Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
LOL - Sky News are torn between Boris's ramble or Vlad's ramble.
Vlad is appearing on the Sky News app.
I don't have the Sky News app.
My God, I'm going to miss the rest of the episode!
I will now fail to understand why Ukraine isn't really a thing and the glorious Russian liberation of the fascistically oppressed people of the non-country once referred to as "Ukraine" by the wicked American imperialists will be celebrated by all.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Why formally annex when recognition is de factor annexation? Anything that gives a hook for allies in the West to push back against any particularly punishing sanctions is probably worth it.
"Look, guys, what he did was wrong but at the end of the day he just recognised them, and they probably do want to be independent of Kiev, and it's not like he absorbed them into Russia itself. So really I think that slap on the wrist should be downgraded to a finger wag. So long as it is not too hard a wag"
EU may do that but I suspect the US and UK will go for removing Swift access and the impact that will have on Russia financing.
So if Boris appears at some point with Whitty and Vallance does that mean the implication from some tweets earlier that he was operating with no regard to advice incorrect? Whether they support this move or not, if they appear that surely means
LOL - Sky News are torn between Boris's ramble or Vlad's ramble.
Perhaps they could decide the whole thing by rap battle.
My name is Big Vlad and I'm here to say Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own.
So if Boris appears at some point with Whitty and Vallance does that mean the implication from some tweets earlier that he was operating with no regard to advice incorrect? Whether they support this move or not, if they appear that surely means
LOL - Sky News are torn between Boris's ramble or Vlad's ramble.
Perhaps they could decide the whole thing by rap battle.
My name is Big Vlad and I'm here to say Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own.
Could use some work
It doesn't even rhyme, for goodness' sake.
"My name is Big Vlad and I'm here to say Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own, okay?"
These enormous rooms and gigantic tables favoured by Putin remind me of the scale doubles' sets used for Bag End in the Lord of the Rings films. Is there a smaller-scale Kremlin that Sir Ian Mckellen films his scenes in?
Both Al Jazeera and Russia Today are privileging Putin's speech over Boris's.
One was confirming they intend to invade a sovereign nation as a precursor to WW3. The other was merely confirming they had singlehandedly beaten a global pandemic. (In this instance surely you would give Vlad the nod over Boris).
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
So if Boris appears at some point with Whitty and Vallance does that mean the implication from some tweets earlier that he was operating with no regard to advice incorrect? Whether they support this move or not, if they appear that surely means
LOL - Sky News are torn between Boris's ramble or Vlad's ramble.
Perhaps they could decide the whole thing by rap battle.
My name is Big Vlad and I'm here to say Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own.
Could use some work
It doesn't even rhyme, for goodness' sake.
In that case it is a poem, and I am unbound by conventional rules about rhythm, metre or quality.
I don’t think Macron is humiliated. Nobody can accuse Macron of avoiding any tactics to prevent war. It was worth a go. Jaw jaw and all that.
It was definitely worth a go, and it is creditable that Macron did what he did, BUT Macron posed as the saviour of Peace and the Leader of Europe and now he looks like a preening fool that got duped
Macron overdid the grandiosity, as French Presidents are wont
Back to the speech, this begins to sound, ominously, like a justification like Russia taking over ALL of Ukraine, not just a few chunks
"Mark Harper @Mark_J_Harper The Govt’s plan for living with Covid took a while to arrive, but I’m glad it’s here.
However, it’s disappointing that the Prime Minister has refused rapid action on reforming the Public Health Act 1984 so Ministers can no longer bring lockdowns into force by decree…"
@bondegezou posted a link to this which does indeed give ministers the right to trample wholesale over peoples' rights. I am with Mark Harper in seeking to reform it. .
The link shows that the Act gives a JP on request of a local public health team, so a much lowlier position than a govt minister(!), the right to "trample" over someone's rights... in very specific situations of a public health threat. Which seems eminently sensible. There is always a balance of an individual's rights versus how an individual's actions impact on others. We give policemen certain powers in the face of imminent dangers, so why shouldn't we do that for health threats?
The 1984 Act brought together various existing powers dating back as far as 1936, and which builds on a tradition of legislation going back to perhaps the 1848 Act? I would have thought that a conservative would recognise the value of conserving a tried and tested system, rather than tearing it down in some libertarian spasm.
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
Both Al Jazeera and Russia Today are privileging Putin's speech over Boris's.
One was confirming they intend to invade a sovereign nation as a precursor to WW3. The other was merely confirming they had singlehandedly beaten a global pandemic. (In this instance surely you would give Vlad the nod over Boris).
Now back to Alex Salmond in the studio.
Get someone on that can talk sense rather than BBC propaganda, great idea.
