I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.
That will show em
Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.
I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
I think they’ll still go tbh.
If it turns into mass expulsions, financial sanctions and the like, i just can't see us going. I can't see what a "credible" response that Russia can make before Wednesday to stop it snowballing, to be honest.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy. If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.
It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.
I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
But there you have the problem - our security, via NATO thanks to Article 5, but also generally as NATO is primarily a defensive alliance, since WW2 has been based on two pillars - a strong US and a strong relationship with what is now the EU. Arguably we're ok without one or the other - at various points we're at odds with one or the other - but at the moment we're loosening or severing our ties to one, and the other is at best, an unreliable ally who won't go out of his way to help if it doesn't suit him, and at worst a lunatic. That's especially a problem when hostilities aren't going to be tanks rolling through Europe, but subversion and attempts to undermine. With Brexit and Trump Putin got what he wanted twice over, now we'll reap the whirlwind.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
If a Russian wins the current candidates' tournament, don't give him a visa to play in the World Chess Championship against Carlsen in November in London.
That sounds just like the sort of really tough action May and Rudd will take. Hit Putin where it hurts - chess tournaments.
Apart from speeches and talk and condemnation what exactly are they going to do - May has had a week to come up with a plan?
It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.
Who knows what the logic is?
Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?
Aren't those returning ISIS fighters British citizens?
We are signatories to a Treaty that means we cannot strip people of British citizenship, if that is their only citizenship. Now, we could leave that Treaty, but it's by no means clear that other countries would recognise us having stripped citizenship.
The best we can (realistically) do is explicitly make fighting for ISIS a crime, and imprison those British citizens who return from fighting for them.
Would such a law apply to those who went when it wasn't a crime? Surely not, as long as they returned within a reasonable period of it becoming a crime?
I believe it's already a crime under the Terrorism Acts, what with Isis being a proscribed organization.
I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.
That will show em
Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.
I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
England will definitely play. The government has no power to prevent it and the FA has huge financial incentives to carry on. Mrs T tried to prevent British athletes going to the Moscow Olympics after the invasion of Afghanistan and did not succeed.
I do not agree - after today it is not conceivable
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
"Probably return early". I think that short sentence probably contains one word too many..
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
"Probably return early". I think that short sentence probably contains one word too many..
Macron, Merkel, Modi and Turnbull and Varadkar to name just a few are all brighter than Putin and probably Xi too.
Putin risks backing himself into a corner by creating too many enemies and declaring oneself leader for Life does not normally end well as Xi may soon discover
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy. If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.
It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.
I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
Why? Have you not heard about the Donald's Russian ties?
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
The most credible theory is that Putin wishes to play the strongman in advance of elections in May 18. Of course, he has no chance of losing, but he wants to maximise his overall vote and this is a fantastic way to “get out the base” as it were.
May’s best approach, apart from the obvious and necessary diplomatic expulsions, sanctions, and perhaps some military re-positioning — is to cut to the heart of the regime by embarrassing the man himself.
Putin is rumoured to be the world’s richest man. If so, it would be good to see this leaked, along with any other inconvenient information. We also need a proper Enquiry into Russian meddling and propaganda, with a view to measures we can take to protect ourselves against the troll-farms who seek to damage our democracy.
I don’t think closing RT helps. We are a liberal democracy, and shutting down TV stations should be our last action unless they are actively harmful.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy. If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.
It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.
I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
Why? Have you not heard about the Donald's Russian ties?
We don't get much international news down here, we are too preoccupied with debating which way up a fucking cream scone goes. Look at the BBC website if you don't believe me.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
That sounds just like the sort of really tough action May and Rudd will take. Hit Putin where it hurts - chess tournaments.
Apart from speeches and talk and condemnation what exactly are they going to do - May has had a week to come up with a plan?
What would you do ? Simple question.
Obviously, a significant reduction in the numbers at the Russian Embassy in London and the British Embassy in Moscow is likely but what would you do ?
