Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So crunch day on Russia for the PM

SystemSystem Posts: 12,863
edited March 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So crunch day on Russia for the PM

It is now Wednesday and the Russians have not done what was demanded of them by the PM over the Salisbury attack and so it is up to her and the government to announce what they are doing.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    How about freezing the UK assets of everyone linked to the Putin regime.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    This is her Chamberlain moment isn't it?
  • augustus_carpaugustus_carp Posts: 224
    Pulpstar said:

    How about freezing the UK assets of everyone linked to the Putin regime.

    The problem with that idea, Pulpstar, is the difficulty of defining an acceptable degree of proximity. I doubt if even the Foreign Office knows for certain whether some individuals qualify as "good oligarchs" or 2bad oligarchs".
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    Does the Government have the authority to order a pull out from the World Cup? I wouldn't have thought they did.

    As I recall in 1980 Mrs Thatcher did her best to discourage British athletes from going to the Moscow Olympics as a protest against the invasion of Afghanistan but she couldn't actually stop them from going. I think the gold medal winners had the Olympic anthem played instead of the National Anthem though. (Mind you that isn't likely to be an issue for the England football team!)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,974
    Carolus_Rex said:

    Does the Government have the authority to order a pull out from the World Cup? I wouldn't have thought they did.

    As I recall in 1980 Mrs Thatcher did her best to discourage British athletes from going to the Moscow Olympics as a protest against the invasion of Afghanistan but she couldn't actually stop them from going. I think the gold medal winners had the Olympic anthem played instead of the National Anthem though. (Mind you that isn't likely to be an issue for the England football team!)

    They must do in some way.
    In any case - I wouldn’t have thought the FA would want to pick a fight on this...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    edited March 2018
    augustus_carp said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How about freezing the UK assets of everyone linked to the Putin regime.

    The problem with that idea, Pulpstar, is the difficulty of defining an acceptable degree of proximity. I doubt if even the Foreign Office knows for certain whether some individuals qualify as "good oligarchs" or 2bad oligarchs".
    If the Government was serious it could start with Chelsea FC... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12120710/Vladimir-Putin-Roman-Abramovich-and-the-25-million-yacht.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Carolus_Rex said:

    Does the Government have the authority to order a pull out from the World Cup? I wouldn't have thought they did.

    No. But if the Foreign Office officially advises against travel to a country, many travel insurance policies are invalidated - so it might be 'brave' to attend.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,456
    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    Matthew Syed in The Times says we should use a Magnitsky Act to seize Chelsea from Roman Abramovich.

    For, in his legal scrap with Berezovsky, Abramovich opened up for the first time about how he amassed a personal fortune of £8 billion. Jonathan Sumption, QC, his lawyer and now a judge in the Supreme Court, admitted that the auction that handed Abramovich control of Sibneft, the Russian energy giant, was “rigged”. The court also heard that it was a “stitch-up”. In essence, this was one of a series of deals in which Yeltsin handed the mineral wealth of the Russian people to the oligarchs at a fraction of its true cost in return, it is claimed, for free advertising on their TV channels in the build-up to the 1996 election.

    Paul Gregory, the economist, described the Sibneft deal as “the largest single heist in corporate history and a lasting emblem of the corruption of modern Russia”. Abramovich’s involvement may only have gone so far as the “stitched-up” auction, but surely that is corruption.....

    .....The closeness of Putin and Abramovich can be seen by examining Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, the book by Karen Dawisha, professor of political science at Miami University. “Abramovich helped fund the purchase for $50 million of Putin’s first presidential yacht,” she writes.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/russian-spy-case-could-spell-trouble-for-abramovich-wcwzvwh8g

    The fact that Chelsea might go out of business is merely a joyous happenstance.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    CarlottaVance said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Does the Government have the authority to order a pull out from the World Cup? I wouldn't have thought they did.

    No. But if the Foreign Office officially advises against travel to a country, many travel insurance policies are invalidated - so it might be 'brave' to attend.
    And the lack of officials to smooze would presumably put off some further business clients
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,153
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Matthew Syed in The Times says we should use a Magnitsky Act to seize Chelsea from Roman Abramovich.

