like a 19th century imperialist power, thinking that the little countries around it don't have any sovereignty. Hungary doesn't get to invade northern Serbia whenever it wants either.
So give your big highland head a big soaking, and pipe down fora change. BTW in branch of the armed forces did you serve?
Talking about "independent" Ukraine. Who will pay for the gas ?
Besides, basing the case for which state should have the Crimea on which state it was or wasn't in several centuries ago seems of minimal relevance to the current crisis.
Putin is not a new Hitler. One does not need to read Ernest R. May's "Lessons" of the Past (New York City NY, 1973) to appreciate what a deleterious consequence on foreign policy the misuse of history can have. It is not a question of our government making mistakes in the distant past. The incumbent government proposed barely a year ago an unlawful war of aggression against another sovereign state. We are in no position to criticise the Russian Federation if it does similar things. As for the Baltic states, there is not a cat in hell's chance that Russia would move against a NATO member, for the same reasons that there is not a cat in hell's chance that the United States or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would attempt to oppose by force Russian actions in Ukraine.
Hoping to post the last pre-season piece tomorrow. No tips expected, just vague musings.
Revisiting borders, especially in Europe has been a catastrophe over the last century.
My answer isn't a satisfactory one and to some extent depends on time and history. Presently I'd say no on the basis that the annexation would have been largely achieved through force of arms and such aggression should not be rewarded.
Additionally the Ukrainian borders have been settled more than once by the participants by peaceful treaty in the past twenty years. There might be a time when the issue might be revisited but certainly not in the near future.
True to form, just read through the twitter conversation between Rentoul and Good Old Dan. Obviously, Rentoul backs his article up with details of registration by union members to the Labour Party and a few others pipe into the conversation including Tory HQ. Dan is still not too happy with someone else being happy with it and after numerous of "but what about this" and "what about that" and "what about the other", over it must be near fifty tweets, Rentoul tweets "Dan, it is time for you to give up".
Don't you just love Dan :-)
Putin is in effect a dictator he is using a dictators methods. The Russian state under him is at the least an opponent if not an outright enemy.
Dealing with dictators is not complex, its exactly the way we were all told to do it in the playground. You tell them you'll make them pay and if they actually do anything you make them pay.
Having been to the Ukraine on a few occasions the problem is that the corruption of officialdom is a serious issue. Whats worse though was that Yanukovych was becoming a dictator. These were the big drivers behind the street level ousting of him. The sidling up to Russia was just another thing on the list, no nation wants to be tied to another's yoke.
What people this end of Europe care less to see is that the newbies in power have got plenty of a rough ride from the ground level citizens. They masses have warned new government officials to work for the Ukraine, not their own pockets, to their faces.
Obviously we can't support such basic aspirations.
Oh ! Only if David won...
Do we do nothing ? .... do we appease Putin because of mistakes in Syria where Russia is hardly guiltless ?
Who and when will we stop Putin and his expansionism ?
Obsessed with what?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/215d8fb4-a1ed-11e3-87f6-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product#axzz2upb8TG4w
Russian navy navigation of the Bosphorus Straits is actually subject to agreement.
Kill the agreement.
Hodges just writes his own script.
Whatever the origins of the Ukranians and their state, they do have the right to self determination. That applies to those in Crimea and the Donbass as much as those in Galicia.
The Russians have not redrawn any borders, just acted in support of minorities, something that we have done elsewhere in the world.
A federal state and fresh elections is the way forward, before the real shooting starts.
Yours was a post unworthy of this fine site but at least we have it as a testament to your beliefs and a marker for your future contributions.
Clearly we've dragged one skeleton out of your cupboard for Mr Farage's delectation.
"..the Tories have the lowest proportion of women supporters but only just: 46 per cent of Tory supporters are women, compared with 47 for Labour and 48 for the Lib Dems.
All parties appear to over-represent men and under-represent women because female voters are disproportionately likely to be “don’t knows”."
Do you think the average Kharkivian welcome the Russians or the SS arm banded thugs from Kiev ?
The survey shows that the only demographic groups among whom Labour does not have a lead over the Tories is the over-55s (Con 39, Lab 26) and the top AB social groups (Con 38, Lab 32).
Labour used to do very well in the AB group.
No country is going to do anything to help the Ukraine and the best thing that we can do is to try and rebuild (or even build) respect for the UN and in the meantime emulate Russia in rebuilding our defences, especially where they are vulnerable to Russian attention in the future (in other words rebuild the RN).
However, while I agree that the Muscovite state was a much darker beast than the pre-Mongol conquest principalities, that is perhaps to be expected and not unique to Russia. The Islamic world has never really recovered from the destruction of the Caliphate at the same time.
In terms of legitimate successors, I imagine the argument would be that the Kievian Rus was what was there before the Mongols, and Muscovy was what reunited the same lands (and more), the same people, and overthrew their conquerors. They were all 'of the Rus' - or Russians.
Would you have expected then, days after the Sochi Olympics, that Putin would have invaded Crimea with a view to annexing it and probably Eastern Ukraine too ?
If you were a Baltic State national would you feel more secure now than a fortnight ago ?
Do I get a Private Eye prize for connecting International affairs to domestic arguments?
I first mentioned the Ukrainian navy's major issues a few days ago.
As regards the Montreux agreement there are restrictions on Russian military naval vessels. The key to the move is turning the Russian Black Sea fleet to a fleet in a lake.
Just as a quick summary by the way of NATO moves to keep a handle on the situation (bear in mind this time last week I pointed out how a number of NATO nations bordering Ukraine went on heightened alert well before the Russians started this move so the below is additional)
1. Two US vessels including an intelligence vessel are in the area.
2. A 2nd European naval intelligence vessel will be there by Tuesday
3. US carrier group has been placed at readiness
4. NATO fast jet aircraft are reported patrolling the airspace near Ukraine, i.e. over the Black Sea
"New head of Ukraine's navy defects in Crimea"
It doesn't matter whether you think suspending the Terms of the Montreux Convention regarding Russian military vessels is good or bad.
Its on the list of options for escalation. None of you knew it was there so I'm giving you the information.
Good on him I say
Come on Ravi it's your time to shine
Are you referring to events in Iraq in 2003, Mr. Kerry?
Shocking and disgraceful.
Swallowing the rest of Ukraine? .... or perhaps a trumped up incident in Latvia or Estonia involving protecting ethnic Russians - both states have over 25% ethnic Russians.
What level of Russian expansionism is, armed with a UN veto, acceptable before sanctions, whether they be cultural, economic or military are implemented ?
It was the other way round in Kiev last week, no?
Rob there is a restriction on the number of military vessels crossing at any one time under that Convention. It was a frequent Cold War sore point. My understanding is that it still exists. All I know is that its there as an option.
The Russian bear is a hungry beast !!