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy. If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.
It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.
I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
But there you have the problem - our security, via NATO thanks to Article 5, but also generally as NATO is primarily a defensive alliance, since WW2 has been based on two pillars - a strong US and a strong relationship with what is now the EU. Arguably we're ok without one or the other - at various points we're at odds with one or the other - but at the moment we're loosening or severing our ties to one, and the other is at best, an unreliable ally who won't go out of his way to help if it doesn't suit him, and at worst a lunatic. That's especially a problem when hostilities aren't going to be tanks rolling through Europe, but subversion and attempts to undermine. With Brexit and Trump Putin got what he wanted twice over, now we'll reap the whirlwind.
Good post. The other issue is that, since around 2010, the UK government has had no real interest in foreign policy. Like many other areas of government policy, it was subsumed in to a desperate attempt to pursue 'growth' at any cost whatsoever. That's the other whirlwind we'll be reaping.
True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.
Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.
Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
So far he appears not to be as weak as the UK. Finally after mass suicides by Russians this one was too hard to attribute to suicide.
If a Russian wins the current candidates' tournament, don't give him a visa to play in the World Chess Championship against Carlsen in November in London.
That sounds just like the sort of really tough action May and Rudd will take. Hit Putin where it hurts - chess tournaments.
Apart from speeches and talk and condemnation what exactly are they going to do - May has had a week to come up with a plan?
What would you do ? Simple question.
Obviously, a significant reduction in the numbers at the Russian Embassy in London and the British Embassy in Moscow is likely but what would you do ?
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
I think they would probably want to look at restricting visas.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.
Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.
Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
So far he appears not to be as weak as the UK. Finally after mass suicides by Russians this one was too hard to attribute to suicide.
Like any mafia boss Putin's time will end when those around him think they will be better off without him. When they aren't getting rich, or are no longer afraid of him, he will be done for.
Bearing in mind that just the other day he agreed to meet Kim Jong Un, who just a few months ago had his half brother murdered by nerve gas in an Indonesian airport...
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy. If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.
It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.
I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
But there you have the problem - our security, via NATO thanks to Article 5, but also generally as NATO is primarily a defensive alliance, since WW2 has been based on two pillars - a strong US and a strong relationship with what is now the EU. Arguably we're ok without one or the other - at various points we're at odds with one or the other - but at the moment we're loosening or severing our ties to one, and the other is at best, an unreliable ally who won't go out of his way to help if it doesn't suit him, and at worst a lunatic. That's especially a problem when hostilities aren't going to be tanks rolling through Europe, but subversion and attempts to undermine. With Brexit and Trump Putin got what he wanted twice over, now we'll reap the whirlwind.
Good post. The other issue is that, since around 2010, the UK government has had no real interest in foreign policy. Like many other areas of government policy, it was subsumed in to a desperate attempt to pursue 'growth' at any cost whatsoever. That's the other whirlwind we'll be reaping.
Yes, this is correct. We have been on auto-pilot since then. Cameron had no real interest in matters outside the U.K., and neither it seems did Hague for all his witty repartee. Libya was a disaster and Obama was rather generous to say Cameron was distracted by internal issues in his memoirs. And now we have Johnson.
WE will see the impact of the "Special Relationship", with the mighty USA toe to toe with the UK , the Russians will be quaking in their boots, oh wait ........Donald is in the tanning machine
True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.
Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.
Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
So far he appears not to be as weak as the UK. Finally after mass suicides by Russians this one was too hard to attribute to suicide.
This is the consequence of having a foreign policy that was tied to a very short term idea of economic growth.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
Lazy Tories have walked straight into this one. If you’re up against *the* most anti-Western (and hence pro-Russian) party leader in British history - it’s good to be like Caesar’s wife and above suspicion.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
David, we cannot even make the noise, you surely don't want to send some lawyers over to Russia.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.
Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.
Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
So far he appears not to be as weak as the UK. Finally after mass suicides by Russians this one was too hard to attribute to suicide.