I don’t think Macron is humiliated. Nobody can accuse Macron of avoiding any tactics to prevent war. It was worth a go. Jaw jaw and all that.
It was definitely worth a go, and it is creditable that Macron did what he did, BUT Macron posed as the saviour of Peace and the Leader of Europe and now he looks like a preening fool that got duped
Macron overdid the grandiosity, as French Presidents are wont
Back to the speech, this begins to sound, ominously, like a justification like Russia taking over ALL of Ukraine, not just a few chunks
If Ukraine is not a real country it's hard to escape the view that everything is on the table - or at the least he still wants people to think it might be, so that when he nibbles off a bite it will not look so bad.
Of course, all countries are ultimately 'invented', and many are even younger than Ukraine. Even great Russia did not always have even the scale of today's boundaries. Might as well argue to restore the Kievan Rus.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
Ukraine is a great deal older than the bolshevik arrivistes.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
You sound like a Putin shill rather than a Free Wales Army freedom fighter. Get a grip
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
The borders of Ukraine were agreed by all parties concerned in the 1990s. There are no grounds for redrawing them.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
Someone was talking about a great floor earlier, and I assume it must have been this one - say what you like about Putin, and if you are Russian you can't, but he has some great location scouting
Yet people over here complain about the cost of a studio or the wallpaper in No. 10...
Perhaps rightly...
I bet he wouldn't let the House of Parliament fall to bits. I may be warming to him.
I am not one for bling. Most of Pugin's interiors are far too garish for me. But I like that interior: it's got contrast and interest without being too ott.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
You sound like a Putin shill rather than a Free Wales Army freedom fighter. Get a grip
A man has to eat. A shilling has to be earned. But yes, mock away.
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
Putin said that the US and Nato have turned Ukraine into a “theatre of war”.
It's the way he tells them. I am sure he truly believes the stuff about how the West reneged about NATO membership for various others, it may even be true what do I know, but can a man who has his proxies invade another country, and then years later gathers up 100k troops on the border while NATO, er, has not, truly genuinely believe that it is NATO ratcheting things up now?
Even if he genuinely believes actions 25 years ago from NATO were provocative enough to justify this, the proximate cause of this escalation definitely wasn't that.
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
Oh God this is the single most boring declaration of a catastrophic war, in history
Who on earth is this speech for? Haven't the Kremlin being doing their job preparing people for the possibility of war for weeks, why would they need a long ramble to further prepare them?
It's a petty point, but it's not about convincing non-allies, allies will already be on board, and the Russian public, like our public, aren't about to change their entire opinion based on one speech, so seriously why bother with a long speech not a short one?
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
Putin really misses the Soviet Union, doesn't he? It's sad when old farts spend all their time on nostalgia.
I saw an interesting video a couple of weeks ago examining old essays by Putin about this. It isn't quite he wants the Soviet Union, it is he believes a lot of the former USSR countries are ethnically Russian and they have been brain washed by the West that they would be better off working closely with Europe, rather than their ethnic "tribe", they are family, and he believes that really they / should be Russian or at very least it should be like US / Canada scenario.
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
It looks like Putin is gaslighting Ukraine.
Arrrgh. If we are talking about gaslighting I am going back to the Aries mumbo jumbo.
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
It looks like Putin is gaslighting Ukraine.
Arrrgh. If we are talking about gaslighting I am going back to the Aries mumbo jumbo.
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
It looks like Putin is gaslighting Ukraine.
Arrrgh. If we are talking about gaslighting I am going back to the Aries mumbo jumbo.
I feel sorry for the stop the war loons on the side of Putin
This gorgeous line on the Russian threat to Ukraine will be found in the Stop the War agitprop, signed by the usual list of Labour MPs (Corbyn, Abbott, Burgon, McDonnell et al):
We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
He's not a brilliant orator or at great communicating, he's an often entertaining speaker, which is not the same thing.
See it too often and it loses its appeal, and hope for clarity and it is generally not great, but it's distinctive, he's capable of being pretty funny, and he is in his better moments able to lay on a bit of seriousness to make a solid point.
He pretty much said Ukraine shouldn't exist, lot of dangerous men throughout history have said that about another country before invading, see Stalin and Poland.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
"Russia has done everything to ensure Ukraine retained its territorial integrity," Putin says, not mentioning that he is personally responsible for it losing about 20% of its territory
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
Do we have some before/after Covid videos?
He was always a bumbling nincompoop. That was his USP and didn't we love it?
It was always eventually going to wear thin. In all fairness it has taken over 30 years for the lustre to fade.
I don’t think Macron is humiliated. Nobody can accuse Macron of avoiding any tactics to prevent war. It was worth a go. Jaw jaw and all that.