    For, in his legal scrap with Berezovsky, Abramovich opened up for the first time about how he amassed a personal fortune of £8 billion. Jonathan Sumption, QC, his lawyer and now a judge in the Supreme Court, admitted that the auction that handed Abramovich control of Sibneft, the Russian energy giant, was “rigged”. The court also heard that it was a “stitch-up”. In essence, this was one of a series of deals in which Yeltsin handed the mineral wealth of the Russian people to the oligarchs at a fraction of its true cost in return, it is claimed, for free advertising on their TV channels in the build-up to the 1996 election.

    Paul Gregory, the economist, described the Sibneft deal as “the largest single heist in corporate history and a lasting emblem of the corruption of modern Russia”. Abramovich’s involvement may only have gone so far as the “stitched-up” auction, but surely that is corruption.....

    .....The closeness of Putin and Abramovich can be seen by examining Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, the book by Karen Dawisha, professor of political science at Miami University. “Abramovich helped fund the purchase for $50 million of Putin’s first presidential yacht,” she writes.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/russian-spy-case-could-spell-trouble-for-abramovich-wcwzvwh8g

    The fact that Chelsea might go out of business is merely a joyous happenstance.

    Now if we could extend that to West Ham it would be glorious.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,960
    They should get some MI6 snake-eater to push Snowden under a tram and we'll call it quits. Moskva slyezam nye vyerit...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    edited March 2018
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Matthew Syed in The Times says we should use a Magnitsky Act to seize Chelsea from Roman Abramovich.

    For, in his legal scrap with Berezovsky, Abramovich opened up for the first time about how he amassed a personal fortune of £8 billion. Jonathan Sumption, QC, his lawyer and now a judge in the Supreme Court, admitted that the auction that handed Abramovich control of Sibneft, the Russian energy giant, was “rigged”. The court also heard that it was a “stitch-up”. In essence, this was one of a series of deals in which Yeltsin handed the mineral wealth of the Russian people to the oligarchs at a fraction of its true cost in return, it is claimed, for free advertising on their TV channels in the build-up to the 1996 election.

    Paul Gregory, the economist, described the Sibneft deal as “the largest single heist in corporate history and a lasting emblem of the corruption of modern Russia”. Abramovich’s involvement may only have gone so far as the “stitched-up” auction, but surely that is corruption.....

    .....The closeness of Putin and Abramovich can be seen by examining Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, the book by Karen Dawisha, professor of political science at Miami University. “Abramovich helped fund the purchase for $50 million of Putin’s first presidential yacht,” she writes.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/russian-spy-case-could-spell-trouble-for-abramovich-wcwzvwh8g

    The fact that Chelsea might go out of business is merely a joyous happenstance.

    There are many advantages to liquidating Chelsea as an example to other Russians. Indeed I suspect the Leicester fans* may well suggest something along those lines on Sunday afternoon.

    * Our own billionaire owner is a paragon of virtue for certain / innocent face /
  • glwglw Posts: 10,646
    edited March 2018
    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    The government can stop Putin's pals from buying assets in the UK, using our courts (maybe), laundering their money in our financial centre, and from getting visas so that they can live here (in relative peace), and educating their child in our schools and universities.

    Basically bog off back to Moscow Boris.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,456
    augustus_carp said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How about freezing the UK assets of everyone linked to the Putin regime.

    The problem with that idea, Pulpstar, is the difficulty of defining an acceptable degree of proximity. I doubt if even the Foreign Office knows for certain whether some individuals qualify as "good oligarchs" or 2bad oligarchs".
    I agree.

    I used to organise large organisations that used a particular business software for a fee. On more than one occasion I had my invoice put on hold because the organisation was in dispute with the software supplier. It was a banging your head against a wall scenario. If ever there was a time to pay me it was then, but some twit higher in the organisation put a freeze on any related spend.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    Sorry to go off topic with the events in Pennsylvania overnight should I be worried about my bets on the GOP holding the senate (with a potentially increased majority)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    FPT, but more relevant to this one.
    Barnesian said:

    Elliot said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.

    I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.

    Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

    We might make the semi-finals against that lot :)

    It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
    A sporting boycott only works if there's a lot of countries involved, Russia will shrug off England not turning up, but won't be shrugging if half the competitors don't turn up.

