Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
Not today - he has confirmed full solidarity with TM and the UK
If Corbyn had been PM when this attack happened, I don’t have any confidence that (a) we’d have been told about it; and (b) that he’d have authorised the security / intelligence / emergency services to take all the steps they’ve had to take to investigate the matter fully and to protect the public.
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
His view that the disaster of Iraq reinforces his belief that the intelligence services cannot be trusted is utterly disingenuous. The problem was the way that politicians misused such intelligence there was, over-egged it, put pressure on the services to say more than they could, to use poor sources etc - in short, it was politicians believing what they wanted to be true which was the issue (and the calamity for trust in our government).
Corbyn is guilty of exactly the same failing now. He does not want to believe that Russia is behind this so he ignores the evidence there is. He comes out with opinion first and distorts or ignores inconvenient facts. In this he is an ultra Blairite not the brave loner or contrarian sticking up for unpopular truths he - and his supporters - like to think he is.
Dr. Foxy, I agree we should spend more on Defence, but think scrapping Trident is insane.
Corbyn wants to scrap the lot. In a speech some time ago he advocated an ambition to imitate Costa Rica and simply do away with the armed forces altogether.
Trident is insane itself. It is a weapon system designed for the strategic imperatives of a half century ago. It is now merely a giant and very expensive willy.
Any use of strategic nuclear weapons inevitably involves millions of civilians dead.
Global nuclear MAD is preserved by the US and Russian arsenals anyway. Thats 92+% of the warheads, no need for any more.
Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
As was pointed out yesterday, under the chemical weapons treaty Russia does not have the right to demand it can test the material. And as others have said, Macron's response was in no way similar to Corbyn's.
And the Democrats picked a candidate far better suited to this district than Hillary Clinton was. On balance I'd say Trump is still just about on course for re-election, but there's a very long way to go.
Agree there's a long way to go but why do you think he is on-track? He's running behind other 1 term presidents in approval like Ford, Carter, and Bush Snr.
But he started behind too; his rating has actually been very stable. (see e.g. the graphs on Wikipedia).
Interesting - the 538 graphs have his disapproval numbers up a lot since the start of his Presidency... 41% -> 54% and a smaller fall in his approval from 45% to 40%.
Dr. Foxy, I agree we should spend more on Defence, but think scrapping Trident is insane.
Corbyn wants to scrap the lot. In a speech some time ago he advocated an ambition to imitate Costa Rica and simply do away with the armed forces altogether.
Trident is insane itself. It is a weapon system designed for the strategic imperatives of a half century ago. It is now merely a giant and very expensive willy.
Any use of strategic nuclear weapons inevitably involves millions of civilians dead.
Global nuclear MAD is preserved by the US and Russian arsenals anyway. Thats 92+% of the warheads, no need for any more.
We need to retain our nuclear deterrent for as long as our long standing enemy also has nuclear weapons.
So I’m prepared to give up Trident once the French give up their nuclear weapons.
May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
Do nothing sounds like a great plan.
What's your plan then Captain Mainwaring....do you really think that expelling a few diplomats is really any different from doing nothing?
It's a good job the Brits who endured WW2 were made of more resilient stuff than you or the whole of London would have had a nervous breakdown on the first night of the Blitz.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
And there speaks a military man who knows what he is talking about, probably the only one on here. Always great to see you responding to the Captain Mainwaring armchair generals which compose 70% of this site at times like this. I'm looking forward to SeanT calling you a coward and a traitor.
The public aren't stupid, they know we can't do anything of real substance to hit back at Putin and that whatever May and Corbyn says on the matter, it can't amount to any more than empty, meaningless sabre-rattling.
May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
Do nothing sounds like a great plan.
What's your plan then Captain Mainwaring....do you really think that expelling a few diplomats is really any different from doing nothing?
It's a good job the Brits who endured WW2 were made of more resilient stuff than you or the whole of London would have had a nervous breakdown on the first night of the Blitz.
I don’t think the UK’s conduct of the war from September 1939 to June 1940 is much to boast about.
Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
Sort of agree about the clothes washing, but this stuff doesn't seem that potent for a superweapon, does it? Spy thrillers used to go on about stuff of which 1 tsp in a reservoir would kill most of Greater London. Let's tell Putin his poisons are a metaphor for his penis.
If senior Russian personnel hadn't been so twattish and infantile in the 24 hours after the poisoning they would indeed have been entitled to carry out tests, subject to a *very* strict timetable. As they were, and as Russia has proven form for cheating on the analysis of questionable substances (and who'd have thought a bit of Olympic cheating would come back and bite you so hard in the arse?), they don't.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
Pah. Alex Salmond isn’t a lawyer, he’s an economist with a dash of historian.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
Don't lawyers generally advocate a case based on what the people paying them ask them to?
While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:
That tweet suggsts that in the four hours since he stood up to respond to Theresa May, he may have endured a sustained beating around the head with an enormo-haddock....
Corbyn`s problem is that he runs with the hare, but also hunts with the hounds. He is, apparently, whatever you want him to be.
I remember friends in the Labour Party in the early 60s who were quite sure that Harold Wilson was secretly in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament - and so they all gave him their support.
I think Corbyn models himself too much on Harold Wilson. A thoroughly untrustworthy old bugger.
May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
Do nothing sounds like a great plan.
What's your plan then Captain Mainwaring....do you really think that expelling a few diplomats is really any different from doing nothing?
It's a good job the Brits who endured WW2 were made of more resilient stuff than you or the whole of London would have had a nervous breakdown on the first night of the Blitz.
I don't know why you bother writing a comment like that. It doesn't make you look good.
Anyway, "my plan" is what the goverment are doing. Explusions to start, investigate Putin's associates wealth, seize assets where appropriate, Magnitsky Act style sanctions, and get rid of Russian state entities using cover of various forms.
It's not about one thing done on Wednesday afternoon but making the UK less welcome and more resilient to the Putin regime over time.
Mr. Ace, so, say we drop the nukes. And France does. At what point should the Danes worry? When the US drops them or NATO crumbles? If Russia splinters? If Pakistani ex-nuclear scientists sell the tech to Iran? If North Korea provides tech info and nuclear materials to Syria?
At the moment, we have a balance and, with unfortunate exceptions, stability. The only way we find out when we've gone too far with disarmament is when terrible consequences occur. I'd prefer to have house insurance and never need it than the other way around.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
Yes if it was a civil case , you are correct.Nevertheless this is criminal , so a higher burden of proof is usually required.
May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
Do nothing sounds like a great plan.
What's your plan then Captain Mainwaring....do you really think that expelling a few diplomats is really any different from doing nothing?
It's a good job the Brits who endured WW2 were made of more resilient stuff than you or the whole of London would have had a nervous breakdown on the first night of the Blitz.
I don't know why you bother writing a comment like that. It doesn't make you look good.
Anyway, "my plan" is what the goverment are doing. Explusions to start, investigate Putin's associates wealth, seize assets where appropriate, Magnitsky Act style sanctions, and get rid of Russian state entities using cover of various forms.
It's not about one thing done on Wednesday afternoon but making the UK less welcome and more resilient to the Putin regime over time.
Your last paragraph is key. We could start by prohibiting the import of Russian gas. Unfortunately, that’s probably not within the government’s gift as long as we’re in the EU.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
Actually no it would be dictated by NATO - particularly given that Trump seems to be semi-detached at the moment. And lots of NATO countries have troops already in the Baltic States for this very reason including the US.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
With the added issue that we and the US would already have troops fighting on the ground.
On a tangent: I wonder what Putin's exit strategy will be. He'll shortly embark upon his second consecutive term (fourth in total) as Russian president. Therefore he must stand down when that ends, even if it's just to pretend he's prime minister for four years whilst Medvedev or similar keeps his presidential chair warm.