This is the consequence of having a foreign policy that was tied to a very short term idea of economic growth.
Well our new foreign policy is certainly not aimed at economic growth!
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
Putin’s power comes from his willigness to flout international law, right up to and including the sponsored invasion of the Ukraine and the downing of a passenger jet. It is the power of the outlaw, but it is power nonetheless.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
I can see that actually winning the WC would be a big deal, I was just assuming we were useless and there was no realistic prospect of hat.
I seemed to remember for some, possibly legal reason, they have to be paid a match fee. I can't remember all the ins and outs, but as far as I remember it is not optional for them to decide if they want that money or not.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Apart from anything else, it appears the hazard is in Salisbury, not Moscow.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
Just look at their space industry. I think they've had at least one rocket failure a year for the last five years. For instance, their Proton rocket was grounded last year as the engine manufacturer had fraudulently used cheaper and less heat-resistant materials in their engines. Their new Angara rocket has only launched twice, and not since 2014, and will probably not fly again until 2021. Their grand plans for new rockets aren't worth the paper they're written on. They're losing commercial contracts due to increased insurance costs.
The only thing keeping their space program going is the crew launches they do for the Americans and the ISS. When commercial crew starts in 2019 or 2020, the Russian space program will lose a significant chunk of income.
They have world-beating people and facilities, but corruption, lack of finance and political misdirection is destroying their space industry.
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
It's certain we will see a sharp reduction in the number of Russian Embassy staff in London but we won't go that far.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Apart from anything else, it appears the hazard is in Salisbury, not Moscow.
Mrs P has cancelled our planned travel to Salisbury this week (mainly due to an overloaded diary tbf). But she's told me that I am taking her for a shopping and lunch (not Zizzi's) expo next week
So if anyone hears of the FO advising no travel to Wiltshire do let me know
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
Putin’s power comes from his willigness to flout international law, right up to and including the sponsored invasion of the Ukraine and the downing of a passenger jet. It is the power of the outlaw, but it is power nonetheless.
Putin isn't an outlaw; that would make him easier to deal with. Like the maria boss, he operates both within and without the law; he's the constitutionally elected president of his country... who has his opponents murdered when convenient.
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
It's certain we will see a sharp reduction in the number of Russian Embassy staff in London but we won't go that far.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Article 5 will not be triggered because certain NATO members will not respond - so best not to bring the house of cards down
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
I'm sorry but honestly ?
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
They have an economy smaller than Spain. Economically they are a joke. They have a bunch of gangsters around the Kremlin who have raped and pillaged their country like Cossacks of old. They are not powerful. We are more powerful. Putin simply makes a lot of noise and has a complete disregard for international law.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
Who with and where are the Russians going to go war?
One aspect of this incident that strikes me is that it's extremely good luck for TMay.
Don't get me wrong, no way would she have wanted to see such an attack on UK soil but it takes the spotlight right off Brexit and gives her the chance to look serious and statesman-like. Tory MPs and indeed many across the House will rally to the patriotic cause. Corbyn is clearly very weak on this topic and has already shot himeself in the foot.
Given her extended run of misfortune on a whole range of levels (conference speech, inappropriate behaviour resignations etc.) she was probably due a bit help from the gods.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
I'm sorry but honestly ?
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
That reminds me of a wargame with a most unwarlike Lib Dem in the chain of command - rolled over and showed her tummy at the first sign of trouble.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
One aspect of this incident that strikes me is that it's extremely good luck for TMay.
Don't get me wrong, no way would she have wanted to see such an attack on UK soil but it takes the spotlight right off Brexit and give her the chance to look serious and statesman like. Tory MPs and indeed many across the House will rally to the patriotic cause. Corbyn is clearly very weak on this topic and has already shot himeslef in the foot.
