Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why May’s Euro elections could be more challenging for UKIP

13

Comments

  • On topic, UKIP really do need to learn to manage expectations.

    No way Farage should have even been talking about them winning the Euros in 2014, as David Herdson pointed out recently, in the last 114 years only two parties have finished first in a GB wide election.

    Nigel remember, success equals performance minus anticipation.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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).
    Quite. More importantly, the people of this part of Ukraine will be on the streets with flowers for the invaders, FFS. Whether they form an autonomous republic or a new country or become part of Russia is their business.

    We supported Kosovo breaking away, didn't we ?
  • JackW said:

    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 ?

    You are being dishonest. The Russian Security Council veto is irrelevant when it comes to the Baltic States because they are involved in an arrangement for collective self-defence, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The comparison with Ukraine is tenuous.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    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 ?

    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.
    We disagree.

    However may I ask you question I just put to @HurstLlama, namely :

    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 ?


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    surbiton said:

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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).
    Quite. More importantly, the people of this part of Ukraine will be on the streets with flowers for the invaders, FFS. Whether they form an autonomous republic or a new country or become part of Russia is their business.

    We supported Kosovo breaking away, didn't we ?
    But's that's OK, cos it was NATO helping out with the breaking away!!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Re Ukraine, we must leave the politician's syllogism behind and look at our options.

    Russia's willingness to interfere with sovereignty in its near abroad is not new. We didn't do anything meaningful about South Ossetia and most people have never even heard of Transnistria. So Russia expects to get away with any attempt to carve out Russian majority areas of Ukraine again.

    Its logic for doing so in the Crimea is stronger than it ever was in South Ossetia or Transnistria. It has no justification for doing so in eastern Ukraine.

    Should we directly intervene militarily? What would our military aims be? In any case, it seems doubtful without a major conflict that we could defeat Russia in its own backyard, a conflict that we are totally unprepared for. Given that these areas seem eager to unite with Russia, this seems like a bad idea.

    But there are useful things that we can do.

    1) the EU can put the rest of Ukraine on a fast track to EU membership, and give it shedloads of practical economic support.
    2) NATO can dramatically increase its presence on the European border with Russia.
    3) we can put in place a proper system of heavy economic sanctions on Russia until it rethinks. Targeting the oligarchs in particular would seem like an excellent way of concentrating the minds of Russia's government.
    4) the reset with Russia needs resetting to permafrost for the foreseeable future.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    More news later of 3rd party troop movements on Ukraine's borders and in Crimea to follow probably late this evening

    Now however, I have to do some training.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited March 2014

    On topic, UKIP really do need to learn to manage expectations.

    No way Farage should have even been talking about them winning the Euros in 2014, as David Herdson pointed out recently, in the last 114 years only two parties have finished first in a GB wide election.

    Nigel remember, success equals performance minus anticipation.

    I disagree. They need to keep a sense of momentum to attract and keep support. Incremental gains might be more realistic, but UKIP are selling revolution. Overthrowing the political establishment.

    If it's too hard, you might as well stay home. Victory has to be seen to be within UKIP's reach.

    And Mr Farage did say possible, rather than certain.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Y0kel said:

    Y0kel said:

    gents

    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.

    BTW How are the NI Flag Protests going, Y0kel?
  • If you're an Arsenal fan look away now.

    Turns out Suarez did HAVE a 40m release clause.

    But John W Henry decided to ignore it.

    God, that man is awesome.

    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Lovely comment on Sky: "England have managed to conjour a game out of this".

    This is really grim.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    Y0kel said:

    Y0kel said:

    gents

    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.

    BTW How are the NI Flag Protests going, Y0kel?
    I haven't seen many, probably passed 3 in the last 6 months mainly at bottom of the lower Shankill, they still have their camp up at Twadell (look it up) and the odd Saturday city centre event.

    You need to bear in mind Sunil things get more interesting during the school holidays, starting Easter. Its a tradition here.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    On topic, UKIP really do need to learn to manage expectations.

    No way Farage should have even been talking about them winning the Euros in 2014, as David Herdson pointed out recently, in the last 114 years only two parties have finished first in a GB wide election.

    Nigel remember, success equals performance minus anticipation.

    I am surprised. Didn't the Liberals win in the early part of the 20th century ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    Y0kel said:



    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.

    Article 14 (the maximum number of ships crossing the strait):

    The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention.

    Article 11:

    Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.

    i.e. such restrictions do not apply to Black Sea powers, but they do contribute to the total tonnage, which is why the Soviets could use it to effectively blockade the strait.
  • surbiton said:

    On topic, UKIP really do need to learn to manage expectations.