Will he bow out? Seek to keep going? He's been in the top job for a long time now, and won't live forever. Maybe he'll start grooming a successor.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
We have proof as to what the chemical was. We don't have absolute proof as to who put it there but the list of those with motive and opportunity limits it to one, for practical purposes.
Handing a sample to Russia will just cause them to say:
1. it's not what you say it is, and/or 2. we didn't put it there, and/or 3. it's not from Salisbury.
They could still argue 2 and 3 if an independent international organisation tests it but at least it rules out 1 (and in confirming what it is, it very much limits who could be responsible).
Playing the enemy's game just in order to look 'fair', assuming that they will play by the same rules - when they almost certainly have proven that they don't play by the same rules - would be an incredible act of naivety.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
If Corbyn had been PM when this attack happened, I don’t have any confidence that (a) we’d have been told about it; and (b) that he’d have authorised the security / intelligence / emergency services to take all the steps they’ve had to take to investigate the matter fully and to protect the public.
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
His view that the disaster of Iraq reinforces his belief that the intelligence services cannot be trusted is utterly disingenuous. The problem was the way that politicians misused such intelligence there was, over-egged it, put pressure on the services to say more than they could, to use poor sources etc - in short, it was politicians believing what they wanted to be true which was the issue (and the calamity for trust in our government).
Corbyn is guilty of exactly the same failing now. He does not want to believe that Russia is behind this so he ignores the evidence there is. He comes out with opinion first and distorts or ignores inconvenient facts. In this he is an ultra Blairite not the brave loner or contrarian sticking up for unpopular truths he - and his supporters - like to think he is.
That's a great post and whilst I haven't been following Corbyn too closely lately I fear it may be largely correct. The worry I have is that many of my own generation appear to view him as Russell Brand's wise uncle and are so disillusioned with 'mainstream' politics that none of this matters. I like liberal politicians but they need to acknowledge that Brexit and Corbyn are onto something that isn't a complete fantasy or just to be easily dismissed as populism. But they won't do that and so they're still largely irrelevant.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
Is it 'a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing'?
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
I'd say that were the CPS able to prosecute countries, it'd have a case to take against Russia even on the beyond reasonable doubt score, simply on the nature of the chemical agent and the limited access to it, on its response since the attack, and on the motive for targetting the victim.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Actually we already have a NATO plan in place for the escalation of forces in response to an attack on the Baltics. We have had it since Estonia joined NATO.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
None of which were in NATO countries.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
I'd say that were the CPS able to prosecute countries, it'd have a case to take against Russia even on the beyond reasonable doubt score, simply on the nature of the chemical agent and the limited access to it, on its response since the attack, and on the motive for targetting the victim.
Probably right, I was just being pedantic about the errors in the post I was replying to. That said there is a lot which hasn't been explained about the agent used; is it Novichok as a quasi-brand name or just *a* novichok meaning a new generation poison? And would synthesizing it not be possible for someone with a Breaking Bad level access to materials and equipment?
I think Russia have been really stupid; to spread real FUD they had only to adopt an attitude of grave concern, we must certainly get to the bottom of this, we feel terrible if this stuff indirectly originated from us, sort of thing. They lost a lot by their 24 hour trolling spree when the news broke.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
None of which were in NATO countries.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Really. In spite of the treaties signed, the lack of civil disturbance, the black ops? You think this is a way to resolve issues of sovereignty in the 21st century?
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So where is the line? Lithuania? Poland? The Elbe? Dover?
When Stalin was at Potsdam after WW2, someone said to him it must give him great pleasure to be in Berlin after all that the USSR had gone through. Stalin just growled back "Tsar Alexander got to Paris". The North European Plain which reaches all the way to Moscow and beyond has no natural barrier westwards until you hit the Atlantic.
If Corbyn had been PM when this attack happened, I don’t have any confidence that (a) we’d have been told about it; and (b) that he’d have authorised the security / intelligence / emergency services to take all the steps they’ve had to take to investigate the matter fully and to protect the public.