Given her extended run of misfortune on a whole range of levels (conference speech, inappropriate behaviour resignations etc.) she was probably due a bit help from the gods.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
It's certain we will see a sharp reduction in the number of Russian Embassy staff in London but we won't go that far.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Article 5 will not be triggered because certain NATO members will not respond - so best not to bring the house of cards down
And that, perhaps, is the most compelling argument for why Putin did it. To demonstrate that the Nato treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on and nation states stand alone. Others will be watching.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Ben
Last week you downplayed my comments on Salisbury and it's residents but have I been more than justified with businesses confirming customers staying away, vehicles being taken away, and today Sainsbury's being inspected.
I listening to the whole debate in the HOC today and the cross party anger and support for TM was unprecedented with the exception of comrade Corbyn who came under serious fire from his own mps
Unless there is a proper response from Russia by Wednesday England going to the world cup is inconceivable. It is also possible other countries will boycott the event. As for travel advice I would be very cautious of going to Russia just now even if the FCO had not outlawed it
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
It's certain we will see a sharp reduction in the number of Russian Embassy staff in London but we won't go that far.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
We should; Yep; Better late than never, and it won't be anywhere near that expensive. But ramping up our cyberwar capabilities, offensive and defensive, ought to be a priority; Turn em over; And why not - it is an actual attack on our territory, and it doesn't mean we have to invade ?
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
I'm sorry but honestly ?
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
The Russians are frequently going off to war - Crimea, Syria are the last two examples.
My knowledge on military issues is limited, but I think the general problem with the NATO forces in Eastern Europe is that they aren't very effective. There's hardly a permanent NATO presence on the border.
As I understand it, Russia could invade any of those countries in the matter of a few hours. It then becomes a question of what response NATO undertake.
Are you going to want to go and fight in a war over Latvia? Most people would have no interest in it.
From a historical point of view, appeasement of an aggressor rarely works well as a strategy.
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Ben
Last week you downplayed my comments on Salisbury and it's residents but have I been more than justified with businesses confirming customers staying away, vehicles being taken away, and today Sainsbury's being inspected.
I listening to the whole debate in the HOC today and the cross party anger and support for TM was unprecedented with the exception of comrade Corbyn who came under serious fire from his own mps
Unless there is a proper response from Russia by Wednesday England going to the world cup is inconceivable. It is also possible other countries will boycott the event. As for travel advice I would be very cautious of going to Russia just now even if the FCO had not outlawed it
That reminds me of a wargame with a most unwarlike Lib Dem in the chain of command - rolled over and showed her tummy at the first sign of trouble.
Do you think we should have a nuclear deterrent?
If you mean an independent British deterrent ? Short answer, no. To be honest, I don't trust either a Conservative or Labour Government not to do something stupid.
Should we be part of an alliance of nations which has nuclear capability ? Short answer, yes.
Under what circumstances would Britain use nuclear weapons without reference to its NATO allies ?
Olympians dream of competing at the Olympics all day, every day, all of their lives. I yield to no one when it comes to lack of interest in or knowledge of football, but my impression is that the members of the English team are a bit more take it or leave it about World Cups than Olympians are about gold medals.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Ben
Last week you downplayed my comments on Salisbury and it's residents but have I been more than justified with businesses confirming customers staying away, vehicles being taken away, and today Sainsbury's being inspected.
I listening to the whole debate in the HOC today and the cross party anger and support for TM was unprecedented with the exception of comrade Corbyn who came under serious fire from his own mps
Unless there is a proper response from Russia by Wednesday England going to the world cup is inconceivable. It is also possible other countries will boycott the event. As for travel advice I would be very cautious of going to Russia just now even if the FCO had not outlawed it
What would be a "proper" response, though?
I assume to prove they were not complicit - I am not holding my breath
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
Oh god we are back on the Finchley Road conspiracy bollocks.
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
I'm sorry but honestly ?
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
The Russians are frequently going off to war - Crimea, Syria are the last two examples.
My knowledge on military issues is limited, but I think the general problem with the NATO forces in Eastern Europe is that they aren't very effective. There's hardly a permanent NATO presence on the border.