    It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    edited March 2018
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sorry to go off topic with the events in Pennsylvania overnight should I be worried about my bets on the GOP holding the senate (with a potentially increased majority)

    There is now a more than trivial risk of a winnable special election in a Republican held seat or seats, which could make quite a lot of difference.

    But unless and until that happens, you're fine.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but more relevant to this one.

    Barnesian said:

    Elliot said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.

    I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.

    Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

    We might make the semi-finals against that lot :)

    It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
    A sporting boycott only works if there's a lot of countries involved, Russia will shrug off England not turning up, but won't be shrugging if half the competitors don't turn up.

    It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    People need to cool it with the cyber warfare stuff, something we simply do not want to start.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,514
    If RT is banned in the UK, Russia has said it will ban all British media outlets from Russia.

    That in itself would pose a dilemma for FIFA.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,607
    edited March 2018
    "Corbyn said the attack had "appalled the country" and urged decisive action after the PM told the Commons it was "highly likely " Russia was to blame.

    But the Labour leader also criticised the Conservatives for accepting donations from "Russian oligarchs".

    Tory MPs accused him of trying to score political points."

    Of course he was trying to score political points! He's a skilled politician. I can't see that was a mistake or that it "raises a lot of questions about him". What questions? PMQs should be interesting.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,514
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but more relevant to this one.

    Barnesian said:

    Elliot said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.

    I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.

    Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

    We might make the semi-finals against that lot :)

    It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
    A sporting boycott only works if there's a lot of countries involved, Russia will shrug off England not turning up, but won't be shrugging if half the competitors don't turn up.

    It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.
    Au contraire, the current regime is far from squeaky clean.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    My colleague reckons May is heading down a dangerous path..
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    edited March 2018
    tlg86 said:

    If RT is banned in the UK, Russia has said it will ban all British media outlets from Russia.

    That in itself would pose a dilemma for FIFA.

    The World Cup (like the Olympics) is heavily controlled by the governing body (in this case FIFA), Russia won't really have much of a say about who is allowed in.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but more relevant to this one.

    Barnesian said:

    Elliot said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.

    I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.

    Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

    We might make the semi-finals against that lot :)

    It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
    A sporting boycott only works if there's a lot of countries involved, Russia will shrug off England not turning up, but won't be shrugging if half the competitors don't turn up.

    It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.
    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    Does the boycott mean we will go as "The FIFA footballers of England" :D ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    tlg86 said:

    If RT is banned in the UK, Russia has said it will ban all British media outlets from Russia.

    That in itself would pose a dilemma for FIFA.

    Russia have no choice, under their contract with FIFA (and with F1) they have to allow accredited media connected to the event to attend.

    They have some scope, for example if the BBC tried to accredit John Sweeney or Donal McIntyre as football reporters, to refuse them visas, but it's not that straightforward.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,852
    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.

    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
    The UK and France should make a joint offer to co-host the 2018 World Cup. We could pull it off at short notice.
  • augustus_carpaugustus_carp Posts: 224
    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    AlastairMeeks said:



    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.

    Prince William watching it at home on the sofa a crisis I think FIFA can cope with.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    We didn’t take a hit when Press TV was closed down.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    The most effective thing would probably be Theresa May's Twitter account regularly publishing news on embezzlement and corruption in Russia, commemorating Russia's martyrs to the democratic cause, etc. A full scale push of facts-based narratives that undermine Putin.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    We didn’t take a hit when Press TV was closed down.
    Do a Google image search on Press TV
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    Pulpstar said:

    My colleague reckons May is heading down a dangerous path..

    She's got a choice to make, either she responds or doesn't to an assassination attempt using chemical weapons on UK soil. I'd say she'd rather not be in that position, but given she has no choice in the matter she'll look much stronger if she takes harsh actions.

    Putin and his friends need their own game played back to them, it's all they understand (minus the chemical weapons obviously).
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,974
    Barnesian said:

    "Corbyn said the attack had "appalled the country" and urged decisive action after the PM told the Commons it was "highly likely " Russia was to blame.

    But the Labour leader also criticised the Conservatives for accepting donations from "Russian oligarchs".

    Tory MPs accused him of trying to score political points."

    Of course he was trying to score political points! He's a skilled politician. I can't see that was a mistake or that it "raises a lot of questions about him". What questions? PMQs should be interesting.