    No way Farage should have even been talking about them winning the Euros in 2014, as David Herdson pointed out recently, in the last 114 years only two parties have finished first in a GB wide election.

    Nigel remember, success equals performance minus anticipation.

    I am surprised. Didn't the Liberals win in the early part of the 20th century ?
    They did, I meant to type 104 years, not the 114 years that I did.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    On topic, UKIP really do need to learn to manage expectations.

    No way Farage should have even been talking about them winning the Euros in 2014, as David Herdson pointed out recently, in the last 114 years only two parties have finished first in a GB wide election.

    Nigel remember, success equals performance minus anticipation.

    I disagree. They need to keep a sense of momentum to attract and keep support. Incremental gains might be more realistic, but UKIP are selling revolution. Overthrowing the political establishment.

    If it's too hard, you might as well stay home. Victory has to be seen to be within UKIP's reach.

    And Mr Farage did say possible, rather than certain.
    Th general public see ukip coming second in by elections as massive success, it's only rival party loyalists that try to paint it as failure. Mike tried to paint Wythenshawe as s but failure, the mainstream press reported it as a shock second

    Same will apply in the euros

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    I think that FT Populus Mega poll is merely the aggregating of all the Populus polls from February, the VI and sample sizes largely the same.

    The regional picture was interesting too.

    To date UKIP's wins have been east and coastal, but the Populus suggests the midlands are a strong area for UKIP. I believe the ComRes favourable/unfavourable poll had a similar finding.

    With the midlands being the election battleground, it might be possible to get a win with a low vote share.

    "It also picks up the regional disparities that will define the next election. Mr Cameron’s party only leads in the southeast, although it is neck-and-neck with Labour in the Midlands and Wales and the southwest."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/215d8fb4-a1ed-11e3-87f6-00144feab7de.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    The general tendency to pick sides in ethnic disputes is unwise, and the right approach is surely to try to respect the wishes of populations to belong to whatever country they want. It's the way that Denmark solved the Slesvig-Holstein problem that had been going on indefinitely - offered full Danish rule after WW1, the Danes declined, opting for referendums in each district on whether pelople wanted to be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Since the respective sides were mostly close to the country they wanted to join, it wotked out well, and the region has been broadly at peace ever since.

    The West should support the principle that, in general, people should be allowed to belong where they want to belong, however eccentric we may think their preferences. We have different views about what Scotland should do, but nobody is really saying they don't have a right to independence if that's what they want. That's not based on historical justification (always murky) but simply on natural justice - if they want to be part of the UK, that's great, if they don't, OK.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    I would like to see some stats to back up the claim that the Russian community in Eastern Ukraine are recent immigrants. Do said stats exist?

    The whole (relatively) pro-Russian bit on the recent electoral maps is pretty much the same borders as the bit of Russia transferred to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 (according to a map on the Telegraph live thread). Crimea being a bit of an exception in being the least Russian back then and the most now.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited March 2014
    DavidL said:

    I don't think England will make 100 now.

    Does it not work in reverse? After all Spurs won today....

    Perhaps... but I doubt it. We'll lose the cricket again but only AFTER spurs play.

    I bet Jose is quaking in his flipflops as Spurs go to the Bridge next weekend after mustering 1 goal vs Norwich & Cardiff in the last 2 games..... even Villa at home managed 4 vs Norwich and Hull scored 4 at Cardiff....

    Beware the firing spurs - Bobby is on a roll!
  • DavidL said:

    I don't think England will make 100 now.

    Does it not work in reverse? After all Spurs won today....

    Perhaps... but I doubt it. We'll lose the cricket again but only AFTER spurs play.

    I bet Jose is quaking in his flipflops as Spurs go to the Bridge next weekend after mustering 1 goal vs Norwich & Cardiff in the last 2 games..... even Villa at home managed 4 vs Norwich and Hull scored 4 at Cardiff....

    Beware the firing spurs - Bobby is on a roll!
    Be positive.

    Soldado scored from open play today.

    Spurs are on the up, you're going to pip Arsenal to fourth place.

    Remember, I have a bet on it.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Y0kel said:

    Y0kel said:

    Y0kel said:

    gents

    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.

    BTW How are the NI Flag Protests going, Y0kel?
    I haven't seen many, probably passed 3 in the last 6 months mainly at bottom of the lower Shankill, they still have their camp up at Twadell (look it up) and the odd Saturday city centre event.

    You need to bear in mind Sunil things get more interesting during the school holidays, starting Easter. Its a tradition here.
    Thanks for the update - my interest in NI politics peaked perhaps a decade ago, enough to contribute these maps to the CAIN website:

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm

    I've started to update them for 2011, but not in what should be their final form.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903
    Putin will find very quickly that his backers don't want a conflagration in Ukraine.

