Putin has made an error of strategy backing the Donetsk rebels without having full control over them.
So instead of the rebels being a problem for the Ukraine and its Western allies, Putin now finds all nations that had passengers on the crashed plane will blame Russia. Also all air travellers around the world will be wary of Russia.
What does this mean in concrete terms? I mean, Aeroflot is still cheap and good, I'd still fly on it. And It's not like we're all going to stop overflying Russia. Malaysian and a bunch of other airlines were flying over a war zone that's something like 50 miles across to avoid burning extra fuel. For a lot of routes you'd have to detour halfway around the world to avoid Russia.
More broadly, rights and wrongs of it aside, Russia has a small number of friendly governments, and the US, with European cooperation, has been trying to overthrow them. Russia may not be able to stop them doing that if they're really determined to, but it's not obviously against their interests to make that less of a cost-free exercise.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
Obama is doing everything he can - it's the EU leaders holding him back. The US does not import much from Russia, so the economic sanctions he has put on won't do much. If the EU put those sanctions on Russian gas, Russia would be sent into deep recession. The weakness is those European leaders that care more about a few months of high gas prices than enforcing international law and containing the imperialist Putin regime.
European leaders have to carry their electorates with them. If there is no will for self-imposed energy shortages and economic uncertainty in order to teach the Russians a lesson then it is not going to happen. Sanctions that hurt the people imposing them are not viable. That's just a fact of democracy.
There is more sense in the common people than there is in our leaders, I wouldn't say it's merely economic self interest. Even my usually disinterested mother remarked on seeing the Donbass independence vote, if they want to leave then they should just let them.
Reality is in opinion polls most people see the US as a rogue state and with very good reason.
Russia may be complicit in this, but the stampede to accuse them before anything is verified is predictable to say the least.
There remain a considerable amount of points which aren't being widely discussed in our press.
1. Early eye-witness accounts of the crash reported military jets 'shooting down' or at least flying alongside the passenger aircraft before it came down. Kiev saying that these were Russian jets, the rebels saying they were Ukrainian. No mention of this is being made now. This is borne out by tweets from a Spanish air traffic controller from Kiev Airport,
2. Russia claims that Ukraine had BUK missile launchers deployed in the area. If this is proved, it begs the question 'why'. The rebels have no aircraft. It wouldn't be the first time Ukrainian forces have shot down a passenger aircraft; they also did in 2001.
3. Why did MH17 take a more northerly route this time, rather than the same as its previous days? In addition to this unexplained re-route, according to Malaysia Airlines, MH17 requested to fly at an altitude of 35,000 ft. Ukrainian air traffic control told them to fly at a lower altitude of 33,000ft.
It would appear to me there are 3 possibilities:
A) It was shot down in a case of mistaken identity by over-armed and trigger-happy rebels, but questions over its flight path remain.
It was shot down in a case of mistaken identity by trigger-happy Ukrainian forces, possibly because they believed it to be Putin's Presidential flight (the markings and dimensions are very similar). The Ukrainian army is dominated by Right Sector and other paramilitary organisations, and it is possible that Poroshenko doesn't even have control over operational decisions in the conflict zone.
C) Tinfoil hat time. It was shot down by Ukrainian forces in a well coordinated attempt to implicate Russia, and unite the world against it. Diverted from its usual path, escorted by jets, targeted and destroyed. The ground well prepared, and the smoking gun 'tapes' translated into 6 languages and ready to be deployed.
Talking of tin foil hats. Tapestry has an interesting view on all this
Whatever propaganda has been put out by Russia on RT and Twitter, trying to blame the Ukraine for bringing the plane down rather than the Russian backed rebels, the World is not believing them.
Even the Russian backed RT television news programme is back peddling about the Russian propaganda they put out at the start. The suggestion that Ukraine would have shot down the plane because they thought it was Putin's, or so that Putin would be blamed is not credible when the evidence is that the missile was shot from rebel held territory.
The Americans are not yet publically revealing the full evidence that they have. Putin is saying as little as possible because he just doesn't know how much specific evidence the US has about the missile launch. If Putin makes claims that the Americans then show to be false in video footage, then Putin knows he will look foolish.
****ing BBC. Pushed for time at weekends due to F1 so I thought I'd try and be more productive by doing exercise whilst listening to it on the radio, only the BBC decided that listings are some sort of optional extra, and that F1 qualifying really meant 'golf'.
Strange how the BBC manage to do the whole piece without mentioning of which party...and only brief mention of other roles beyond speaker.
I have to say though I am extremely uncomfortable about all of this naming of dead people who are having allegations made about them.
The Daily Mail is naming Tories that were again allegedly in a dossier compiled by Barbara Castle, again all of whom are dead and unable to defend themselves.
Whatever propaganda has been put out by Russia on RT and Twitter, trying to blame the Ukraine for bringing the plane down rather than the Russian backed rebels, the World is not believing them.
Even the Russian backed RT television news programme is back peddling about the Russian propaganda they put out at the start. The suggestion that Ukraine would have shot down the plane because they thought it was Putin's, or so that Putin would be blamed is not credible when the evidence is that the missile was shot from rebel held territory.
The Americans are not yet publically revealing the full evidence that they have. Putin is saying as little as possible because he just doesn't know how much specific evidence the US has about the missile launch. If Putin makes claims that the Americans then show to be false in video footage, then Putin knows he will look foolish.
What does China think? What does India think? Your 'World' is the same as that which the US refers to as 'the world community' to offer legitimacy whenever it wants to invade somewhere -a US-dominated 'West' and assorted hangers on.
What you are saying is that it's impossible for Ukraine to have shot down this aircraft -geographically impossible. If you have evidence of this (it's not something I've seen claimed anywhere else), then this is indeed an open and shut case against the rebels. If you don't, it's simply another meaningless assertion in the absence of anything concrete.
The US never publicly revealed their evidence of Assad's chemical attack either. It later turned out there was no evidence.
May well leave the pre-race piece until the evening. Weather forecast will be more up to date, and the markets will be more developed, as well as another reason I can't reveal without spoiling qualifying for anyone who isn't watching/listening live.
Even my usually disinterested mother remarked on seeing the Donbass independence vote, if they want to leave then they should just let them.
FWIW, as I understand it there's no pro-secession majority in those Eastern Ukranian regions, unlike Crimea.
Opinion polling a few months before Russia occupied Crimea didn't show a majority there, either. Perhaps a plurality at best, and even that depended a great deal on the options and wording given in the question.
Strange how the BBC manage to do the whole piece without mentioning of which party...and only brief mention of other roles beyond speaker.
I have to say though I am extremely uncomfortable about all of this naming of dead people who are having allegations made about them.
The Daily Mail is naming Tories that were again allegedly in a dossier compiled by Barbara Castle, again all of whom are dead and unable to defend themselves.
Er, are you saying the victims shouldn't get any justice, or recognition of their suffering, merely because their alleged abusers are dead?
No absolutely not. What I feel uncomfortable about this the banding about of names in the public domain, when an investigation is ongoing and incomplete, especially when the individuals are no longer about to defend themselves.
Name and shame those who are now deceased and show the evidence against them, when thorough and detailed investigations have been completed.
We know for instance that there a number of people who made allegations involving Saville, that on closer inspection were found to be untrue. That isn't to say he wasn't a profile paedo, the weight of evidence is there.
But compare and contrast, the first program on ITV was careful constructed with over 18 months of investigation. The guy behind checked and double checked his facts and took his time to make sure he got it right. What then followed was lots of unchecked / partially checked stories.
I would have thought you Sean would be of a similar opinion, given what you have publicly posted here about your past.