    If Corbyn comes out for a stronger stance than what May offers it will be a bit awkward for the Tories.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    AlastairMeeks said:



    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.

    I think Qatar will be the bigger problem for FIFA.

    There’s so many issues that might stop it happening.

    Plus, just imagine if Israel qualifies.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    My colleague reckons May is heading down a dangerous path..

    Of course it's a dangerous path. Such paths are always more dangerous when you travel without friends.

    Like Mr Smithson Snr, I think Theresa May had already decided on Monday what she intended doing today. She obviously thinks she can do something meaningful by herself.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    williamglenn said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.

    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
    The UK and France should make a joint offer to co-host the 2018 World Cup. We could pull it off at short notice.
    England/UK has always been in the back of FIFA's mind as an emergency host if necessary, given the number and standard of stadia available.

    Your plan would need to be initiated by FIFA though, by cancelling the WC from the Russians, which I'm not sure they can do at this point without a lot of lawsuits.

    This is all a rehearsal for the next WC, Qatar is not going to be close to ready as they've pissed off all their neighbours and aren't even going to have the stadia ready, let alone the hotels.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,467
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AlastairMeeks said:



    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.

    I think Qatar will be the bigger problem for FIFA.

    There’s so many issues that might stop it happening.

    Plus, just imagine if Israel qualifies.
    Should be OK shouldn't it, Qataris and Israelis both worship basically the same god :) !
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    edited March 2018
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My colleague reckons May is heading down a dangerous path..

    She's got a choice to make, either she responds or doesn't to an assassination attempt using chemical weapons on UK soil. I'd say she'd rather not be in that position, but given she has no choice in the matter she'll look much stronger if she takes harsh actions.

    Putin and his friends need their own game played back to them, it's all they understand (minus the chemical weapons obviously).
    Most importantly, this is the second time, after we tried the light touch response over Litvinenko. If we do nothing, foreign spies will never work for us again.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,960
    TheScreamingEagles said:



    Plus, just imagine if Israel qualifies.

    Qatar have already said they will welcome the Israeli team if they qualify. The Qataris and the Isrealis are both arch-pragmatists who have a functional if not deep relationship under all the hyperbolic bullshit. Tzipi Livni made an official visit to Doha when she was Foreign Secretary.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AlastairMeeks said:



    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.

    I think Qatar will be the bigger problem for FIFA.

    There’s so many issues that might stop it happening.

    Plus, just imagine if Israel qualifies.
    Qatar will be a PR disaster for FIFA but the tournament itself will be well-run: all the more-so for the lack of fans.

    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    It is hard to characterise the state propaganda outlets of autocratic regimes as part of the free and independent press.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,960
    david_herdson said:



    Qatar will be a PR disaster for FIFA but the tournament itself will be well-run: all the more-so for the lack of fans.

    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    I wouldn't dream of going to the Russian WC but I am going to the Qatari one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    Sandpit said:

    williamglenn said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.

    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
    The UK and France should make a joint offer to co-host the 2018 World Cup. We could pull it off at short notice.
    England/UK has always been in the back of FIFA's mind as an emergency host if necessary, given the number and standard of stadia available.

    Your plan would need to be initiated by FIFA though, by cancelling the WC from the Russians, which I'm not sure they can do at this point without a lot of lawsuits.

    This is all a rehearsal for the next WC, Qatar is not going to be close to ready as they've pissed off all their neighbours and aren't even going to have the stadia ready, let alone the hotels.
    I think it quite possible that Russia will be the last World Cup, at least in its current FIFA guise. Qatar will be a farce and the expansion to 48 teams in 2026 is starting to look a bit silly. FIFA is unreformed and needs liquidation and a reboot.

    I am quite looking forward to my Russia jaunt though.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Not if you're Russian.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,759
    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Sandpit said:

    williamglenn said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.

    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
    The UK and France should make a joint offer to co-host the 2018 World Cup. We could pull it off at short notice.
    England/UK has always been in the back of FIFA's mind as an emergency host if necessary, given the number and standard of stadia available.

    Your plan would need to be initiated by FIFA though, by cancelling the WC from the Russians, which I'm not sure they can do at this point without a lot of lawsuits.