    Incidentally this Ukrainian Admiral must go down as the most shabby person ever to fly his flag. To accept a new appointment and then defect in just a few hours beggars belief.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    I balme Bophara for that wicket. He has made absolutely no attempt to get and farm the strike. It really won't do when playing with the tail. If he is a front line batsman he needs to play like one and take some responsibility.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    I think that FT Populus Mega poll is merely the aggregating of all the Populus polls from February, the VI and sample sizes largely the same.

    The regional picture was interesting too.

    To date UKIP's wins have been east and coastal, but the Populus suggests the midlands are a strong area for UKIP. I believe the ComRes favourable/unfavourable poll had a similar finding.

    With the midlands being the election battleground, it might be possible to get a win with a low vote share.

    "It also picks up the regional disparities that will define the next election. Mr Cameron’s party only leads in the southeast, although it is neck-and-neck with Labour in the Midlands and Wales and the southwest."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/215d8fb4-a1ed-11e3-87f6-00144feab7de.html

    "Labour leads the Tories by 6 per cent among people who work in the private sector and by 24 per cent among people who work in the public sector, a split that may reflect Ed Miliband’s reluctance so far to set out radical public service reforms or job cuts"
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Life_ina_market_town wrote :

    "You are being dishonest. The Russian Security Council veto is irrelevant when it comes to the Baltic States because they are involved in an arrangement for collective self-defence, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The comparison with Ukraine is tenuous."

    ...........................................................

    I'd like to think all my contributions are honestly felt and written accordingly, but I'll let that comment slide.

    Let's be clear. Putin will push the borders and test the will of NATO until we push back. As @Y0kel correctly noted upthread, a bully is not deterred by giving in to him.

    At some place and at sometime Putin will have to countered. It is most certainly not if but when and where.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MrJones said:

    I would like to see some stats to back up the claim that the Russian community in Eastern Ukraine are recent immigrants. Do said stats exist?

    The whole (relatively) pro-Russian bit on the recent electoral maps is pretty much the same borders as the bit of Russia transferred to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 (according to a map on the Telegraph live thread). Crimea being a bit of an exception in being the least Russian back then and the most now.
    Except a whole people, the Tatars, were transported by Stalin to the Urals.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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 ?

    Jack

    Putin and Russia present no realistic threat to the Baltics. Russia gains access to the EU through Latvia (both oil through the Ventspils pipeline/port) and passports (if a Russian ever needs an EU passport it can be bought in Riga, failing that a Latvian company can be bought for a couple of Euros).

    Estonia is a little different but even under Soviet Rule the Estonians were regarded as some kind of alien geniuses to be studied carefully to find out how they did things like an economy.

    And both Latvia and Estonia need the Russian markets.

    So no problem there.

    With the Ukraine (and Belarus) the position is different. They are populated by blood brothers, form a buffer zone between Russia and NATO's front line and console Russia for its loss of empire, the same role that Australia and Canada perform for the UK.

    Putin won't want to extend his borders to their borders. All the Ukraine and Belarus need to do is to show the respect due from younger siblings.

    This is the only thing which makes me slightly worried. Isn't this part of the world Miliband country?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    My reading of the Budapest memo is it was a tacit agreement to leave Ukraine as a buffer zone.

    The US/EU broke that agreement when they stage-managed the coup of the elected President. This included a taped conversation where the US state department were deciding in advance who was going to be allowed in the new Ukraine government and who wasn't.

    The idea that Putin started this is a joke.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:



    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.

    Article 14 (the maximum number of ships crossing the strait):

    The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention.

    Article 11:

    Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.

    i.e. such restrictions do not apply to Black Sea powers, but they do contribute to the total tonnage, which is why the Soviets could use it to effectively blockade the strait.
    Rob, thats effectively saying there is a restriction on 'capital' military vessels with supporting vessels, a total of 3 boats at a time so there is a restriction. I believe there is also notification required.

    Secondly the proposal on the options table is to suspend the agreement not use it.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    "Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union."
  • DavidL said:

    I don't think England will make 100 now.

    Does it not work in reverse? After all Spurs won today....

    Perhaps... but I doubt it. We'll lose the cricket again but only AFTER spurs play.

    I bet Jose is quaking in his flipflops as Spurs go to the Bridge next weekend after mustering 1 goal vs Norwich & Cardiff in the last 2 games..... even Villa at home managed 4 vs Norwich and Hull scored 4 at Cardiff....