I don't want anything swept under the carpet or covered up, but I don't want mob justice / giving air time to people who are speculating or have an axe to grind. I want the facts and the truth to be exposed in a measured and evidence based way.
Lets not forget the Bureau of nonsense investigations / Newsnight smear, it was based upon the account of a trouble individual, who when proper fact checking was undertaken was found to be an extremely unreliable witness. The poor guy has suffered a terrible life, but is testimony was warped and incorrect.
Strange how the BBC manage to do the whole piece without mentioning of which party...and only brief mention of other roles beyond speaker.
I have to say though I am extremely uncomfortable about all of this naming of dead people who are having allegations made about them.
The Daily Mail is naming Tories that were again allegedly in a dossier compiled by Barbara Castle, again all of whom are dead and unable to defend themselves.
Er, are you saying the victims shouldn't get any justice, or recognition of their suffering, merely because their alleged abusers are dead?
No he is simply highlighting cheap journalism - when the alleged perpetrator is dead they have no chance to respond to the allegations of the ALLEGED victims - I highlight the key word you missed.
There's clearly a palpable error here and she ain't going to get her money.
Might be interesting to run a book on how much she will get - customers shouldn't be made to suffer because of a vendor's error: equally, they shouldn't pretend to be more naïve than they are... perhaps they deserve each other.
Ask Yokel. A huge part of the problem in Northern Ireland is that both the Catholics and the Unionists viewed themselves as minorities (in N Ireland / Ireland respectively)
I think that's the psychology of it spot on.
Same thing for Israel/Palestine, of course, mutatis mutandis.
There's a victim lurking inside all of us, alas. (Unless we're megalomaniacs, of course - not that there could ever be any of those on this board. Could there?)
That was the original context!
Someone asked what the psychology was like in Israel/Palestine & I cited N. Ireland as the best comparable...
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
The sooner the Kiev government and its US backers accept that the people of the Donbass do not wish to be ruled over by others the sooner the bloodshed will end.
Have you asked the majority Ukrainian population of the region, or are you just deciding for them?
I thought that Putin's response was predictable as was everyone's else.
The Ukranian rebels - hide the evidence and claim it wasn't us guv. Russia - it's all fault of the Ukranian Government for not giving in to the rebels. Ukranian Government - Gotcha! The West - bugger, all that gas and easy money at risk.
Fracking would ease our dependence on imported energy and save money. The Yanks have managed it without wiping out a proportion of the population, but the Greens would rather we froze in our nicely decorated (with organic colour) cave.
If they'd been so strong in the 1960s, we'd have sat back and allowed Norway to take all the North Sea oil because we didn't want to endanger the oceanic creepy-crawlies.
That's the key problem that the EU has right now: Germany is far too close to Russia (just look at Schroder's links). They don't want to disrupt that partnership, especially with Merkel's volte face on nuclear energy.
But at some point they need to.
Otherwise we are beholden to someone who has clearly proven that they are a believer in realpolitik and not afraid to throw their weight around.
Energy security is the fundamental challenge of our generation: one that Blair, Brown, to date Cameron, and I'd assume Miliband have all failed to address with their emphasis on climate change.
We shouldn't be closing perfectly good coal power stations and we should've built more nuclear ones already. Some criticism of Cameron is unfair, I think, but he absolutely deserves it over energy (likewise the simpleton Ed Davey).
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
It's really a confidence trick on both sides...!
Article 5 is useful, provided that it is never invoked...
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Russia may be complicit in this, but the stampede to accuse them before anything is verified is predictable to say the least.
There remain a considerable amount of points which aren't being widely discussed in our press.
1. Early eye-witness accounts of the crash reported military jets 'shooting down' or at least flying alongside the passenger aircraft before it came down. Kiev saying that these were Russian jets, the rebels saying they were Ukrainian. No mention of this is being made now. This is borne out by tweets from a Spanish air traffic controller from Kiev Airport,
2. Russia claims that Ukraine had BUK missile launchers deployed in the area. If this is proved, it begs the question 'why'. The rebels have no aircraft. It wouldn't be the first time Ukrainian forces have shot down a passenger aircraft; they also did in 2001.
3. Why did MH17 take a more northerly route this time, rather than the same as its previous days? In addition to this unexplained re-route, according to Malaysia Airlines, MH17 requested to fly at an altitude of 35,000 ft. Ukrainian air traffic control told them to fly at a lower altitude of 33,000ft.
It would appear to me there are 3 possibilities:
A) It was shot down in a case of mistaken identity by over-armed and trigger-happy rebels, but questions over its flight path remain.
It was shot down in a case of mistaken identity by trigger-happy Ukrainian forces, possibly because they believed it to be Putin's Presidential flight (the markings and dimensions are very similar). The Ukrainian army is dominated by Right Sector and other paramilitary organisations, and it is possible that Poroshenko doesn't even have control over operational decisions in the conflict zone.
C) Tinfoil hat time. It was shot down by Ukrainian forces in a well coordinated attempt to implicate Russia, and unite the world against it. Diverted from its usual path, escorted by jets, targeted and destroyed. The ground well prepared, and the smoking gun 'tapes' translated into 6 languages and ready to be deployed.
Talking of tin foil hats. Tapestry has an interesting view on all this
There's clearly a palpable error here and she ain't going to get her money.
Surely if the error is by a recognised representative of the company they have to pay? It is the same as if somone mistakenly advertises something at a fraction of its real value. If that is the advertised price then the vendor has to honour it.
IIRC, one can't sue on a gambling debt. Although a bookmaker who failed to honour his debts would be put out of business by the Gambling Commission.
In any case, Hartzog v Colin & Shields (1939) would entitle the bookmaker to rescind the agreement on the ground that it would be unconsciounable to allow one party to a contract to take advantage of an obvious mistake made by the other.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
Ok.
Let's say that Ukraine joins NATO. Putin responds by sending his troops over the border for "peacekeeping". [In the Tacitus sense]
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
Obama is doing everything he can - it's the EU leaders holding him back. The US does not import much from Russia, so the economic sanctions he has put on won't do much. If the EU put those sanctions on Russian gas, Russia would be sent into deep recession. The weakness is those European leaders that care more about a few months of high gas prices than enforcing international law and containing the imperialist Putin regime.
European leaders have to carry their electorates with them. If there is no will for self-imposed energy shortages and economic uncertainty in order to teach the Russians a lesson then it is not going to happen. Sanctions that hurt the people imposing them are not viable. That's just a fact of democracy.
Spot on, Mr. Observer. Putin has learned the lessons we taught him over Iraq, when we invaded without a UN mandate and in Libya, where we got a mandate and then went far, far beyond it. Putin saw that if you have the power international law can be ignored with impunity. We should not now be surprised that he is behaving in much the same way we did, pursuing his own goals regardless of what the UN or anyone else says.
In 1988 in a ghastly error the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airliner on a routine flight killing all 290 people on board. I don't recall any demands for the USA to be punished or subject to economic sanctions.
Shooting down an Iranian airliner full of pilgrims going to Mecca was fair game ???????
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
It's really a confidence trick on both sides...!
Article 5 is useful, provided that it is never invoked...
Mr. Charles, I think the Sovs, I mean Russia, know exactly what the state of play is and what NATO's capabilities really are.
A poster up thread pointed out that Russia is not as drunk as it was, its demographics are improving and I read elsewhere that it is finally getting to grip the chronic inefficiencies in its defence industries. I really do hope those reports are wrong. If they are correct then given Russia's published plans for expansion and modernisation of its armed forces, your toddler will be growing up to a very different geopolitical world.