    This is all a rehearsal for the next WC, Qatar is not going to be close to ready as they've pissed off all their neighbours and aren't even going to have the stadia ready, let alone the hotels.
    Maybe that's what England could say: we are happy to participate, but we won't play physically in Russia. We could offer Poland perhaps as fairly close?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    FF43 said:

    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)

    We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Russian hooligans are notorious, but for such a showpiece they will behave. Either that or they will be down the saltmines.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Foxy said:

    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Russian hooligans are notorious, but for such a showpiece they will behave. Either that or they will be down the saltmines.
    Are you sure the showpiece won't be "our manly supporters teach the English a lesson"?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    FF43 said:

    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)

    We should really piss off Putin by rejoining the EU :)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,424
    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    You’ve not dealt with Russian fans and police have you?

    They’ll assault you and the police will then join in to give you a good kicking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,468
    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    We didn’t take a hit when Press TV was closed down.
    Do a Google image search on Press TV
    I did. And...?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Of course, the biggest danger is you get Russian hooligans committing violence wearing England and Ukrainian shirts.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    If May comes down hard on Russia, expect Milne and Murray (Corbyn's too most prominent backroom boys and Stalinists) to have an absolute hissy fit.

    They'll argue that not only have us rabid colonialists continued to 'grossly over-exaggerate' the number of people Stain killed, we're now spreading lies about friendly old ex-KGB gangster Putin.

    Russia benefits the UK in no way whatsoever. It's a gangster-state; a country where investigative journalists are murdered and democratic opposition politicians are thrown in jail. It's a nasty shithole ran by bullies and organised criminals who launder money in London. Fuck them.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,759
    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)

    We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
    Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:

    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Russian hooligans are notorious, but for such a showpiece they will behave. Either that or they will be down the saltmines.
    Are you sure the showpiece won't be "our manly supporters teach the English a lesson"?
    I suspect that the Russian police will be pretty hands on. I dont think they do "softly, softly".

    I wont be mixing with the England fans, as I have semi-final tickets.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,468
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.

    Foregone conclusion, surely: "Two official bids to host the event were submitted to FIFA: a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the United States, and a bid by Morocco." (Wiki)

    Anyone seriously thinking Morocco can host a 48 team WC?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is her Chamberlain moment isn't it?

    To be fair to Chamberlain, he had several 'moment's to respond to. He was PM when Poland was invaded as much as when the Sudentenland was threatened.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,423
    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)

    We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
    Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
    That has been happening, quietly.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,607
    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    I agree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    williamglenn said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Bashing FIFA has lost its lustre with Sepp Blatter gone.

    The sporting boycott of South Africa worked because pretty much every sport/country backed the boycott with a few dishonourable exceptions.

    Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
    The UK and France should make a joint offer to co-host the 2018 World Cup. We could pull it off at short notice.
    England/UK has always been in the back of FIFA's mind as an emergency host if necessary, given the number and standard of stadia available.

    Your plan would need to be initiated by FIFA though, by cancelling the WC from the Russians, which I'm not sure they can do at this point without a lot of lawsuits.

    This is all a rehearsal for the next WC, Qatar is not going to be close to ready as they've pissed off all their neighbours and aren't even going to have the stadia ready, let alone the hotels.
    I think it quite possible that Russia will be the last World Cup, at least in its current FIFA guise. Qatar will be a farce and the expansion to 48 teams in 2026 is starting to look a bit silly. FIFA is unreformed and needs liquidation and a reboot.

    I am quite looking forward to my Russia jaunt though.
    The story in Qatar is going to be the half empty and half finished stadia. There won't be enough accommodation for the teams let alone the fans, and their plans for a fleet of A380s running to Dubai and Bahrain has been put on hold by the local political row in the region. The fans are going to be going from somewhere like Istanbul, if not direct from UK and straight back. In December, with the possibility of weather to deal with as well.

    Good luck with your Russia trip!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,960
    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.

    Foregone conclusion, surely: "Two official bids to host the event were submitted to FIFA: a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the United States, and a bid by Morocco." (Wiki)

    Anyone seriously thinking Morocco can host a 48 team WC?
    FIFA obviously do. They did a good job with the African Nations Championship this year.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    edited March 2018
    Foxy said:

    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:

    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Russian hooligans are notorious, but for such a showpiece they will behave. Either that or they will be down the saltmines.
    Are you sure the showpiece won't be "our manly supporters teach the English a lesson"?
    I suspect that the Russian police will be pretty hands on. I dont think they do "softly, softly".