As I understand it, Russia could invade any of those countries in the matter of a few hours. It then becomes a question of what response NATO undertake.
Are you going to want to go and fight in a war over Latvia? Most people would have no interest in it.
From a historical point of view, appeasement of an aggressor rarely works well as a strategy.
And who started the war in Syria? Nothing to do with Qatar and the West wanting to build a gas pipeline that had to go through Syria, in order to alleviate reliance on Russian energy?
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
Oh god we are back on the Finchley Road conspiracy bollocks.
Follow the money. I stick to companies house documents, that are prima facie evidence. You can go off at a tangent with conspiracy theory all you like. I don't go there. Companies House documents tell me what I need to know thank you.
On the (almost certain) absence of an adequate response from Putin by Wednesday, expel the ambassador and most of the rest of the embassy staff. Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN. Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6. Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts. Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
It's certain we will see a sharp reduction in the number of Russian Embassy staff in London but we won't go that far.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Article 5 will not be triggered because certain NATO members will not respond - so best not to bring the house of cards down
None of that follows: the precedent of 9/11 makes it more likely, not less, that it will be invoked. And the French didn't play last time (for which I admire them), so if they don't play now that's just business as usual.
May is potentially in a bind. If she doesn't invoke it that looks weak (if she is going to formally accuse Russia of unlawful use of force). If she does invoke it who knows how Trump will react? A full blown restatement of the Monroe Doctrine wouldn't amaze me, and he will certainly be pissed off with us, because whatever he does must be seen by him through the prism of upcoming NK talks.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
Oh god we are back on the Finchley Road conspiracy bollocks.
Follow the money. I stick to companies house documents, that are prima facie evidence. You can go off at a tangent with conspiracy theory all you like. I don't go there. Companies House documents tell me what I need to know thank you.
Difficult to compare but I believe few professional footballers would willingly give up the chance to paly at the world cup finals.
As I think someone mentioned below, there's the question of whether the government think that the team, journalists and supporters will be safe in Russia. If they say they think not (and that's a realistic point of view IMO), then it'll be hard for them to go. For one thing, their travel insurance might be rather pricey.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
England's non-participation would come with the price of being banned from the 2022 World Cup by FIFA, which will be a (big financial) consideration for the FA (though were that to happen I think many fans would say it's time to tell FIFA to eff-off.)
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
Ben
Last week you downplayed my comments on Salisbury and it's residents but have I been more than justified with businesses confirming customers staying away, vehicles being taken away, and today Sainsbury's being inspected.
I listening to the whole debate in the HOC today and the cross party anger and support for TM was unprecedented with the exception of comrade Corbyn who came under serious fire from his own mps
Unless there is a proper response from Russia by Wednesday England going to the world cup is inconceivable. It is also possible other countries will boycott the event. As for travel advice I would be very cautious of going to Russia just now even if the FCO had not outlawed it
As ever Big_G, neither of us knows - we'll see in the next few months. Worth remembering Stodge's point earlier: "... we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time."
I'd be interested to know what BBC and ITV would do with their TV rights though, if for some reason England had to boycott. They could hardly go ahead and broadcast.
As for Salisbury, it's hardly a war-zone, some restrictions but nothing like say Borough Market in the weeks after last year's terrorist attack.
That reminds me of a wargame with a most unwarlike Lib Dem in the chain of command - rolled over and showed her tummy at the first sign of trouble.
Do you think we should have a nuclear deterrent?
If you mean an independent British deterrent ? Short answer, no. To be honest, I don't trust either a Conservative or Labour Government not to do something stupid.
Should we be part of an alliance of nations which has nuclear capability ? Short answer, yes.
Under what circumstances would Britain use nuclear weapons without reference to its NATO allies ?
The real difference is that the Russians are ready to go to war, and we (and others in the west) will do anything to avoid it.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
I'm sorry but honestly ?
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
The Russians are frequently going off to war - Crimea, Syria are the last two examples.