Strange how the BBC manage to do the whole piece without mentioning of which party...and only brief mention of other roles beyond speaker.
I have to say though I am extremely uncomfortable about all of this naming of dead people who are having allegations made about them.
The Daily Mail is naming Tories that were again allegedly in a dossier compiled by Barbara Castle, again all of whom are dead and unable to defend themselves.
Er, are you saying the victims shouldn't get any justice, or recognition of their suffering, merely because their alleged abusers are dead?
No he is simply highlighting cheap journalism - when the alleged perpetrator is dead they have no chance to respond to the allegations of the ALLEGED victims - I highlight the key word you missed.
I used the word "alleged" in my comment.
No - you refer to victims without the 'alleged' in front. Until thorough investigations are complete by the Police there is no way to know if they are victims of anything. Like I say sloppy journalism has no business in these desperately difficult matters - the temptation for cheap headlines is simply too much and in very bad taste with reference to the dead person and their families.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
Obama is doing everything he can - it's the EU leaders holding him back. The US does not import much from Russia, so the economic sanctions he has put on won't do much. If the EU put those sanctions on Russian gas, Russia would be sent into deep recession. The weakness is those European leaders that care more about a few months of high gas prices than enforcing international law and containing the imperialist Putin regime.
European leaders have to carry their electorates with them. If there is no will for self-imposed energy shortages and economic uncertainty in order to teach the Russians a lesson then it is not going to happen. Sanctions that hurt the people imposing them are not viable. That's just a fact of democracy.
Spot on, Mr. Observer. Putin has learned the lessons we taught him over Iraq, when we invaded without a UN mandate and in Libya, where we got a mandate and then went far, far beyond it. Putin saw that if you have the power international law can be ignored with impunity. We should not now be surprised that he is behaving in much the same way we did, pursuing his own goals regardless of what the UN or anyone else says.
In 1988 in a ghastly error the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airliner on a routine flight killing all 290 people on board. I don't recall any demands for the USA to be punished or subject to economic sanctions.
Shooting down an Iranian airliner full of pilgrims going to Mecca was fair game ???????
Did I say that, Mr. Surbiton? Try reading my post again.
For the sake of argument assume rebels shot the plane down does anyone think they shot an airliner down deliberately or because they thought it was an Antonov?
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
You been down to enlist then or is it the port talking big.
For the sake of argument assume rebels shot the plane down does anyone think they shot an airliner down deliberately or because they thought it was an Antonov?
My money would be on cock-up, I can't see the benefit to anyone in killing 290 foreigners. I would also expect the Russians to be absolutely livid but feeling trapped.
When some yank sailors made a similar cock-up I don't recall the Septics ever apologising or formally accepting responsibility, though, if memory serves, years later I think they reached on of those settlements where they paid over lots of money without actually admitting their people did anything wrong.
Talks of sanctions against Russia are just bonkers in my view.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
Ok.
Let's say that Ukraine joins NATO. Putin responds by sending his troops over the border for "peacekeeping". [In the Tacitus sense]
Ukraine invokes Article 5.
Your move. What do you do?
You know the next move .... but then so does Putin.
Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire.
There are no easy or comfortable solutions when an aggressor chances their arm, especially an aggressor of the size of Russia. However the worst solution is to appease them and see them emboldened with every move they take.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
You been down to enlist then or is it the port talking big.
Hitchens talking sense as always... Forward to 2:04 for his answer to a young kid uggesting ground troops in Libya
Gah. I am hoist on my own anti-immigration petard.
Does, er, anyone know how to get a UK working visa for a female friend (American) without actually marrying them? She's 31, well educated but with no special skills (yes yes, insert pun here), not a millionaire.
It seems to be notably difficult.
Perhaps your best bet is to tell the lady to stick on a head-scarf, ignore the rules and scream blue murder if anyone complains.
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
Gah. I am hoist on my own anti-immigration petard.
Does, er, anyone know how to get a UK working visa for a female friend (American) without actually marrying them? She's 31, well educated but with no special skills (yes yes, insert pun here), not a millionaire.
It seems to be notably difficult.
If she has a degree, then she can apply for any decent job, paying over 20,500 a year that is advertised for a period in the UK without suitable candidates. She just needs to persuade the employer to sponsor her for a few hundred quid. That's the Tier 2 Skilled Worker visa. Or if she's been living in a relationship with a UK citizen for two years she can apply for a Unmarried Partner Visa.
Failing that, she can apply for asylum on some questionable grounds in a soft touch country like Sweden and, after she gains citizenship, came straight into the UK.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
I rather think Putin's allies blowing a passenger jet out of the sky is not a huge bluff. There are no bluffs anymore.
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
Ok.
Let's say that Ukraine joins NATO. Putin responds by sending his troops over the border for "peacekeeping". [In the Tacitus sense]
Ukraine invokes Article 5.
Your move. What do you do?
Give them two weeks to get out, and if they don't, start bombing their positions. Putin would back down before it came to that.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
Ok .... it's far too difficult.
Just remember the cost ....
We'll just let Putin swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire .... That'll do for starters
Want some Russian gas or oil down the line ?? .... here are the terms :
Blank piece of paper - Sign here ... President Putin will fill in the details later.
Firstly, I was speaking in relative terms to the current huge discrepancy. Secondly, a proper accounting of the USSR's economic might is all the governments under their direct control, which included half of Europe. Thirdly, Sean Thomas accusing others of histrionics? Seriously? I regret giving advice on immigration now.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Two points:
1. On what basis do you make that statement?
2. What with?
1. On the basis that NATO is the cornerstone to Europe's defence against Russia and the UK's own defence strategy. France and even Germany would feel similarly.
2. Well, it would depend on the nature of the attack, but the US + Western Europe dwarfs Russia's military capabilities, even after Cameron's weakening of the UK.
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
Ok .... it's far too difficult.
Just remember the cost ....
We'll just let Putin swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire .... That'll do for starters
Want some Russian gas or oil down the line ?? .... here are the terms :
Blank piece of paper - Sign here ... President Putin will fill in the details later.
Maybe those points should have been made over the years so that NATO would not not be so bare-aresed as to be a joke. Maybe our politicians could have thought a little bit about life after the next election. However, we are where we are.
If Russia wants to "swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire" there is feck all militarily or economically that NATO or its allies can or will do about it.
Want to test the idea? Propose increasing the defence bill to 3% of GDP. There is not a politician in the country hopeful of election that will go along with that. NATO countries are supposedly signed up to a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. So how many honour their commitments? Even the UK looks set to renege.
So, you might be right. Appeasing Russia, like appeasing Germany in th 1930s, might be a bad idea. However, that is the game we might well be in because we, the NATO members, have no cards to play.
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 19/07/2014 15:40 ISIS forces all Christians to flee Mosul, takes sledgehammers to tomb of Jonah, removes crosses, statues of Virgin Mary.
Does, er, anyone know how to get a UK working visa for a female friend (American) without actually marrying them? She's 31, well educated but with no special skills (yes yes, insert pun here), not a millionaire.
Do you get working visas for people just by marrying them? A bloke at our place is in pieces because his Aussie girlfriend of seven years has been sent home ands told she cannot come back without a visa. To get that they now have to prove they are in a relationship, which is pretty tricky when they are 12,000 miles apart. Apparently it involves keeping a record of texts, Skype conversations and other exchanges. A British citizen having his right to privacy trampled all over, of course. He was told that marrying her would make no difference. Their lives have been turned upside down. And not in a good way.
Gah. I am hoist on my own anti-immigration petard.