    Beware the firing spurs - Bobby is on a roll!
    Be positive.

    Soldado scored from open play today.

    Spurs are on the up, you're going to pip Arsenal to fourth place.

    Remember, I have a bet on it.
    To quote Alan Hansen on MotD last night, if that happened "I would love it, love it, love it" but given how poorly we've played this year, I don't even think we deserve it... still there's always the next game when we might click...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Scott_P said:

    @stackee: So... you shouldn't vote *against* independence just b/c you hate Salmond, but should vote *for* if you hate Tories? http://t.co/QyQH5nxMbP

    Sickening and diseased image. Only a childless fanatic like Salmond could have OK'd that poster.

    How do you know it is an actual Yes image? For one thing, David Torrance (on the Twitter) is suspicious about it.

    And comments like that are not acceptable. How about making some comments about some other politicians' families?
  • DavidL said:

    I don't think England will make 100 now.

    Does it not work in reverse? After all Spurs won today....

    Perhaps... but I doubt it. We'll lose the cricket again but only AFTER spurs play.

    I bet Jose is quaking in his flipflops as Spurs go to the Bridge next weekend after mustering 1 goal vs Norwich & Cardiff in the last 2 games..... even Villa at home managed 4 vs Norwich and Hull scored 4 at Cardiff....

    Beware the firing spurs - Bobby is on a roll!
    Be positive.

    Soldado scored from open play today.

    Spurs are on the up, you're going to pip Arsenal to fourth place.

    Remember, I have a bet on it.
    To quote Alan Hansen on MotD last night, if that happened "I would love it, love it, love it" but given how poorly we've played this year, I don't even think we deserve it... still there's always the next game when we might click...
    In a fortnight's time, you play the Gooners, if you beat Chelsea next week, you'll be on the same points as the Gooners after the North London Derby.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    Y0kel said:


    Rob, thats effectively saying there is a restriction on 'capital' military vessels with supporting vessels, a total of 3 boats at a time so there is a restriction. I believe there is also notification required.

    Secondly the proposal on the options table is to suspend the agreement not use it.

    But my point is there is no additional restriction that the US/UK could apply, given that Black Sea powers are exempt from the aggregate tonnage limitation. And Article 11 just states that each capital ship can only be escorted by two destroyers. There is no limit to the number of capital ships the Russians could send through (although there is a absolute tonnage limit per ship, I believe)
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:


    Rob, thats effectively saying there is a restriction on 'capital' military vessels with supporting vessels, a total of 3 boats at a time so there is a restriction. I believe there is also notification required.

    Secondly the proposal on the options table is to suspend the agreement not use it.

    But my point is there is no additional restriction that the US/UK could apply, given that Black Sea powers are exempt from the aggregate tonnage limitation. And Article 11 just states that each capital ship can only be escorted by two destroyers. There is no limit to the number of capital ships the Russians could send through (although there is a absolute tonnage limit per ship, I believe)
    The proposal is to suspend the agreement in practice.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.
  • Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    "Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union."
    Stuart didn't read that part.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    What is Broad doing? This guy once got a test century. He is batting like a muppet.
  • Oh Christ, here comes the batting power play.

    Normally we lose 4 wickets for 6 runs.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    RobD said:

    "Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union."
    Surely this must be wrong - we've been told daily on here how Osborne' s intervention was a disaster for the no campaign.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,683
    MrJones said:

    My reading of the Budapest memo is it was a tacit agreement to leave Ukraine as a buffer zone.

    The US/EU broke that agreement when they stage-managed the coup of the elected President. This included a taped conversation where the US state department were deciding in advance who was going to be allowed in the new Ukraine government and who wasn't.

    The idea that Putin started this is a joke.

    My thoughts exactly. All international observers declared the 2010 elections free and fair. What has happened since is an utterly undemocratic coup (I am talking about the usurpation of power not the protests). We have no way of knowing how popular the coup was outside of Kiev and the western part of the country and should not be recognising the current leadership as legitimate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    Y0kel said:

    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:


    Rob, thats effectively saying there is a restriction on 'capital' military vessels with supporting vessels, a total of 3 boats at a time so there is a restriction. I believe there is also notification required.

    Secondly the proposal on the options table is to suspend the agreement not use it.

    But my point is there is no additional restriction that the US/UK could apply, given that Black Sea powers are exempt from the aggregate tonnage limitation. And Article 11 just states that each capital ship can only be escorted by two destroyers. There is no limit to the number of capital ships the Russians could send through (although there is a absolute tonnage limit per ship, I believe)
    The proposal is to suspend the agreement in practice.
    Yes, be that as it may, we were arguing about the restrictions on Russian ships which you claimed existed but in fact didn't!