    I wont be mixing with the England fans, as I have semi-final tickets.
    We have seen gay pride events in Russia, where the police stand by smirking as protesters get beaten up. I can completely see the same thing happening in the World Cup, with the police then saying the England fans were antagonistic off camera.

    When that happens, no doubt the usual suspects on here will take Russia's side. We will have links from crank websites talking about the video evidence and Corbynistas saying it is the fault of a broken English culture.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,423
    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    The UK joins the European Army.

    I don't Russia would be pleased with that :)

    We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
    Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
    That has been happening, quietly.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sweden-and-finland-join-uk-led-response-force
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    Elliot said:

    Of course, the biggest danger is you get Russian hooligans committing violence wearing England and Ukrainian shirts.

    That's not a trivial suggestion, and yes it's quite possible/probable that Russian TV will run with all sorts of similar images of violence by 'other' 'fans'. Ukraine haven't qualified, thankfully.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,810
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    We didn’t take a hit when Press TV was closed down.
    Press TV was a rather different beast.
    I'd be inclined to leave RT alone for now, but keep it under review.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,468
    Dura_Ace said:

    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.

    Foregone conclusion, surely: "Two official bids to host the event were submitted to FIFA: a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the United States, and a bid by Morocco." (Wiki)

    Anyone seriously thinking Morocco can host a 48 team WC?
    FIFA obviously do. They did a good job with the African Nations Championship this year.
    Fari enough - I have never been there, so shouldn't judge. (Still think the N American bid will win though!)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.

    Foregone conclusion, surely: "Two official bids to host the event were submitted to FIFA: a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the United States, and a bid by Morocco." (Wiki)

    Anyone seriously thinking Morocco can host a 48 team WC?
    This is the same organisation that awarded the 2022 world cup, remember.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,468
    Are we expecting May's statement before PMQs?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,951
    Nigelb said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    augustus_carp said:

    I hope they don't try to interfere with RT. Any attempt by a British Government to suppress the "free" press will play very badly around the world, and also do a lot of damage to the BBC. I think this is a case where we need to display an uncharacteristic degree of old-fashioned liberalism in the face of a tyranny.

    We didn’t take a hit when Press TV was closed down.
    Press TV was a rather different beast.
    I'd be inclined to leave RT alone for now, but keep it under review.
    OFCOM have already written to them, suggesting that if Britain imposes additional sanctions against Russia they will have to consider if they are "fit and proper" to hold a UK broadcast licence.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5496243/Russia-Today-licence-stripped-regulators.html
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Benpointer said:

    Are we expecting May's statement before PMQs?

    After.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
    As I said earlier, the most damaging impact on Putin would be news stories that hurt him being given international media attention on a frequent basis. Or fresh information from British tax havens.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,960
    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,071
    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but more relevant to this one.

    Barnesian said:



    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.

    Could agree more with this. It's what I would do.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,423
    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
    Good post.
    Also Russian "cultural" support, e.g. in the numerous Russian centres in British Universities, which can be covers for some nefarious activities.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 393
    Dura_Ace said:

    They should get some MI6 snake-eater to push Snowden under a tram and we'll call it quits. Moskva slyezam nye vyerit...

    I find transliterated Russian very hard to read - what's the point - type it in cyrillic so those who can read it can and translate it for others - typing a transliteration which nobody who doesn't speak Russian will pronounce correctly seems a pointless exercise.

    Anyway rather than go to police state Russia football fans should come to Odessa, where we have lovely beaches, beautiful women (men, not so beautiful) and can teach you proper swearing in Odessa Russian, not the effete pretty-boy language of Moscow/St Petersburg
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,651
    DanSmith said:

    Benpointer said:

    Are we expecting May's statement before PMQs?

    After.
    Has any recent PM faced such huge issues, if Brexit is not enough, now we have Russia attacking a UK citizen with a nerve agent causing chaos in one of England's quintessential Cities, and also she is faced with a pro Russia marxist leader of the opposition
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,651
    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,514
    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The other aspect is the host of the 2026 World Cup will be announced the day before the World Cup in Russia starts.