Does, er, anyone know how to get a UK working visa for a female friend (American) without actually marrying them? She's 31, well educated but with no special skills (yes yes, insert pun here), not a millionaire.
It seems to be notably difficult.
Been a few years, but it's better to have a job offer & let the employer do it.
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 19/07/2014 15:41 Vacated Christian homes smeared with "Nasrani" in Mosul, a city in which the sound of church bells once mingled with Muslim call to prayer
This is the sort of filth that Putin likes to back. He doesn't have an ounce of morality in him. The man is pure scum.
Whereas our sort of filth in Ukraine likes to burn people alive in buildings. And the sort of filth we back in Syria likes to eat people. You should follow your own erstwhile advice and dial down the moral outrage; it doesn't suit you.
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
Ok .... it's far too difficult.
Just remember the cost ....
We'll just let Putin swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire .... That'll do for starters
Want some Russian gas or oil down the line ?? .... here are the terms :
Blank piece of paper - Sign here ... President Putin will fill in the details later.
Hence my point about energy security.
We can't afford a shooting war with Russia right now. That's been the biggest failing of our politicians in the last 20 years.
Do you get working visas for people just by marrying them? A bloke at our place is in pieces because his Aussie girlfriend of seven years has been sent home ands told she cannot come back without a visa. To get that they now have to prove they are in a relationship, which is pretty tricky when they are 12,000 miles apart. Apparently it involves keeping a record of texts, Skype conversations and other exchanges. A British citizen having his right to privacy trampled all over, of course. He was told that marrying her would make no difference. Their lives have been turned upside down. And not in a good way.
You get an unmarried partner visa that entitles you to work. As someone that has personally been through the process of proving a genuine marriage, and who feels strongly about privacy rights, your description of the right to privacy being trampled over is not true at all. You are entitled to hand over whatever evidence you wish for them to make the decision. Individual texts and emails can be deleted from what is handed over.
Marrying her would make a difference, as you would no longer need to prove two years living together. You would still need to prove it was a genuine relationship, however.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Dream on, do you think we would send our aircraft carrier wit hits single fibreglass plane. We could not intervene anywhere other than if it was to hold the Americans jackets.
This is the sort of filth that Putin likes to back. He doesn't have an ounce of morality in him. The man is pure scum.
Whereas our sort of filth in Ukraine likes to burn people alive in buildings. And the sort of filth we back in Syria likes to eat people. You should follow your own erstwhile advice and dial down the moral outrage; it doesn't suit you.
The men that died in Odessa were armed militants. They were not football fans, AIDS activists and backpackers shot out of the sky. When your side of the argument makes up lies like the West was backing groups like Omar al-Farouq, you completely lose all credibility.
The day the pusillanimous Labour Party voted down Syrian action was the day we stopped intervening. We are now Sweden. Just switch off the news and watch the cricket - nothing we can do anymore - it's over.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Two points:
1. On what basis do you make that statement?
2. What with?
1. On the basis that NATO is the cornerstone to Europe's defence against Russia and the UK's own defence strategy. France and even Germany would feel similarly.
2. Well, it would depend on the nature of the attack, but the US + Western Europe dwarfs Russia's military capabilities, even after Cameron's weakening of the UK.
Mr. Socrates, you are off your head. Sorry but there is no other explanation.
1. NATO and especially Article 5, was about the defence of Western Europe. A region where we hung together or for sure we would hang separately if the Sovs came. Bulgaria was under the Russians for forty-odd years with no ill-effects that anyone noticed on the people or prosperity of Western Europe. Will you please tell me why I should send my son to go and fight and, potentially, die to save a country from a fate that it lived under for most of my life?
2. I have seen lots of charts that show that in terms of tank numbers or whatever the US + NATO are far more powerful than Russia. They are all bollocks because, above all else, of two things time and distance. A tank is not just a tank. It has to be of the right sort and, crucially, in the right place at the right time to be of any use. The UK is to have, thanks Cameron, about 230 main battle tanks all based in the UK. Ignoring any issues about age, long-term maintenance of equipment in dry store, and limited crew training how long will it take is to get those tanks to Bulgaria? When you starting armoured formations in the USA as well the whole balance of forces projection becomes a joke.
The UK wouldn't and couldn't go to war if Bulgaria, or just about any other NATO nation, came under attack.
And that is the problem with Britain. Closed minds leading to terrible policy decisions.
We would have been able to be more flexible with immigration now if Labour hadn't open up the floodgates in the previous two decades. There's so many people coming over on arranged marriages from the Indian subcontinent, and so many people faking it once they knew how inept the UKBA is, that we now have to be very tough with all family visas.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Dream on, do you think we would send our aircraft carrier wit hits single fibreglass plane. We could not intervene anywhere other than if it was to hold the Americans jackets.
I'm glad to see you tend the Donaldson flame of 1940 SNP ideology.
Interesting discussion on here today Re. Russia/Putin.
I don't know what we're going to do about Putin, but I suspect for the time being it won't be much. Obama seem's completely disengaged from the world and until America get's tough nobody else is going to.
In lighter matters, ComRes have a poll for IOS/Sunday Mirror tomorrow;
The day the pusillanimous Labour Party voted down Syrian action was the day we stopped intervening. We are now Sweden. Just switch off the news and watch the cricket - nothing we can do anymore - it's over.
Mr. Socrates, you are off your head. Sorry but there is no other explanation.
1. NATO and especially Article 5, was about the defence of Western Europe. A region where we hung together or for sure we would hang separately if the Sovs came. Bulgaria was under the Russians for forty-odd years with no ill-effects that anyone noticed on the people or prosperity of Western Europe. Will you please tell me why I should send my son to go and fight and, potentially, die to save a country from a fate that it lived under for most of my life?
2. I have seen lots of charts that show that in terms of tank numbers or whatever the US + NATO are far more powerful than Russia. They are all bollocks because, above all else, of two things time and distance. A tank is not just a tank. It has to be of the right sort and, crucially, in the right place at the right time to be of any use. The UK is to have, thanks Cameron, about 230 main battle tanks all based in the UK. Ignoring any issues about age, long-term maintenance of equipment in dry store, and limited crew training how long will it take is to get those tanks to Bulgaria? When you starting armoured formations in the USA as well the whole balance of forces projection becomes a joke.
The UK wouldn't and couldn't go to war if Bulgaria, or just about any other NATO nation, came under attack.
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Do you get working visas for people just by marrying them? A bloke at our place is in pieces because his Aussie girlfriend of seven years has been sent home ands told she cannot come back without a visa. To get that they now have to prove they are in a relationship, which is pretty tricky when they are 12,000 miles apart. Apparently it involves keeping a record of texts, Skype conversations and other exchanges. A British citizen having his right to privacy trampled all over, of course. He was told that marrying her would make no difference. Their lives have been turned upside down. And not in a good way.
You get an unmarried partner visa that entitles you to work. As someone that has personally been through the process of proving a genuine marriage, and who feels strongly about privacy rights, your description of the right to privacy being trampled over is not true at all. You are entitled to hand over whatever evidence you wish for them to make the decision. Individual texts and emails can be deleted from what is handed over.
Marrying her would make a difference, as you would no longer need to prove two years living together. You would still need to prove it was a genuine relationship, however.
You don't have to hand anything over, but then you do not get approval. Thus, de facto it is a huge intrusion into the personal life of a British citizen, who is effectively having his civil liberties trodden all over because he had the temerity to fall in love with someone who is not a European.
In the end, he may well end up going over to Australia. And that means we will lose someone who is very good at his job and who took us a couple of years and a fair few failures to find. But I guess it's a tick in a box somewhere and it makes Theresa May look tough so it's all worth it.