    "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."
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    felix said:



    Surely this must be wrong - we've been told daily on here how Osborne' s intervention was a disaster for the no campaign.

    Careful, you'll be accused of being a PB Shrieker before long.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    JackW said:

    @Life_ina_market_town wrote :

    "You are being dishonest. The Russian Security Council veto is irrelevant when it comes to the Baltic States because they are involved in an arrangement for collective self-defence, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The comparison with Ukraine is tenuous."

    ...........................................................

    I'd like to think all my contributions are honestly felt and written accordingly, but I'll let that comment slide.

    Let's be clear. Putin will push the borders and test the will of NATO until we push back. As @Y0kel correctly noted upthread, a bully is not deterred by giving in to him.

    At some place and at sometime Putin will have to countered. It is most certainly not if but when and where.

    But it is obvious where the red line is in this context: it is the border of any NATO country, including the Baltics. The principle is nice and clear: an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all, so if Russia invades we don't really have a decision to make, we are pretty much automatically at war with them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
  • surbiton said:

    RobD said:

    "Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union."
    Stuart didn't read that part.
    It was a weighting issue/correction/adjustment

    ICM have amended their weighting procedure such that now it only tries to ensure the sample has the correct overall number of persons aged 16-34 rather than ensuring it has the appropriate number of 16-24 year olds in particular. The effect of the change is that those in the youngest age group are only upweighted by 1.25 rather than by as much as two, while there is now less chance that the weight is being applied to a small and thus potentially unrepresentative group of voters.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/02/second-post-currency-row-poll-still-no-clear-impact/

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which I must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have . . . .

    We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi Power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted.

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,683

    The general tendency to pick sides in ethnic disputes is unwise, and the right approach is surely to try to respect the wishes of populations to belong to whatever country they want. It's the way that Denmark solved the Slesvig-Holstein problem that had been going on indefinitely - offered full Danish rule after WW1, the Danes declined, opting for referendums in each district on whether pelople wanted to be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Since the respective sides were mostly close to the country they wanted to join, it wotked out well, and the region has been broadly at peace ever since.

    The West should support the principle that, in general, people should be allowed to belong where they want to belong, however eccentric we may think their preferences. We have different views about what Scotland should do, but nobody is really saying they don't have a right to independence if that's what they want. That's not based on historical justification (always murky) but simply on natural justice - if they want to be part of the UK, that's great, if they don't, OK.

    Yep, again agree entirely.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    They did intervene in Ukraine in 1918!
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    RobD said:

    felix said:



    Surely this must be wrong - we've been told daily on here how Osborne' s intervention was a disaster for the no campaign.

    Careful, you'll be accused of being a PB Shrieker before long.
    Lol - I don't post enough to care about the abuse.
  • Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    Oh yeah, I forgot that.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    surbiton said:

    RobD said:

    "Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union."
    Stuart didn't read that part.
    It was a weighting issue/correction/adjustment

    ICM have amended their weighting procedure such that now it only tries to ensure the sample has the correct overall number of persons aged 16-34 rather than ensuring it has the appropriate number of 16-24 year olds in particular. The effect of the change is that those in the youngest age group are only upweighted by 1.25 rather than by as much as two, while there is now less chance that the weight is being applied to a small and thus potentially unrepresentative group of voters.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/02/second-post-currency-row-poll-still-no-clear-impact/

    Didn't even notice the date on the Scotsman article, it's a week old!
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Good time to rebuild the armed forces then.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,683

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    I have, for far too many years, been in the process of writing a book called 'Saving the Empire' about the British interventions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia at the end of WW1. A fascinating and largely unknown episode in British military history. We did, at one point, even have a British fleet (of captured Russian ships) on the Caspian Sea.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903
    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    They may be the most likely but the actual likelihood is around zero. There's no need as any intervention by any power will be horribly counter-productive.

    Eventually we may see invited troops from Ukraine's near neighbours (Poland, Hungary etc). My view is that this would be the best outcome for the Russians too. Putin won't like it one bit though, and he'll be toppled soon enough.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    Oh yeah, I forgot that.
    In case anyone's wondering, the first Treaty in February 1918 was actually between the Central Powers and Ukraine People's Republic, about a month ahead of the much more famous main Treaty with Soviet Russia.
  • Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    I have, for far too many years, been in the process of writing a book called 'Saving the Empire' about the British interventions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia at the end of WW1. A fascinating and largely unknown episode in British military history. We did, at one point, even have a British fleet (of captured Russian ships) on the Caspian Sea.
    When you do publish it, let me know, I definitely want to read that.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    Effective cleaning: the Russian military strategy at work

    ITAR-TASS's latest release:

    SIMFEROPOL, March 02, /ITAR-TASS/. Not a single shot has been made during the transition of Ukrainian army servicemen over to the side of the Crimean government, an official governmental source told Itar-Tass here Sunday.