My knowledge on military issues is limited, but I think the general problem with the NATO forces in Eastern Europe is that they aren't very effective. There's hardly a permanent NATO presence on the border.
As I understand it, Russia could invade any of those countries in the matter of a few hours. It then becomes a question of what response NATO undertake.
Are you going to want to go and fight in a war over Latvia? Most people would have no interest in it.
From a historical point of view, appeasement of an aggressor rarely works well as a strategy.
I believe the NATO forces are there to serve the purpose of 'tripwire' forces. Basically their prime purpose is to make it clear that invading one of the NATO countries will involve direct conflict with western European and North American forces, not just those of the individual country being invaded. But more militarily they serve a rear-guard/delaying and intelligence purpose to allow time for NATO to get its main forces prepared for battle and moved into position.
@hunchman, a small, boring family company that I know well has the same common address on the incorporation documents. I asked the founder why, recently. He told me it was an off the shelf company formation.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?
It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.
It certainly would be testing the theory that they are happy with implausible deniability to its full conclusion
@hunchman, a small, boring family company that I know well has the same common address on the incorporation documents. I asked the founder why, recently. He told me it was an off the shelf company formation.
That is very true. There are legitimate businesses out of those addresses historically, who should not be tarred with the same brush as many other companies - you have to look at the accounts in addition. However, you will note that 'that' address got closed down in a panic at the end of February last year. Not as though it made the news for obvious reasons.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
Oh god we are back on the Finchley Road conspiracy bollocks.
Follow the money. I stick to companies house documents, that are prima facie evidence. You can go off at a tangent with conspiracy theory all you like. I don't go there. Companies House documents tell me what I need to know thank you.
Go on, entertain us...
As I say, follow the money, and let the companies house documents do the talking. No conspiracy there.
Today's debate in the HOC was extraordinary and apart from comrade Corbyn it was a demonstration on how we can all put political differences on one side and rally to a cause. Corbyn was out of his depth but Ian Blackford was very statesman like as was Vince Cable. Labour mps amazed as they stood up one after the other backing TM and attacking Corbyn's tone, message and manner.
It was labour mps in the main calling for the ban on Russia Today in defiance of Corbyn.
I do not know where this goes but something changed today, first TM looked a real leader, second Corbyn did not, and third, the gulf between the vast majority of labour mps and Corbyn was on full show.
Extraordinary and as the BBC have just said, a historic debate
That was a lesson of today? I know they've been mostly compliant since he did unexpectedly well in the GE, but he surely that of his colleagues already. Talk of splits seemed barely real before the GE, I struggle to see how even that threat could induce them to now.
The far left is so pathetic. They don't see the difference between a useful idiot on the back benches and making one Prime Minister.
I would be shocked if Kwasi Kwarteng went on RT and was a patsy agreeing with the general premise of the propaganda being put out by the channel. Jezza on the other hand encouraged people to watch it because he said it was more objective than the MSM.
You might like to see under Companies House records who the sole director of Russia Today TV UK Ltd was in July 2005, and see where his other directorship was out of. I might add that this directorship is active to this day. You might then begin to question the "official" narrative of Russia Today. It isn't as 99.9% of people in the country seem to think it is.
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Illuminati? Soros?
Go and look for goodness sake! Hint google Russia Today TV UK Ltd companies house.
Christopher Wood???
Correct. Then look at his other directorship, and google the address that company was incorporated at, and see where it leads.
Oh god we are back on the Finchley Road conspiracy bollocks.
Follow the money. I stick to companies house documents, that are prima facie evidence. You can go off at a tangent with conspiracy theory all you like. I don't go there. Companies House documents tell me what I need to know thank you.
Go on, entertain us...
As I say, follow the money, and let the companies house documents do the talking. No conspiracy there.
Why are Jezza and Co not screaming this from the rooftops? Are they in on it too?