This is the sort of filth that Putin likes to back. He doesn't have an ounce of morality in him. The man is pure scum.
Whereas our sort of filth in Ukraine likes to burn people alive in buildings. And the sort of filth we back in Syria likes to eat people. You should follow your own erstwhile advice and dial down the moral outrage; it doesn't suit you.
The men that died in Odessa were armed militants. They were not football fans, AIDS activists and backpackers shot out of the sky. When your side of the argument makes up lies like the West was backing groups like Omar al-Farouq, you completely lose all credibility.
And when you rest your arguments entirely upon unsubstantiated accusations, you lose all yours.
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Super, get out there, Mr Socrates, and campaign for increased defence budgets. Maybe you can start by getting all the members of NATO to comply with the agreement they have already made (2% of GDP) but so few seem to be able to manage. Let us know how you get on.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Do you get working visas for people just by marrying them? A bloke at our place is in pieces because his Aussie girlfriend of seven years has been sent home ands told she cannot come back without a visa. To get that they now have to prove they are in a relationship, which is pretty tricky when they are 12,000 miles apart. Apparently it involves keeping a record of texts, Skype conversations and other exchanges. A British citizen having his right to privacy trampled all over, of course. He was told that marrying her would make no difference. Their lives have been turned upside down. And not in a good way.
You get an unmarried partner visa that entitles you to work. As someone that has personally been through the process of proving a genuine marriage, and who feels strongly about privacy rights, your description of the right to privacy being trampled over is not true at all. You are entitled to hand over whatever evidence you wish for them to make the decision. Individual texts and emails can be deleted from what is handed over.
Marrying her would make a difference, as you would no longer need to prove two years living together. You would still need to prove it was a genuine relationship, however.
You don't have to hand anything over, but then you do not get approval. Thus, de facto it is a huge intrusion into the personal life of a British citizen, who is effectively having his civil liberties trodden all over because he had the temerity to fall in love with someone who is not a European.
In the end, he may well end up going over to Australia. And that means we will lose someone who is very good at his job and who took us a couple of years and a fair few failures to find. But I guess it's a tick in a box somewhere and it makes Theresa May look tough so it's all worth it.
Even for a two week holiday here it is a nightmare. When I tried to bring a gf of mine over who lives in Slovenia but only has a Dominican passport. I needed to send copies of bank statements, P60, council tax book and my passport. €90 odd to apply and they still said no.
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
"Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with". Russia needs western technology to develop its resources and its economy. Not a quick fix but effective in the longer term.
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Super, get out there, Mr Socrates, and campaign for increased defence budgets. Maybe you can start by getting all the members of NATO to comply with the agreement they have already made (2% of GDP) but so few seem to be able to manage. Let us know how you get on.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Super, get out there, Mr Socrates, and campaign for increased defence budgets. Maybe you can start by getting all the members of NATO to comply with the agreement they have already made (2% of GDP) but so few seem to be able to manage. Let us know how you get on.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?
Yes, but only if we have the will and the means to do so. Otherwise we, or rather our politicians, are just pissing in the wind and causing a lot of unnecessary suffering on all sides. I refer you the events 100 years ago for a case study of how to get it wrong. If 1914 doesn't convince you, how about Afghanistan 2006/7 - then we had the means, but not the will (e.g. Gordon Brown not letting a full commando deploy because it would have exceed his cash limits).
For the sake of argument assume rebels shot the plane down does anyone think they shot an airliner down deliberately or because they thought it was an Antonov?
My money would be on cock-up, I can't see the benefit to anyone in killing 290 foreigners. I would also expect the Russians to be absolutely livid but feeling trapped.
When some yank sailors made a similar cock-up I don't recall the Septics ever apologising or formally accepting responsibility, though, if memory serves, years later I think they reached on of those settlements where they paid over lots of money without actually admitting their people did anything wrong.
Talks of sanctions against Russia are just bonkers in my view.
Occam's Razor suggests you're right about the horrible cock-up, and the Ukrainian recordings seem plausible: Ukraine has an interest in discrediting the rebels, but the recordings make it clear that they're saying what the hell, weren't there soldiers aboard?
Doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, and shows what can happen when forces with limited training and discipline get hold of advanced gear: as you say it's happened before with highly-trained US sailors, but it's rare and presumably less likely.
"Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?"
Just one more thought. In the 1980's there grew up in the USA something called the Powell doctrine. Named after its author Colin Powell, who had suffered as a junior officer in Vietnam from its reverse. The Powell Doctrine said, in brief, don't go to war unless you intend to win AND you are prepared to commit the resources necessary to win.
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Super, get out there, Mr Socrates, and campaign for increased defence budgets. Maybe you can start by getting all the members of NATO to comply with the agreement they have already made (2% of GDP) but so few seem to be able to manage. Let us know how you get on.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?
Yes, but only if we have the will and the means to do so. Otherwise we, or rather our politicians, are just pissing in the wind and causing a lot of unnecessary suffering on all sides. I refer you the events 100 years ago for a case study of how to get it wrong. If 1914 doesn't convince you, how about Afghanistan 2006/7 - then we had the means, but not the will (e.g. Gordon Brown not letting a full commando deploy because it would have exceed his cash limits).
Once Belgium was attacked, we had no realistic option but to intervene.
If an Eastern European member of NATO were attacked, we could do nothing on our own, but we wouldn't be on our own.
"Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?"
Just one more thought. In the 1980's there grew up in the USA something called the Powell doctrine. Named after its author Colin Powell, who had suffered as a junior officer in Vietnam from its reverse. The Powell Doctrine said, in brief, don't go to war unless you intend to win AND you are prepared to commit the resources necessary to win.
Blair and Bush forgot that, didn't they?
I think that as a general principle, it's pointless to make a threat unless you're prepared to carry it out.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Dream on, do you think we would send our aircraft carrier wit hits single fibreglass plane. We could not intervene anywhere other than if it was to hold the Americans jackets.
malc
good to see you're back. I've been away for the last week and a bit just got back late last night so didn't know if you were still yellow carded. It would be a bit dull without your gentle charm ;-)
1. Firstly, because we in Western Europe would shortly be in the position of being hung together or being hung separately in a few decades if we allow Eastern Europe to fall back under Moscow's sway. Given that we will have to draw a line in the sand against the Kremlin at some point, it makes sense to do that earlier rather than later. Secondly, if your son has signed up for the British armed forces, that he should be well aware that they can be deployed for various purposes to protect British interests and protect human welfare around the world. That is admirable, and he deserves salutations for making that choice, but he can not pretend he has not made it.
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
Super, get out there, Mr Socrates, and campaign for increased defence budgets. Maybe you can start by getting all the members of NATO to comply with the agreement they have already made (2% of GDP) but so few seem to be able to manage. Let us know how you get on.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?
Yes, but only if we have the will and the means to do so. Otherwise we, or rather our politicians, are just pissing in the wind and causing a lot of unnecessary suffering on all sides. I refer you the events 100 years ago for a case study of how to get it wrong. If 1914 doesn't convince you, how about Afghanistan 2006/7 - then we had the means, but not the will (e.g. Gordon Brown not letting a full commando deploy because it would have exceed his cash limits).
Once Belgium was attacked, we had no realistic option but to intervene.
If an Eastern European member of NATO were attacked, we could do nothing on our own, but we wouldn't be on our own.
we weren't allied to Belgium , we could and should have sat it out. The french and germans swap some colonoiies then, so what ?
Interesting discussion on here today Re. Russia/Putin.