    “Their transition has been exceptionally peaceful, with no shots or any other signs of violence on either side,” he said.

    The source believes that some of the former Ukrainian army men and officers may take a new oath of allegiance before the end of the day.

    Also, well-connected sources in the Crimea said that about ten ships of the Ukrainian Navy had left their base in Sevastopol since Saturday afternoon.


    It won't be so easy in Eastern Ukraine but that was the point of using the Crimea as an exemplar.

    The answer to Jack W's point about the need for the West to stand up to Putin lies in the upcoming negotiations in Moscow for an economic support package for The Ukraine.

    The US, EU and IMF are prepared to support economic revival in The Ukraine. So to, to a far more limited extent, is Russia. Getting Putin to accept the value and legitimacy of 'international community' support in The Ukraine will have a far greater containing effect than any battle fought by western forces on Ukrainian soil. Provided our diplomats don't mess up, this is the clear endgame to the current crisis. Putin will sign up to what he previously rejected. That will be our victory.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    I have, for far too many years, been in the process of writing a book called 'Saving the Empire' about the British interventions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia at the end of WW1. A fascinating and largely unknown episode in British military history. We did, at one point, even have a British fleet (of captured Russian ships) on the Caspian Sea.
    Look forward to reading it! Guess you must give a decent mention to Dunsterforce in Baku and the Malleson Mission in Turkmenistan!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2014
    Arsenal and Liverpool on same points, Liverpool 11/2 for title, Arsenal 20/1

    Swim against the tide
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?

    It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited March 2014
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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 ?

    Jack, Apologies for the delay in replying - Herself insisted that I finish the washing up.

    My personal red line to Putin's expansionism would be Calais though I'd be grateful if he left the Netherlands alone (I like the Cloggies).

    Most points abroad are utterly dreadful, but I have in my time lived in Salazar's Portugal and Franco's Spain and found that life went on pretty well in both, perhaps better for the ordinary bloke than it does now.
  • Just when you thought publicity shy Paddy Power couldn't get any worse

    Oscar Pistorius: Paddy Power prompts outrage by offering 'money back if he walks' bets on murder case

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-paddy-power-prompts-outrage-by-offering-money-back-if-he-walks-bets-on-murder-case-9163814.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?

    It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
    I think you've been on the alcopops Avery, I was responding in a similar tonge in cheek manner.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    see also 3) Flashman at the Charge (1854-5)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Look's like Spurs are going to drag England home.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Ishmael_X said:

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    see also 3) Flashman at the Charge (1854-5)
    TSE already mentioned the Crimean War!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MrJones said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Good time to rebuild the armed forces then.
    Quite so.

    I've been highly critical of the Coalition defence cuts and remain so.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited March 2014
    DavidL said:

    Look's like Spurs are going to drag England home.

    Two underperforming, flatter to decive teams who you think must start playing well soon but are still 'gelling'........................................................................................................................................................... until they are broken up again.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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 ?

    Jack, Apologies for the delay in replying - Herself insisted that I finish the washing up.

    My personal red line to Putin's expansionism would be Calais though I'd be grateful if he left the Netherlands alone (I like the Cloggies).

    Most points abroad are utterly dreadful, but I have in my time lived in Salazar's Portugal and Franco's Spain and found that life went on pretty well in both, perhaps better for the ordinary bloke than it does now.
    Mr HurstLlamaski it is then.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,683

    Hands up if like me, your knowledge of the Crimea and Ukraine is limited to what happened

    1) The Crimean War

    2) During the Second World War

    First World War is also interesting.

    Eg. Not one, but two Treaties of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
    And Crimea one of the last bastions of White Army resistance.
    I have, for far too many years, been in the process of writing a book called 'Saving the Empire' about the British interventions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia at the end of WW1. A fascinating and largely unknown episode in British military history. We did, at one point, even have a British fleet (of captured Russian ships) on the Caspian Sea.
    Look forward to reading it! Guess you must give a decent mention to Dunsterforce in Baku and the Malleson Mission in Turkmenistan!
    I believe we had this chat a couple of years ago. I would like to report that things had progressed since then but - apart from a huge amount of additional research I have got no further with the actual drawing together of the notes into a coherent book. And yes both Malleson and Dunsterforce and its offshoots do feature heavily in the book.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016

    DavidL said:

    Look's like Spurs are going to drag England home.