Today's debate in the HOC was extraordinary and apart from comrade Corbyn it was a demonstration on how we can all put political differences on one side and rally to a cause. Corbyn was out of his depth but Ian Blackford was very statesman like as was Vince Cable. Labour mps amazed as they stood up one after the other backing TM and attacking Corbyn's tone, message and manner.
It was labour mps in the main calling for the ban on Russia Today in defiance of Corbyn.
I do not know where this goes but something changed today, first TM looked a real leader, second Corbyn did not, and third, the gulf between the vast majority of labour mps and Corbyn was on full show.
Extraordinary and as the BBC have just said, a historic debate
Corbyn is not only at odds with the sensible wing of his party over his world view, he is as thick as mince. McIRA on the other hand is not...he realised all the RT is going to look bad and got ahead of it.
For that reason he is a lot more dangerous than Corbyn.
Comments
My only observation on this is we didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics after the USSR invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 and that was a whole order of seriousness greater than this in terms of prevailing US-Soviet tensions at the time.
I can't see us boycotting the World Cup this summer - yes, there may be an official no-show but the team will go and probably return early.
Interesting Trump hasn't tweeted on this yet.
Apart from speeches and talk and condemnation what exactly are they going to do - May has had a week to come up with a plan?
Obviously, a significant reduction in the numbers at the Russian Embassy in London and the British Embassy in Moscow is likely but what would you do ?
Putin risks backing himself into a corner by creating too many enemies and declaring oneself leader for Life does not normally end well as Xi may soon discover
May’s best approach, apart from the obvious and necessary diplomatic expulsions, sanctions, and perhaps some military re-positioning — is to cut to the heart of the regime by embarrassing the man himself.
Putin is rumoured to be the world’s richest man. If so, it would be good to see this leaked, along with any other inconvenient information.
We also need a proper Enquiry into Russian meddling and propaganda, with a view to measures we can take to protect ourselves against the troll-farms who seek to damage our democracy.
I don’t think closing RT helps. We are a liberal democracy, and shutting down TV stations should be our last action unless they are actively harmful.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/973274556419969024
Pursue the issue of the unregistered Novichok chemical weapons through the UN.
Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6.
Do some serious digging into oligarch assets in the U.K., and freeze selected accounts.
Ask for a NATO declaration under article 5.
Well, he should have thought about that before he brought about the Leave win in 2016!
The other issue is that, since around 2010, the UK government has had no real interest in foreign policy. Like many other areas of government policy, it was subsumed in to a desperate attempt to pursue 'growth' at any cost whatsoever. That's the other whirlwind we'll be reaping.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-players-paid-play-country-11294269
I can see that actually winning the WC would be a big deal, I was just assuming we were useless and there was no realistic prospect of hat.
If you’re up against *the* most anti-Western (and hence pro-Russian) party leader in British history - it’s good to be like Caesar’s wife and above suspicion.
Remember, hosting the Word Cup helps Putin's desire for his country to be seen as a significant player. Damaging the hosting of the World Cup in Russia would be the equivalent of kicking him in the balls if it makes Russia look bad.
Unless there is some further significant unforeseen escalation, I cannot see the FO issuing advice that travel to Russia is unsafe.
It is a question of resolve. Who wants to go and fight in to a difficult war for a cause that doesn't have an obvious point?
A lot of people in this country would probably settle for a puppet Russian government.
The only thing keeping their space program going is the crew launches they do for the Americans and the ISS. When commercial crew starts in 2019 or 2020, the Russian space program will lose a significant chunk of income.
They have world-beating people and facilities, but corruption, lack of finance and political misdirection is destroying their space industry.
The chemical weapons through the UN isn't bad and worth following up.
"Increase the budget of GCHQ and MI5/6" - the sound of the stable door in the wind as the horse gallops up the hill. Perhaps instead of whining on about tax cuts, the Right can argue this is the kind of thing for which Hammond could use his £7.5 billion "windfall".
Agree re: the oligarchs but the Conservative Government will have to accept it if turning over these stones uncovers some unappetising worms.