I don't know what we're going to do about Putin, but I suspect for the time being it won't be much. Obama seem's completely disengaged from the world and until America get's tough nobody else is going to.
In lighter matters, ComRes have a poll for IOS/Sunday Mirror tomorrow;
Will it be broken, sleazy red's or blues on the slide/rise?
#CrossoverSaturday
Neither. It will be Reshuffle a Huge Success for Cameron (but will it last?) or Reshuffle a Damp Squib (but will it build as new ministers get on telly?). Either way it will mean three more threads arguing about Gove's free schools.
Back to Russia -- is Putin serious about his new spy station in Cuba or is it designed solely to be negotiated away?
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. He is giving the rebels more or less free rein because he knows Obama is weak and will make only token gestures and spout platitudes, and the EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the UK would go to war if, say, Bulgaria was attacked or any of the East European members of NATO? If we wouldn't what chance, say, Belgium, which is so war adverse they wouldn't even sell us artillery ammunition for GWI.
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Dream on, do you think we would send our aircraft carrier wit hits single fibreglass plane. We could not intervene anywhere other than if it was to hold the Americans jackets.
I'm glad to see you tend the Donaldson flame of 1940 SNP ideology.
Morning all and I wonder how Ed's planned speech "We will not spend much if we win" will match all the promises he and his team have been making for some months. I just hope the gardener in charge of the magic money tree orchard is up to the job.
On thread, the changes are interesting and it will be fascinating to see what change, if any the pollsters report among key sections like women voters, teachers etc in the coming months.
Meanwhile as it appears listening to SKY and other reporters that Ukrainian rebels are looting the bodies of the plane crash victims of credit cards, watches etc how much more can Putin withstand before he takes action?
Putin only respects strength. EU nations (including the UK) have no means to meaningfully respond. He will do nothing.
What strong thing do you think Obama should be doing, specifically?
Convene an emergency meeting of NATO and accept Ukraine and Moldova as full members should they wish.
Stupid move - would massively up the stakes and would be a huge bluff.
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
Does anyone serious believe in Article 5 any more? I mean does anyone seriously think the
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
The UK would definitely intervene if Bulgaria was attacked by Russia.
Dream on, do you think we would send our aircraft carrier wit hits single fibreglass plane. We could not intervene anywhere other than if it was to hold the Americans jackets.
malc
good to see you're back. I've been away for the last week and a bit just got back late last night so didn't know if you were still yellow carded. It would be a bit dull without your gentle charm ;-)
Hello Alan, was very busy at work , my petted lip is now healed and so back to ridicule fools and halfwits once again.
Once Belgium was attacked, we had no realistic option but to intervene.
If an Eastern European member of NATO were attacked, we could do nothing on our own, but we wouldn't be on our own.
Mr. F. you are right, I should not have brought 1914 into this. Except, well, we did go steaming into a war that we had no realistic prospect of ever winning even with the Frogs on our side. Lets face it we had no idea how the war was supposed to work out, no idea of the plans and objectives of the Frogs and our own people were just winging it, big time. On balance I think we had to go in because German plans for the post war Europe were never going to be acceptable to GB and we either fought the Hun with the Frogs as allies or we fought them later on our own. At least Kitchener had it right - in 1914 he foresaw what was going to happen and set in train processes that would lead GB to the right side of the ledger.
With Iraq and Afghanistan that ***** Blair just got it 100% wrong. Iraq was bad enough but the treasury imposed limits on Afghanistan, after the lessons of Iraq, were so fecking appalling that Brown should really have been taken to the ramparts of Poperinge for the dawn treatment. More British soldiers died or were maimed because of Brown than for all the WWI soldiers shot on the orders of Courts Martial at that spot. And Blair just let Brown get away with it.
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
A petted lip? Dare one ask? A pet seems to be either an animal that one keeps for companionship or pleasure or the act of caressing affectionately. That you had a petted lip that needed time to heal .. well. To be honest Mr. G the mind boggles.
Anyway, very pleased to see you up and about again.
we weren't allied to Belgium , we could and should have sat it out. The french and germans swap some colonoiies then, so what ?
Good to see you back, Mr. Brooke, and I hope the factory move is going well. However, my joy at seeing you back posting on here is not such that I will let you have a free run at posting GB could have sat out WWI without significant ill-effects.
Frankly, that sort of talk is tosh . Please do read up on Germany's post war aims, when the assumed France and Belgium would have gone down to Germany's occupation. There is no way that GB could have put up with being excluded from European markets. A war would have had to follow a couple of years later with Germany having a much bigger fleet and GB having no allies.
Interesting discussion on here today Re. Russia/Putin.
I don't know what we're going to do about Putin, but I suspect for the time being it won't be much. Obama seem's completely disengaged from the world and until America get's tough nobody else is going to.
In lighter matters, ComRes have a poll for IOS/Sunday Mirror tomorrow;
Will it be broken, sleazy red's or blues on the slide/rise?
#CrossoverSaturday
Neither. It will be Reshuffle a Huge Success for Cameron (but will it last?) or Reshuffle a Damp Squib (but will it build as new ministers get on telly?). Either way it will mean three more threads arguing about Gove's free schools.
Back to Russia -- is Putin serious about his new spy station in Cuba or is it designed solely to be negotiated away?
The US ABM sites built around Russia potentially make a US first strike viable - even more so if Ukraine is added to NATO and ABM sites are built there too hence the (edit: original) agreement that Ukraine would be a buffer zone. If the screen worked it would mean Russia could retaliate against Europe with nuke cruise missiles but not the US with ICBMs. So i'd guess Putin is serious about Cuba.
Once Belgium was attacked, we had no realistic option but to intervene.
If an Eastern European member of NATO were attacked, we could do nothing on our own, but we wouldn't be on our own.
Mr. F. you are right, I should not have brought 1914 into this. Except, well, we did go steaming into a war that we had no realistic prospect of ever winning even with the Frogs on our side. Lets face it we had no idea how the war was supposed to work out, no idea of the plans and objectives of the Frogs and our own people were just winging it, big time. On balance I think we had to go in because German plans for the post war Europe were never going to be acceptable to GB and we either fought the Hun with the Frogs as allies or we fought them later on our own. At least Kitchener had it right - in 1914 he foresaw what was going to happen and set in train processes that would lead GB to the right side of the ledger.
With Iraq and Afghanistan that ***** Blair just got it 100% wrong. Iraq was bad enough but the treasury imposed limits on Afghanistan, after the lessons of Iraq, were so fecking appalling that Brown should really have been taken to the ramparts of Poperinge for the dawn treatment. More British soldiers died or were maimed because of Brown than for all the WWI soldiers shot on the orders of Courts Martial at that spot. And Blair just let Brown get away with it.
and not even a movie of all the Fort Alamo stuff that went on for people to brag about cos it would make the govt look bad.
Whatever propaganda has been put out by Russia on RT and Twitter, trying to blame the Ukraine for bringing the plane down rather than the Russian backed rebels, the World is not believing them.
Even the Russian backed RT television news programme is back peddling about the Russian propaganda they put out at the start. The suggestion that Ukraine would have shot down the plane because they thought it was Putin's, or so that Putin would be blamed is not credible when the evidence is that the missile was shot from rebel held territory.
The Americans are not yet publically revealing the full evidence that they have. Putin is saying as little as possible because he just doesn't know how much specific evidence the US has about the missile launch. If Putin makes claims that the Americans then show to be false in video footage, then Putin knows he will look foolish.
What does China think? What does India think? Your 'World' is the same as that which the US refers to as 'the world community' to offer legitimacy whenever it wants to invade somewhere -a US-dominated 'West' and assorted hangers on.