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
That's a great post and whilst I haven't been following Corbyn too closely lately I fear it may be largely correct. The worry I have is that many of my own generation appear to view him as Russell Brand's wise uncle and are so disillusioned with 'mainstream' politics that none of this matters. I like liberal politicians but they need to acknowledge that Brexit and Corbyn are onto something that isn't a complete fantasy or just to be easily dismissed as populism. But they won't do that and so they're still largely irrelevant.
People like Corbyn thrive because liberalism and capitalism have failed to make their case, for why they are better than the alternatives, and have not done enough for the losers in our societies. Both need to change - and fast.
Corbyn is not liberal. His instincts are illiberal and authoritarian. He may mean well in his concern for those at the bottom but I do not think his policies will help those he claims to care about and may, indeed, cause them harm. But unless liberals and social democrats address the failings of our current system and make the robust case for liberalism and the free society and show how it will help the losers, not just the winners, then the quasi-Marxist dross which constitutes Corbyn’s policies may well win the day, to prove to us all over again why they are dross. Only this time we will have a PM of whom we cannot be certain that he will defend us and our way of life, as Lord Rooker so memorably said a couple of years ago.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
Compared with South Ossetia etc, Estonia is complicated by being part of NATO and the EU. Any NATO response is entirely dependent on the United States. I wouldn't put a lot of value on that promise frankly. If Estonia is a small country far away to us, it is even smaller and further away to the man, woman and senator in Kentucky. The European Union is not going to stop Russia annexing Estonia but it does have the means, and possibly would have the will, to make life difficult for Russia after the event unless it sorts the situation out.
According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
I'd say that were the CPS able to prosecute countries, it'd have a case to take against Russia even on the beyond reasonable doubt score, simply on the nature of the chemical agent and the limited access to it, on its response since the attack, and on the motive for targetting the victim.
Probably right, I was just being pedantic about the errors in the post I was replying to. That said there is a lot which hasn't been explained about the agent used; is it Novichok as a quasi-brand name or just *a* novichok meaning a new generation poison? And would synthesizing it not be possible for someone with a Breaking Bad level access to materials and equipment?
I think Russia have been really stupid; to spread real FUD they had only to adopt an attitude of grave concern, we must certainly get to the bottom of this, we feel terrible if this stuff indirectly originated from us, sort of thing. They lost a lot by their 24 hour trolling spree when the news broke.
Russia doesn't care. They want people to believe it's them. That's the whole point. Same with Donbas, Crimea etc. Their one mistake was downing the Malaysia Airlines plane. Otherwise they go through the motions of disclaiming responsibility, to cause confusion and blunt the repercussions.
Corbyn and Salmond are suckers. Call it for the act of terrorism it actually is.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
None of which were in NATO countries.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
The French embassy in London has been in overdrive this morning tweeting support for the UK over the nerve agent attack. It seems keen to repair any damage caused by the French government briefing yesterday about how said Paris wanted evidence that the facts were “completely true” before taking a view on Russia’s guilt.
Cyclefree - but again it isn't enough to say that the openness of the modern world creates too many losers. The openness has been pursued as an article of faith by liberals who didn't appear to understand that it meant being open to a world which isn't very liberal and where the rule of law is often not well established. Trump the politician may be a response to globalisation but Trump the man is actually a product of it. He borrows money, runs businesses has clients and markets himself all over the world. In many ways he is the archetypal modern international businessman who liberals have been happy to swoon over. But very few liberal politicians seem prepared to acknowledge it.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
I'd say that were the CPS able to prosecute countries, it'd have a case to take against Russia even on the beyond reasonable doubt score, simply on the nature of the chemical agent and the limited access to it, on its response since the attack, and on the motive for targetting the victim.
Probably right, I was just being pedantic about the errors in the post I was replying to. That said there is a lot which hasn't been explained about the agent used; is it Novichok as a quasi-brand name or just *a* novichok meaning a new generation poison? And would synthesizing it not be possible for someone with a Breaking Bad level access to materials and equipment?