    This could be fun.

    Foregone conclusion, surely: "Two official bids to host the event were submitted to FIFA: a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the United States, and a bid by Morocco." (Wiki)

    Anyone seriously thinking Morocco can host a 48 team WC?
    Keir Radnedge in World Soccer reckons it's closer than most people would imagine. As @Dura_Ace points out, they hosted this year's African Nations Championship.

    Remember, it's now one member one vote. That gives Morocco more of a chance than the old 24 FIFA exco members.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
    I would certainly be fairly blatent with helping Ukraine and Georgia, with intelligence and diplomatic support.

    If only there was some sort of Union of European countries willing to support the democratisation and economic development of these countries formerly under the Russian yoke!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Not if they are a Russian.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    It would also show Western democracy was a fraud.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Elliot said:

    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
    As I said earlier, the most damaging impact on Putin would be news stories that hurt him being given international media attention on a frequent basis. Or fresh information from British tax havens.
    No, it wouldn't. he really doesn't care about stuff like that. The regaining of Crimea is worth a million hostile editorials.

    Putin is interested in holding, applying and increasing his, and Russia's, power (which amount to much the same thing). News stories have a minor adverse soft power impact but that shouldn't be allowed to override the real hard power gains that they're reporting on.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,759
    edited March 2018
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
    We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    Yes. True. Unfortunately, it's not a policy that can be considered until Britain has left.

    The Russia aspect might help shape the form of Brexit though, encouraging both sides to reach a co-operative deal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    Elliot said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    It would also show Western democracy was a fraud.
    Or that we were not willing to have our Democracy interefered with by Russian funded manipulators.

    Ideally the USA could then impeach Trump for treason as a second course.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,579
    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    Excellent idea! If Theresa can link British euro-scepticism with Putin's Russia in the public consciousness it will delivery her no end of political gifts. It would kill off UKIP for a start - who'd ever vote for them again in the knowledge that they were the poisoner's friend?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,566
    FF43 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
    We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
    Appeasement was a Conservative party policy...
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    david_herdson said:

    Elliot said:

    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    I'm struggling to see what she can do that will have any meaningful impact. Only the pulling out of the World Cup (or moving it) by at least half a dozen countries, thus rendering it pointless will have an impact. I suspect that would be impossible to organise.

    Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.

    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.

    Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
    As I said earlier, the most damaging impact on Putin would be news stories that hurt him being given international media attention on a frequent basis. Or fresh information from British tax havens.
    No, it wouldn't. he really doesn't care about stuff like that. The regaining of Crimea is worth a million hostile editorials.

    Putin is interested in holding, applying and increasing his, and Russia's, power (which amount to much the same thing). News stories have a minor adverse soft power impact but that shouldn't be allowed to override the real hard power gains that they're reporting on.
    He absolutely cares about that. Russia has realised the power of the media narrative. That is how they got Trump elected after all. It's why he spends considerable resources peddling Ukrainian fascist stories. It is why Russia Today operates at a loss around the world. It is the reason Nemtsov and other democrats are killed off, when all they are doing is highlighting abuses.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,651
    FF43 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
    We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
    The donations were from UK citizens and all declared. Are you inferring that all UK citizens with Russian connections are corrupt. And your last sentence is, with respect, nonsense - of course we care what is done on our soil and TM will demonstrate that today
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,710
    FF43 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    david_herdson said:


    For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.

    Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
    And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
    We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
    That is an enormous and possibly illogical leap from:

    Accept donations to don't care, have carte blanche to do what you like.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    TheValiant said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but more relevant to this one.

    Barnesian said:



    Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.

    I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.

    Could agree more with this. It's what I would do.

    So you mean Couldn't agree more, then?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,332
    david_herdson said:

    DanSmith said:

    david_herdson said:



    Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.

    A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
    Not if they are a Russian.
    Russian ultra thugs have been training in the woods for years according to a documentary that was on a few months ago. To be in the one of the gangs you have to fight other gang members to the point of severe major injury to prove yourself.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    The general perception in Russia is that Putin stands opposed to the oligarchy, who grew rich at the people's expense.

    Cracking down on oligarchs in the UK will only strengthen that perception.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025