We won't invoke Article 5 - it's only been done once, after 9/11, when we were facing the "might" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
So if anyone hears of the FO advising no travel to Wiltshire do let me know
Our government wouldn't be involved in selling mistruths to us would it? Surely not!
Like the maria boss, he operates both within and without the law; he's the constitutionally elected president of his country... who has his opponents murdered when convenient.
Russia "ready to go to war" ? They have NATO forces eyeballing them in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Putin is a nationalist, not an idiot. He has no intention or desire to fight NATO - cause trouble, perhaps, but he won't cross the line unless we, in our stupidity and vanity, choose to.
Given the choice between nuclear incineration and a "puppet Russian Government" I know which I and most people would prefer. Why would anyone want the alternative ?
Don't get me wrong, no way would she have wanted to see such an attack on UK soil but it takes the spotlight right off Brexit and gives her the chance to look serious and statesman-like. Tory MPs and indeed many across the House will rally to the patriotic cause. Corbyn is clearly very weak on this topic and has already shot himeself in the foot.
Given her extended run of misfortune on a whole range of levels (conference speech, inappropriate behaviour resignations etc.) she was probably due a bit help from the gods.
Do you think we should have a nuclear deterrent?
Last week you downplayed my comments on Salisbury and it's residents but have I been more than justified with businesses confirming customers staying away, vehicles being taken away, and today Sainsbury's being inspected.
I listening to the whole debate in the HOC today and the cross party anger and support for TM was unprecedented with the exception of comrade Corbyn who came under serious fire from his own mps
Unless there is a proper response from Russia by Wednesday England going to the world cup is inconceivable. It is also possible other countries will boycott the event. As for travel advice I would be very cautious of going to Russia just now even if the FCO had not outlawed it
Yep;
Better late than never, and it won't be anywhere near that expensive. But ramping up our cyberwar capabilities, offensive and defensive, ought to be a priority;
Turn em over;
And why not - it is an actual attack on our territory, and it doesn't mean we have to invade ?
My knowledge on military issues is limited, but I think the general problem with the NATO forces in Eastern Europe is that they aren't very effective. There's hardly a permanent NATO presence on the border.
As I understand it, Russia could invade any of those countries in the matter of a few hours. It then becomes a question of what response NATO undertake.
Are you going to want to go and fight in a war over Latvia? Most people would have no interest in it.
From a historical point of view, appeasement of an aggressor rarely works well as a strategy.
Should we be part of an alliance of nations which has nuclear capability ? Short answer, yes.
Under what circumstances would Britain use nuclear weapons without reference to its NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/politico/status/973269953771134976?s=20
Last voted in a Dem 18 years ago.
May is potentially in a bind. If she doesn't invoke it that looks weak (if she is going to formally accuse Russia of unlawful use of force). If she does invoke it who knows how Trump will react? A full blown restatement of the Monroe Doctrine wouldn't amaze me, and he will certainly be pissed off with us, because whatever he does must be seen by him through the prism of upcoming NK talks.
It is all almost too interesting.
I'd be interested to know what BBC and ITV would do with their TV rights though, if for some reason England had to boycott. They could hardly go ahead and broadcast.
As for Salisbury, it's hardly a war-zone, some restrictions but nothing like say Borough Market in the weeks after last year's terrorist attack.
Ironic...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/13/uk-british-former-moscow-ambassador-andrew-wood-trump-dossier
Friends say that Wood has been alarmed at what has happened in Russia since his departure. Under Putin, formal political opposition has disappeared and television has become an instrument of state propaganda...
It was labour mps in the main calling for the ban on Russia Today in defiance of Corbyn.
I do not know where this goes but something changed today, first TM looked a real leader, second Corbyn did not, and third, the gulf between the vast majority of labour mps and Corbyn was on full show.
Extraordinary and as the BBC have just said, a historic debate
For that reason he is a lot more dangerous than Corbyn.