I think Russia have been really stupid; to spread real FUD they had only to adopt an attitude of grave concern, we must certainly get to the bottom of this, we feel terrible if this stuff indirectly originated from us, sort of thing. They lost a lot by their 24 hour trolling spree when the news broke.
From what EOTM (experts on the media) have said - and that's the best info I have - it's not possible for enthusiastic amateurs to manufacture Novichok because of the facilities they'd need - unlike sarin, for example. As always, in theory, it might be possible for someone with enough money to create a lab but AIUI, they'd still be limited by the skill-sets required simply to build and stock the facility, never mind to staff it, to the extent that intelligence services would almost certainly be alerted (after all, if a lot of ex-military scientists all go rogue, no state can be sure who the target might be - so the FSB would have as much interest in stopping it as MI6).
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
A little power is a dangerous thing. Russia is no longer powerful enough to force other countries to its will - a loss that is keenly felt. But it is powerful enough to cause trouble. Causing trouble is a diplomatic objective.
There are two ways of dealing with troublemakers. Hit them so hard their actions no longer pay. Or buy them off. The West isn't really doing either.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
On topic, interesting article about Obamacare. The Republicans have unwillingly inherited the programme through being unable to repeal it while Democrats are moving more towards an NHS style single payer system. Republicans are being forced to defend Obamacare and make it workable to retain a market forces healthcare system.
I think the idea that there wouldn’t be a vigorous response to 800 British troops being killed, wounded or captured in Estonia in the defence of a NATO ally is unorthodox, to say the least.
I think the idea that there wouldn’t be a vigorous response to 800 British troops being killed, wounded or captured in Estonia in the defence of a NATO ally is unorthodox, to say the least.
What event would the Royals boycott in that instance?
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
I thought NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact?
NATO began in 1949, two years after the Cold War began. There was a relatively sharp border between the Soviet Union's satellite states and western Europe which gave western Europe a feeling of insecurity.
The W.P. was formed in response to West Germany joining NATO. Eastern Europe perceived that the resulting 'hard border' was a threat to their security.
Austria and Finland had signed earlier treaties guaranteeing neutrality. Non-aligned states didn't pose a perceived threat to the Soviet Union, even though both countries were normal mixed economies and not in the least Communist.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
I think the idea that there wouldn’t be a vigorous response to 800 British troops being killed, wounded or captured in Estonia in the defence of a NATO ally is unorthodox, to say the least.
It's highly unlikely they would be there for the fireworks. They will have a finely honed and well rehearsed exfil plan that will be put into action at the first whiff of grapeshot/chemical weapons.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Then it has no purpose and why do we pretend otherwise?
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Actually we already have a NATO plan in place for the escalation of forces in response to an attack on the Baltics. We have had it since Estonia joined NATO.
Sovereignty-reclaimer in happy to give up sovereignty over waging war to supranational body shocker.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
None of which were in NATO countries.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Really. In spite of the treaties signed, the lack of civil disturbance, the black ops? You think this is a way to resolve issues of sovereignty in the 21st century?
It jolly well wasn't justified - but only really because of how Russia went about it.
The principle of self-determination is clearly part of international law, if not always applied (indeed, it can't be cleanly applied in all cases). But had a referendum been held without interference or intimidation, there's a good chance that Crimea would have voted to seceed from Ukraine and apply to join Russia anyway. Had that happened, we'd have had the same result though an acceptable process.
But my guess would be that Putin wants to show his force, just as he wants to show his intelligence / special ops capacity in Salisbury.
Besides, establishing the principle that regions can join Russia solely because they vote to do so also establishes the principle that the can leave on the same basis - which isn't one he can accept.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
In body bags defending our NATO ally ?
Where is your line ...
Where would it have been in the 30's ?
The Saar, Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland ....
Williamson says the government will look at what Russia does. Frankly, Russia should “go away and shut up”.