    Two underperforming, flatter to decive teams who you think must start playing well soon but are still 'gelling'........................................................................................................................................................... until they are broken up again.
    That is a very generous description of the English cricket team. I am not sure who they are flattering or deceiving any more.

    Still a win is a win I suppose.

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    Y0kel said:

    There is an obvious Western move against Russia.

    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 ?

    Jack, Apologies for the delay in replying - Herself insisted that I finish the washing up.

    My personal red line to Putin's expansionism would be Calais though I'd be grateful if he left the Netherlands alone (I like the Cloggies).

    Most points abroad are utterly dreadful, but I have in my time lived in Salazar's Portugal and Franco's Spain and found that life went on pretty well in both, perhaps better for the ordinary bloke than it does now.
    I lived in the Canary Islands (Tenerife) for the latter half of the 60s and first part of the 70s when my parents retired there. You didn't talk politics much, nor mess with the Guardia Civil. People used to call them 'olives' because they had green uniforms and hearts of stone. They never relented on parking or speeding tickets.

    Other than that life was great - not much crime, all the males did their national service and the tourists came in ever greater numbers. I even got to meet Franco's daughter when she came to open a new short wave transmitter for Radio Nacional de Espana.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?

    It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
    I think you've been on the alcopops Avery, I was responding in a similar tonge in cheek manner.
    My apologies, Mr. Brooke.

    It was the Bushmills single malt.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    I bow to your greater knowledge of embracing bears - teddy bears I'm sure but in the real world if you embrace a bear you're likely to be mauled to death !!

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    I bow to your greater knowledge of embracing bears - teddy bears I'm sure but in the real world if you embrace a bear you're likely to be mauled to death !!

    Unless, of course, it's The Golden Bear....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited March 2014
    AveryLP said:



    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.

    Antony Beevor in "The Second World War" (Phoenix, 2013) writes:

    There is nevertheless a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation or to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser or Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic response. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators.
  • Huzzah, the England cricket team has crossed the Rubicon.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?

    It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
    I think you've been on the alcopops Avery, I was responding in a similar tonge in cheek manner.
    My apologies, Mr. Brooke.

    It was the Bushmills single malt.

    I must admit Mr Pole I tend to have some sympathy with Mr Putin in this mess. Ideally we should keep out of it. The place just has its borders drawn the wrong way.
  • YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We're going to win the World Cup in all sports next !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    I bow to your greater knowledge of embracing bears - teddy bears I'm sure but in the real world if you embrace a bear you're likely to be mauled to death !!

    It is important to sex the bear first in my experience, Jack.

    The male ones can be difficult. And there is no time you can ever trust a Russian bear of either sex.

    They can be trained though: rewards of free food tend to be more effective than the stick. That is the subtle tactical point our diplomats seem to be ignoring.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Huzzah, the England cricket team has crossed the Rubicon.

    Not the Dniester?

    :)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Tim_B said:

    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    I bow to your greater knowledge of embracing bears - teddy bears I'm sure but in the real world if you embrace a bear you're likely to be mauled to death !!

    Unless, of course, it's The Golden Bear....
    The Berlin Film Festival Prize ?

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.

    ".... And do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    Churchill was very keen on supporting those countries. It was Churchill, more than anyone, who declared the Cold War against the Soviet Union (Iron Curtain speech and all that), after three and a half years when the Reds had been anti-Nazi allies.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    JackW said:

    Tim_B said:

    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP

    My dear fellow, I smile .... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Accordingly I'm minded to recall the following speech given in the House of Commons on October 5th 1938 after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from Munich with "Peace in Our Time"

    Winston Churchill -The Munich Agreement. - A Total and Unmitigated Defeat.



    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    I bow to your greater knowledge of embracing bears - teddy bears I'm sure but in the real world if you embrace a bear you're likely to be mauled to death !!

    Unless, of course, it's The Golden Bear....
    The Berlin Film Festival Prize ?

    No, I mean the man who has won 4 more more majors than Tiger Woods.

    Speaking of Tiger, he has just withdrawn on the 13th hole of the Honda Classic.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    AveryLP said:



    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.

    Antony Beevor in "The Second World War" (Phoenix, 2013) writes:

    There is nevertheless a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation or to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser or Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic response. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators.
    Reference points are useful markers and clearly not set as tablets of stone. However a useful marker is that aggressors are not detered by weakness.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited March 2014
    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:

    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:


    Rob, thats effectively saying there is a restriction on 'capital' military vessels with supporting vessels, a total of 3 boats at a time so there is a restriction. I believe there is also notification required.