What you are saying is that it's impossible for Ukraine to have shot down this aircraft -geographically impossible. If you have evidence of this (it's not something I've seen claimed anywhere else), then this is indeed an open and shut case against the rebels. If you don't, it's simply another meaningless assertion in the absence of anything concrete.
The US never publicly revealed their evidence of Assad's chemical attack either. It later turned out there was no evidence.
NEW DELHI: Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down minutes after Air India One flying Prime Minister Narendra Modi back from Frankfurt to Delhi flew out of Ukraine
Comments
More broadly, rights and wrongs of it aside, Russia has a small number of friendly governments, and the US, with European cooperation, has been trying to overthrow them. Russia may not be able to stop them doing that if they're really determined to, but it's not obviously against their interests to make that less of a cost-free exercise.
Tapestry has an interesting view on all this
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/
Even the Russian backed RT television news programme is back peddling about the Russian propaganda they put out at the start. The suggestion that Ukraine would have shot down the plane because they thought it was Putin's, or so that Putin would be blamed is not credible when the evidence is that the missile was shot from rebel held territory.
The Americans are not yet publically revealing the full evidence that they have. Putin is saying as little as possible because he just doesn't know how much specific evidence the US has about the missile launch. If Putin makes claims that the Americans then show to be false in video footage, then Putin knows he will look foolish.
****ing BBC. Pushed for time at weekends due to F1 so I thought I'd try and be more productive by doing exercise whilst listening to it on the radio, only the BBC decided that listings are some sort of optional extra, and that F1 qualifying really meant 'golf'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28384108
Strange how the BBC manage to do the whole piece without mentioning of which party...and only brief mention of other roles beyond speaker.
I have to say though I am extremely uncomfortable about all of this naming of dead people who are having allegations made about them.
The Daily Mail is naming Tories that were again allegedly in a dossier compiled by Barbara Castle, again all of whom are dead and unable to defend themselves.
Emily Benn (now a Cllr in Croydon) selected as Labour PPC in Croydon South
Here's the local membership in all its glory...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs6HEO9IEAAWGjr.jpg:large
What you are saying is that it's impossible for Ukraine to have shot down this aircraft -geographically impossible. If you have evidence of this (it's not something I've seen claimed anywhere else), then this is indeed an open and shut case against the rebels. If you don't, it's simply another meaningless assertion in the absence of anything concrete.
The US never publicly revealed their evidence of Assad's chemical attack either. It later turned out there was no evidence.
Name and shame those who are now deceased and show the evidence against them, when thorough and detailed investigations have been completed.
We know for instance that there a number of people who made allegations involving Saville, that on closer inspection were found to be untrue. That isn't to say he wasn't a profile paedo, the weight of evidence is there.
But compare and contrast, the first program on ITV was careful constructed with over 18 months of investigation. The guy behind checked and double checked his facts and took his time to make sure he got it right. What then followed was lots of unchecked / partially checked stories.
I would have thought you Sean would be of a similar opinion, given what you have publicly posted here about your past.
I don't want anything swept under the carpet or covered up, but I don't want mob justice / giving air time to people who are speculating or have an axe to grind. I want the facts and the truth to be exposed in a measured and evidence based way.
Lets not forget the Bureau of nonsense investigations / Newsnight smear, it was based upon the account of a trouble individual, who when proper fact checking was undertaken was found to be an extremely unreliable witness. The poor guy has suffered a terrible life, but is testimony was warped and incorrect.
stake of £2 + winning of £12 + £50 for goodwill
Someone asked what the psychology was like in Israel/Palestine & I cited N. Ireland as the best comparable...
There would be a risk that Putin would see it as a way to undermine Article 5, which is the source of NATO's power.
But at some point they need to.
Otherwise we are beholden to someone who has clearly proven that they are a believer in realpolitik and not afraid to throw their weight around.
Energy security is the fundamental challenge of our generation: one that Blair, Brown, to date Cameron, and I'd assume Miliband have all failed to address with their emphasis on climate change.
We shouldn't be closing perfectly good coal power stations and we should've built more nuclear ones already. Some criticism of Cameron is unfair, I think, but he absolutely deserves it over energy (likewise the simpleton Ed Davey).
Come to that has any European army got the means, never mind the will, to get involved in a serious war against a peer enemy like Russia. Defence budgets have been slashed and slashed again across the whole continent for the past twenty years with everybody saying we don't need capability X because someone else will provide it.
Article 5 is the source of NATO power? I think not. NATO is nowadays a confidence trick, a trick not played on a potential aggressor but on the peoples of its member states.
Article 5 is useful, provided that it is never invoked...
Putin will not stop until he's satisfied that the west means business.
Do we or don't we ?
Even for Tap
In any case, Hartzog v Colin & Shields (1939) would entitle the bookmaker to rescind the agreement on the ground that it would be unconsciounable to allow one party to a contract to take advantage of an obvious mistake made by the other.
Let's say that Ukraine joins NATO. Putin responds by sending his troops over the border for "peacekeeping". [In the Tacitus sense]
Ukraine invokes Article 5.
Your move. What do you do?
A poster up thread pointed out that Russia is not as drunk as it was, its demographics are improving and I read elsewhere that it is finally getting to grip the chronic inefficiencies in its defence industries. I really do hope those reports are wrong. If they are correct then given Russia's published plans for expansion and modernisation of its armed forces, your toddler will be growing up to a very different geopolitical world.
When some yank sailors made a similar cock-up I don't recall the Septics ever apologising or formally accepting responsibility, though, if memory serves, years later I think they reached on of those settlements where they paid over lots of money without actually admitting their people did anything wrong.
Talks of sanctions against Russia are just bonkers in my view.
Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire.
There are no easy or comfortable solutions when an aggressor chances their arm, especially an aggressor of the size of Russia. However the worst solution is to appease them and see them emboldened with every move they take.
I'm not in the habit of feeding trolls.
http://youtu.be/puMqlj0QRjA
"Putin must be made to understand that NATO and its allies will pull the plug on him if necessary by military and or economic means if he continues his current policy of resurrecting a Russian Empire."
Really? And how is NATO, and its allies, going to manage that? Threaten military and he would cackle in your face. NATO doesn't have the ability to threaten Russia, quite the reverse. Economic sanctions then? Whoops, where will Germany get its gas and that market for Mercs is huge?
Your advanced aged has clouded you to the current realities, Old Boy. Europe has nothing to threaten Russia with.
Maybe, if the West really wanted to play hard-ball it could be done but what is the chance of that? Germany would never sign up, for a start, George Osborne would have a fit of the vapours about all that dodgy Russian money leaving the City and everyone else will follow the 1930s strategy of hoping it will all go away.
P.S. The saddest headline on this whole affair was the one in the Telegraph saying that Cameron had convened an emergency cabinet meeting in the the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBRA).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28383625
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/flight-mh17-crash-site-has-been-heavily-looted/374707/
This is the sort of filth that Putin likes to back. He doesn't have an ounce of morality in him. The man is pure scum.
Failing that, she can apply for asylum on some questionable grounds in a soft touch country like Sweden and, after she gains citizenship, came straight into the UK.
1. On what basis do you make that statement?
2. What with?
Just remember the cost ....
We'll just let Putin swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire .... That'll do for starters
Want some Russian gas or oil down the line ?? .... here are the terms :
Blank piece of paper - Sign here ... President Putin will fill in the details later.
Two points:
1. On what basis do you make that statement?
2. What with?
1. On the basis that NATO is the cornerstone to Europe's defence against Russia and the UK's own defence strategy. France and even Germany would feel similarly.