Hardly an inspiring piece of wordsmanship, though I am confused by what is and is not considered statesmanship. A lot of official Russian responses to these things generally seem to be extremely childish, but Putin is regarded as a great statesman inspite of it.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
A little power is a dangerous thing. Russia is no longer powerful enough to force other countries to its will - a loss that is keenly felt. But it is powerful enough to cause trouble. Causing trouble is a diplomatic objective.
There are two ways of dealing with troublemakers. Hit them so hard their actions no longer pay. Or buy them off. The West isn't really doing either.
We are paying for their trouble making by buying their gas.
On a tangent: I wonder what Putin's exit strategy will be. He'll shortly embark upon his second consecutive term (fourth in total) as Russian president. Therefore he must stand down when that ends, even if it's just to pretend he's prime minister for four years whilst Medvedev or similar keeps his presidential chair warm.
Will he bow out? Seek to keep going? He's been in the top job for a long time now, and won't live forever. Maybe he'll start grooming a successor.
He's made Presidential terms six years now, which is a bit of a pisser for him. I can't see him wanting to have Medvedev President for six years, even if only a puppet.
Wasn't there talk of him shuffling the chairs such that he makes the President job largely ceremonial and instead becomes Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Russian Federation instead, which would instead wield the power, with no annoying thing like term limits, or even terms at all?
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Turkish, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Bizarelly so do I. Crimea was long Russian held. Just Khruschev decided to transfer it from the RSFSR to the USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) in the 1950s. Given both were under the control of the Soviet Union, it didn't really matter.
I do like how we all still pretend that its still occupied territory or the like. Crimea is now part of Russia, both in fact and in name and we should all just move on from *that* one.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
It's not a question of what I would personally do - I've not committed to doing anything for Queen and Country, I'm not a member of our armed forces. But as a country we have committed to do something, and I would expect us to honour our commitments, and if we have no intention of doing so then even if we think the chances of that being tested are very low, we should withdraw so it is no longer a commitment. That would not be my choice, but if people believe we would not back up our claims there, then we should not pretend we would. The issue is surely supposed to be that we wouldn't do it alone, others would be there to share the cost.
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Third and fourth candidates made a difference in Florida 2000.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
Compared with South Ossetia etc, Estonia is complicated by being part of NATO and the EU. Any NATO response is entirely dependent on the United States. I wouldn't put a lot of value on that promise frankly. If Estonia is a small country far away to us, it is even smaller and further away to the man, woman and senator in Kentucky. The European Union is not going to stop Russia annexing Estonia but it does have the means, and possibly would have the will, to make life difficult for Russia after the event unless it sorts the situation out.
Coming to this, I think that if NATO didn't react forcefully to the invasion of Estonia, it would probably be the end of NATO. And likewise, if the EU do nothing, then it may be the end of the EU even more than some hoped Brexit would cause the end of the EU.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
The forces there are a trip wire only - I don't see how an invasion could be seriously contested in short run.
On a tangent: I wonder what Putin's exit strategy will be. He'll shortly embark upon his second consecutive term (fourth in total) as Russian president. Therefore he must stand down when that ends, even if it's just to pretend he's prime minister for four years whilst Medvedev or similar keeps his presidential chair warm.
Will he bow out? Seek to keep going? He's been in the top job for a long time now, and won't live forever. Maybe he'll start grooming a successor.
He's made Presidential terms six years now, which is a bit of a pisser for him. I can't see him wanting to have Medvedev President for six years, even if only a puppet.
Wasn't there talk of him shuffling the chairs such that he makes the President job largely ceremonial and instead becomes Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Russian Federation instead, which would instead wield the power, with no annoying thing like term limits, or even terms at all?
Supposedly. Authoritarians, popular or otherwise, can struggle with graceful retirement of course, so end up sticking around way too long. Maybe he'll just suggest getting rid of term limits this time even though he did the job swap to get it around it last time, but if he didn't then I'm not sure why he would now, so a change in position could do it.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Bizarelly so do I. Crimea was long Russian held. Just Khruschev decided to transfer it from the RSFSR to the USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) in the 1950s. Given both were under the control of the Soviet Union, it didn't really matter.