    Secondly the proposal on the options table is to suspend the agreement not use it.

    But my point is there is no additional restriction that the US/UK could apply, given that Black Sea powers are exempt from the aggregate tonnage limitation. And Article 11 just states that each capital ship can only be escorted by two destroyers. There is no limit to the number of capital ships the Russians could send through (although there is a absolute tonnage limit per ship, I believe)
    The proposal is to suspend the agreement in practice.
    Yes, be that as it may, we were arguing about the restrictions on Russian ships which you claimed existed but in fact didn't!

    "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."
    Rob, there are restrictions on the passage of Russian military vessels, limitations on the numbers at any one time and notifications. Sure you mentioned it in your references to it.

    PS Putin looks to be buying time.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Ravi sees us home, always rely on an Essex boy to deliver
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121



    Churchill was very keen on supporting those countries. It was Churchill, more than anyone, who declared the Cold War against the Soviet Union (Iron Curtain speech and all that), after three and a half years when the Reds had been anti-Nazi allies.

    Ironically, David, it was actually Goebbels who first coined the "Iron Curtain"...

    Field Marshall Alan Brooke and others vetoed "Operation Unthinkable", however.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:



    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.

    Antony Beevor in "The Second World War" (Phoenix, 2013) writes:

    There is nevertheless a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation or to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser or Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic response. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators.
    Reference points are useful markers and clearly not set as tablets of stone. However a useful marker is that aggressors are not detered by weakness.

    Nor deterred by strength, in both World Wars we declared war on Germany not them on us, even though Germany was much stronger than us.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    Y0kel said:



    Rob, there are restrictions on the passage of Russian military vessels, limitations on the numbers at any one time and notifications. Sure you mentioned it in your references to it.

    There are not restrictions on the number of capital ships, only on the number of escorts to capital ships. I don't think there are any restrictions on the passage of non-capital ships travelling alone for a Black Sea power. Yes, there is a notification period, but all countries have to notify before passage. Of course, you could simply disregard the Treaty and blockade the strait.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Evening all :)

    Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states that disaster strikes as soon as you achieve your goal or, put another way, be careful what you wish for.

    A lot of political action and struggle is about achieving desired objectives and political movements form and unite behind these objectives but whether a referendum or more fundamental political change, what happens when you get what you want ?

    Those who just a week or so were demonstrating against Yanukovych were perhaps united only in their desire to be rid of the corrupt ruler - beyond that, what did they have in common? I couldn't believe how quickly Yanukovych and his cohorts fled - entrenched regimes don't usually melt away like that.

    Sometimes, though, as Egyptians have discovered, revolutions aren't all they're cracked up to be and the certainties have a lot to recommend them. Having an objective to aspire to (independence, getting out of the EU, changing the voting system, getting back into power, preserving status) is sometimes all that holds political movements together.

    Putin's error is providing a new focus for Ukrainian political forces - a shrewder approach might have been to compromise (dump the hapless Yanukovych) and work the system to ensure a Presidential candidate to his liking prevailed as the cohesion of the anti-Yanukovych elements wilted in the heat of the political fire.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    The countries most likely to support Western military interventions in The Ukraine are France and Germany.

    This is not surprising. They have local graveyards to tend.

    France and Germany send troops ? Not very likely.

    Mr. Brooke, have you been drinking too much fine [Warwickshire] claret with your roast pork?

    It was a joke in my usual bad taste!
    I think you've been on the alcopops Avery, I was responding in a similar tonge in cheek manner.
    My apologies, Mr. Brooke.

    It was the Bushmills single malt.

    I must admit Mr Pole I tend to have some sympathy with Mr Putin in this mess. Ideally we should keep out of it. The place just has its borders drawn the wrong way.
    You are Neville Chamberlain and I claim that waved piece of paper.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP



    ...

    The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

    I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

    Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."


    Jack

    Churchill wasn't as keen in 1945 on supporting "all those countries of Middle Europe" as he was in 1938.

    Yet the end of the cold war yielded the geographical, democracy and free markets benefit which he was urging us to take up arms for in 1938.

    It is time to embrace not bait the bear. But not in haste and with all due caution.
    Churchill was very keen on supporting those countries. It was Churchill, more than anyone, who declared the Cold War against the Soviet Union (Iron Curtain speech and all that), after three and a half years when the Reds had been anti-Nazi allies.
    Fitzroy Maclean recounts in "Eastern Approaches" that he told Churchill in 1943ish that he was worried about supporting Tito because T was a communist, and that Churchill dismissed this by asking "do you propose to live in Yugoslavia after the war?"

    Short-sighted (but understandable).
This discussion has been closed.