2. Well, it would depend on the nature of the attack, but the US + Western Europe dwarfs Russia's military capabilities, even after Cameron's weakening of the UK.
Maybe those points should have been made over the years so that NATO would not not be so bare-aresed as to be a joke. Maybe our politicians could have thought a little bit about life after the next election. However, we are where we are.
If Russia wants to "swallow Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic States, bits of Rumania (oil fields). What about a slice of Poland just like the old days and plucky Finland used to be part of the Empire" there is feck all militarily or economically that NATO or its allies can or will do about it.
Want to test the idea? Propose increasing the defence bill to 3% of GDP. There is not a politician in the country hopeful of election that will go along with that. NATO countries are supposedly signed up to a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. So how many honour their commitments? Even the UK looks set to renege.
So, you might be right. Appeasing Russia, like appeasing Germany in th 1930s, might be a bad idea. However, that is the game we might well be in because we, the NATO members, have no cards to play.
19/07/2014 15:40
ISIS forces all Christians to flee Mosul, takes sledgehammers to tomb of Jonah, removes crosses, statues of Virgin Mary.
Do you get working visas for people just by marrying them? A bloke at our place is in pieces because his Aussie girlfriend of seven years has been sent home ands told she cannot come back without a visa. To get that they now have to prove they are in a relationship, which is pretty tricky when they are 12,000 miles apart. Apparently it involves keeping a record of texts, Skype conversations and other exchanges. A British citizen having his right to privacy trampled all over, of course. He was told that marrying her would make no difference. Their lives have been turned upside down. And not in a good way.
Or you could go down the fiancee visa route
19/07/2014 15:41
Vacated Christian homes smeared with "Nasrani" in Mosul, a city in which the sound of church bells once mingled with Muslim call to prayer
We can't afford a shooting war with Russia right now. That's been the biggest failing of our politicians in the last 20 years.
Marrying her would make a difference, as you would no longer need to prove two years living together. You would still need to prove it was a genuine relationship, however.
And that is the problem with Britain. Closed minds leading to terrible policy decisions.
1. On what basis do you make that statement?
2. What with?
1. On the basis that NATO is the cornerstone to Europe's defence against Russia and the UK's own defence strategy. France and even Germany would feel similarly.
2. Well, it would depend on the nature of the attack, but the US + Western Europe dwarfs Russia's military capabilities, even after Cameron's weakening of the UK.
Mr. Socrates, you are off your head. Sorry but there is no other explanation.
1. NATO and especially Article 5, was about the defence of Western Europe. A region where we hung together or for sure we would hang separately if the Sovs came. Bulgaria was under the Russians for forty-odd years with no ill-effects that anyone noticed on the people or prosperity of Western Europe. Will you please tell me why I should send my son to go and fight and, potentially, die to save a country from a fate that it lived under for most of my life?
2. I have seen lots of charts that show that in terms of tank numbers or whatever the US + NATO are far more powerful than Russia. They are all bollocks because, above all else, of two things time and distance. A tank is not just a tank. It has to be of the right sort and, crucially, in the right place at the right time to be of any use. The UK is to have, thanks Cameron, about 230 main battle tanks all based in the UK. Ignoring any issues about age, long-term maintenance of equipment in dry store, and limited crew training how long will it take is to get those tanks to Bulgaria? When you starting armoured formations in the USA as well the whole balance of forces projection becomes a joke.
The UK wouldn't and couldn't go to war if Bulgaria, or just about any other NATO nation, came under attack.
I don't know what we're going to do about Putin, but I suspect for the time being it won't be much. Obama seem's completely disengaged from the world and until America get's tough nobody else is going to.
In lighter matters, ComRes have a poll for IOS/Sunday Mirror tomorrow;
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/07/19/poll-alert-45/
Will it be broken, sleazy red's or blues on the slide/rise?
#CrossoverSaturday
2. Obviously there are nuances in terms of the precise type of military requirements needed, but this is a pointless discussion until there is more detail about the hypothetical attack you are talking about.
In the end, he may well end up going over to Australia. And that means we will lose someone who is very good at his job and who took us a couple of years and a fair few failures to find. But I guess it's a tick in a box somewhere and it makes Theresa May look tough so it's all worth it.
I don't disagree with drawing a line and holding to it. Nor do I quibble about servicemen and women standing to die on her Majesty's Service, if push comes to a shove (I did, years ago so why shouldn't my son).
However, don't tell me that the UK is going to sacrifice its young men and women to stop Bulgaria being ruled by the Russians - a fact of life that existed for more than forty recent years with no ill effect, to us.
I note that when it gets to the means rather than the theory, you just drop out of the argument.
Fair enough, we haven't the means and we certainly haven't the will to defend Bulgaria. You want to believe we have both. Lets leave it there .
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
When I tried to bring a gf of mine over who lives in Slovenia but only has a Dominican passport. I needed to send copies of bank statements, P60, council tax book and my passport. €90 odd to apply and they still said no.
Doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, and shows what can happen when forces with limited training and discipline get hold of advanced gear: as you say it's happened before with highly-trained US sailors, but it's rare and presumably less likely.
"Do you think it's ever worth defending an ally who's attacked?"
Just one more thought. In the 1980's there grew up in the USA something called the Powell doctrine. Named after its author Colin Powell, who had suffered as a junior officer in Vietnam from its reverse. The Powell Doctrine said, in brief, don't go to war unless you intend to win AND you are prepared to commit the resources necessary to win.
Blair and Bush forgot that, didn't they?
If an Eastern European member of NATO were attacked, we could do nothing on our own, but we wouldn't be on our own.
good to see you're back. I've been away for the last week and a bit just got back late last night so didn't know if you were still yellow carded. It would be a bit dull without your gentle charm ;-)
Back to Russia -- is Putin serious about his new spy station in Cuba or is it designed solely to be negotiated away?
With Iraq and Afghanistan that ***** Blair just got it 100% wrong. Iraq was bad enough but the treasury imposed limits on Afghanistan, after the lessons of Iraq, were so fecking appalling that Brown should really have been taken to the ramparts of Poperinge for the dawn treatment. More British soldiers died or were maimed because of Brown than for all the WWI soldiers shot on the orders of Courts Martial at that spot. And Blair just let Brown get away with it.
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
"...my petted lip is now healed..."
A petted lip? Dare one ask? A pet seems to be either an animal that one keeps for companionship or pleasure or the act of caressing affectionately. That you had a petted lip that needed time to heal .. well. To be honest Mr. G the mind boggles.
Anyway, very pleased to see you up and about again.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4404/the-greatest-possible-problem-for-europe
Good to see you back, Mr. Brooke, and I hope the factory move is going well. However, my joy at seeing you back posting on here is not such that I will let you have a free run at posting GB could have sat out WWI without significant ill-effects.
Frankly, that sort of talk is tosh . Please do read up on Germany's post war aims, when the assumed France and Belgium would have gone down to Germany's occupation. There is no way that GB could have put up with being excluded from European markets. A war would have had to follow a couple of years later with Germany having a much bigger fleet and GB having no allies.
Does not bode well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28383430
This Ukraine business is quite high stakes.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/indian-origin-steward-on-board-mh17-says-father-560701
NEW DELHI: Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down minutes after Air India One flying Prime Minister Narendra Modi back from Frankfurt to Delhi flew out of Ukraine
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/narendra-modi-flew-out-minutes-before-malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash/articleshow/38659246.cms
Hong Kong-born chef and wife died aboard Flight MH17
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1556075/hong-kong-airlines-do-not-fly-through-ukraine-airspace-where-mh17