I do like how we all still pretend that its still occupied territory or the like. Crimea is now part of Russia, both in fact and in name and we should all just move on from *that* one.
I think that the claim was a fair one. The manner in which it was pursued wasn't.
It is quite incredible at the moment. Corbyn, farage and salmond all singing from the same hymn sheet while Vince is wibbling about xenophobic oldies needing to check their white privilege.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Wasn't there talk of him shuffling the chairs such that he makes the President job largely ceremonial and instead becomes Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Russian Federation instead, which would instead wield the power, with no annoying thing like term limits, or even terms at all?
Yes I've read something like that. A de facto President for Life without any inconvenient need to pretend to be elected.
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Third and fourth candidates made a difference in Florida 2000.
But it does seem rare.
Thie third party vote was very low, which makes me thing that most Libertarian voters who would have voted Rep or Dem actually did so.
Lamb is quite socially conservative, so there may well have been some "live and let live" votes for the Libertarian.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
The forces there are a trip wire only - I don't see how an invasion could be seriously contested in short run.
The modern Russian army is not the mighty force it was under Stalin and Kruschev.
Mr. Valiant, ah, I'd not heard of the terms becoming longer. The institutional tinkering I read of some years ago was of possibly inviting Prince Michael of Kent to become Czar, so Putin could be PM forever.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
A little power is a dangerous thing. Russia is no longer powerful enough to force other countries to its will - a loss that is keenly felt. But it is powerful enough to cause trouble. Causing trouble is a diplomatic objective.
There are two ways of dealing with troublemakers. Hit them so hard their actions no longer pay. Or buy them off. The West isn't really doing either.
We are paying for their trouble making by buying their gas.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
Comments
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
His view that the disaster of Iraq reinforces his belief that the intelligence services cannot be trusted is utterly disingenuous. The problem was the way that politicians misused such intelligence there was, over-egged it, put pressure on the services to say more than they could, to use poor sources etc - in short, it was politicians believing what they wanted to be true which was the issue (and the calamity for trust in our government).
Corbyn is guilty of exactly the same failing now. He does not want to believe that Russia is behind this so he ignores the evidence there is. He comes out with opinion first and distorts or ignores inconvenient facts. In this he is an ultra Blairite not the brave loner or contrarian sticking up for unpopular truths he - and his supporters - like to think he is.
On a state basis - this paints a pretty negative picture:
http://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/politics/heres-how-trumps-approval-ratings-in-each-us-state-have-changed-after-a-year-in-office-id8096591.html
Focusing on swing states:
he's gone from +8 in Michigan to -10, +6 in WI to -9, +10 in PA to -4, +22 in FL to +2.
So I’m prepared to give up Trident once the French give up their nuclear weapons.
It's a good job the Brits who endured WW2 were made of more resilient stuff than you or the whole of London would have had a nervous breakdown on the first night of the Blitz.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
What are you suggesting we do?
If senior Russian personnel hadn't been so twattish and infantile in the 24 hours after the poisoning they would indeed have been entitled to carry out tests, subject to a *very* strict timetable. As they were, and as Russia has proven form for cheating on the analysis of questionable substances (and who'd have thought a bit of Olympic cheating would come back and bite you so hard in the arse?), they don't.
I remember friends in the Labour Party in the early 60s who were quite sure that Harold Wilson was secretly in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament - and so they all gave him their support.
I think Corbyn models himself too much on Harold Wilson. A thoroughly untrustworthy old bugger.
Anyway, "my plan" is what the goverment are doing. Explusions to start, investigate Putin's associates wealth, seize assets where appropriate, Magnitsky Act style sanctions, and get rid of Russian state entities using cover of various forms.
It's not about one thing done on Wednesday afternoon but making the UK less welcome and more resilient to the Putin regime over time.
At the moment, we have a balance and, with unfortunate exceptions, stability. The only way we find out when we've gone too far with disarmament is when terrible consequences occur. I'd prefer to have house insurance and never need it than the other way around.
Will he bow out? Seek to keep going? He's been in the top job for a long time now, and won't live forever. Maybe he'll start grooming a successor.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Handing a sample to Russia will just cause them to say:
1. it's not what you say it is, and/or
2. we didn't put it there, and/or
3. it's not from Salisbury.
They could still argue 2 and 3 if an independent international organisation tests it but at least it rules out 1 (and in confirming what it is, it very much limits who could be responsible).
Playing the enemy's game just in order to look 'fair', assuming that they will play by the same rules - when they almost certainly have proven that they don't play by the same rules - would be an incredible act of naivety.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
I think Russia have been really stupid; to spread real FUD they had only to adopt an attitude of grave concern, we must certainly get to the bottom of this, we feel terrible if this stuff indirectly originated from us, sort of thing. They lost a lot by their 24 hour trolling spree when the news broke.
When Stalin was at Potsdam after WW2, someone said to him it must give him great pleasure to be in Berlin after all that the USSR had gone through. Stalin just growled back "Tsar Alexander got to Paris". The North European Plain which reaches all the way to Moscow and beyond has no natural barrier westwards until you hit the Atlantic.
Corbyn is not liberal. His instincts are illiberal and authoritarian. He may mean well in his concern for those at the bottom but I do not think his policies will help those he claims to care about and may, indeed, cause them harm. But unless liberals and social democrats address the failings of our current system and make the robust case for liberalism and the free society and show how it will help the losers, not just the winners, then the quasi-Marxist dross which constitutes Corbyn’s policies may well win the day, to prove to us all over again why they are dross. Only this time we will have a PM of whom we cannot be certain that he will defend us and our way of life, as Lord Rooker so memorably said a couple of years ago.
Corbyn and Salmond are suckers. Call it for the act of terrorism it actually is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/15/boris-johnson-confirms-government-not-backing-world-cup-boycott-despite-russian-spy-poisoning-politics-live
There are two ways of dealing with troublemakers. Hit them so hard their actions no longer pay. Or buy them off. The West isn't really doing either.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/15/boris-johnson-confirms-government-not-backing-world-cup-boycott-despite-russian-spy-poisoning-politics-live
Williamson says the government will look at what Russia does. Frankly, Russia should “go away and shut up”.
The W.P. was formed in response to West Germany joining NATO. Eastern Europe perceived that the resulting 'hard border' was a threat to their security.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/the-warsaw-pact/
Austria and Finland had signed earlier treaties guaranteeing neutrality. Non-aligned states didn't pose a perceived threat to the Soviet Union, even though both countries were normal mixed economies and not in the least Communist.
The principle of self-determination is clearly part of international law, if not always applied (indeed, it can't be cleanly applied in all cases). But had a referendum been held without interference or intimidation, there's a good chance that Crimea would have voted to seceed from Ukraine and apply to join Russia anyway. Had that happened, we'd have had the same result though an acceptable process.
But my guess would be that Putin wants to show his force, just as he wants to show his intelligence / special ops capacity in Salisbury.
Besides, establishing the principle that regions can join Russia solely because they vote to do so also establishes the principle that the can leave on the same basis - which isn't one he can accept.
Where is your line ...
Where would it have been in the 30's ?
The Saar, Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland ....
Wasn't there talk of him shuffling the chairs such that he makes the President job largely ceremonial and instead becomes Chairman of the
Supreme SovietRussian Federation instead, which would instead wield the power, with no annoying thing like term limits, or even terms at all?The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
I do like how we all still pretend that its still occupied territory or the like. Crimea is now part of Russia, both in fact and in name and we should all just move on from *that* one.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
But it does seem rare.
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/974252052095426560
It is quite incredible at the moment. Corbyn, farage and salmond all singing from the same hymn sheet while Vince is wibbling about xenophobic oldies needing to check their white privilege.
Milne must be sobbing in his cornflakes.
Lamb is quite socially conservative, so there may well have been some "live and let live" votes for the Libertarian.
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.