It was definitely worth a go, and it is creditable that Macron did what he did, BUT Macron posed as the saviour of Peace and the Leader of Europe and now he looks like a preening fool that got duped
Macron overdid the grandiosity, as French Presidents are wont
Back to the speech, this begins to sound, ominously, like a justification like Russia taking over ALL of Ukraine, not just a few chunks
If Ukraine is not a real country it's hard to escape the view that everything is on the table - or at the least he still wants people to think it might be, so that when he nibbles off a bite it will not look so bad.
Of course, all countries are ultimately 'invented', and many are even younger than Ukraine. Even great Russia did not always have even the scale of today's boundaries. Might as well argue to restore the Kievan Rus.
No, I think it means that every country should seek to restore their maximalist borders. Should make Europe a fun place again.
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
He's not a brilliant orator or at great communicating, he's an often entertaining speaker, which is not the same thing.
See it too often and it loses its appeal, and hope for clarity and it is generally not great, but it's distinctive, he's capable of being pretty funny, and he is in his better moments able to lay on a bit of seriousness to make a solid point.
But orator? No.
Mandelson was a good orator. He could speak well. You can almost see him thinking about the sentence he will be saying two or three sentences ahead of time.
Whereas I am thinking about the sentences I spoke two or three sentences *after* I spoke them. In other words, my mouth runs ahead of my brain (as can probably be discerned from my posts on here). A politician needs the opposite.
Johnson is a goodish writer. I am far from sure he can think well on his feet. When speaking, there is no 'edit' function.
No joke, just started up on the book I'd picked out for this evening, a sci-fi novel called The Enceladus Mission about a space probe detecting life on that moon of Saturn. Set in 2033.
Literally only a few pages in and it is talking about the various space agencies involved, noting 'Nobody expected much from the Russians, who had been chronically short of funds since their annexation of Ukraine and the ensuing decade of being exluded from the world economy'.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
Classic victim blaming.
The number of PBers just arguing smaller countries should hand over territory because war is threatened is astonishing. These people are contemptible victim-blaming scum.
He pretty much said Ukraine shouldn't exist, lot of dangerous men throughout history have said that about another country before invading, see Stalin and Poland.
Plenty of Russia's neighbours were under the auspices of the Soviet Union, or the Russian Empire before that.
The Finns would be well advised to apply to join NATO for starters.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
The thing is that this is no longer about the current situation in Ukraine - it’s about the next push. Ukraine is probably set in stone but instead of saying “ok Vlad do what you want when you want” it’s got to be a line in the sand.
He has to learn that if he’s got his beady eyes on somewhere else the cost is very very high and ultimately the guys he needs in Moscow will not be happy when they cannot get their money, their wives cannot shop in London and Paris.
That’s where this will bite him - he doesn’t give a shit about dead Russians yet alone dead Ukrainians but when the chaos propping him up get hit they will either arrange his replacement or make damn sure he doesn’t start up again elsewhere.
It’s to the west’s eternal shame they didn’t act like this in 2013/2014 as this would not be happening now.
I feel sorry for the stop the war loons on the side of Putin
This gorgeous line on the Russian threat to Ukraine will be found in the Stop the War agitprop, signed by the usual list of Labour MPs (Corbyn, Abbott, Burgon, McDonnell et al):
We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.
It's done: the diplomatic pathway pursued by France and Germany and backed by the United States and Britain for an offramp from war via the Mink agreement has been blown up with that fountain pen.
Poignant photo. The kid is playing with a couple of toy tanks on the bed whilst his parents watch Putin on TV and stroke the family cat.
Refugees from the separatist-held territories of East Ukraine watching a television address by President Vladimir V. Putin from their hotel room on Monday in Taganrog, Russia.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
And where is the lower limit cut off. Can six people who live in an unpopulated area have a plebiscite and decide to cede?
I am all for self-determination, and have nothing against using plebiscites to determine the will of the people. But they are neither unproblematic in their execution nor in the issue of who, precisely, are the people to be consulted. Gerrymandering is alive and well ...
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I don't even understand what argument is being made here. There is such a thing as disproportionate response. Let's say for the sake of argument the Ukranian authorities should have done a better job, somehow, at dealing with separatist sentiment - what does that have to do with it not being ok to invade other countries? The situation in eastern Ukraine has not been changing, Kyiv has not sought to take back Crimea, it hasn't launched mass assaults to take back the eastern regions.
So what does their 'failure' have to do with Putin's actions being ok? If there's an attempt at equivalence being made it is missing the mark considerably, and trying to paint everyone thinking it is not ok as tumescent for war is not a credible smear.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Comments
He has humiliated Macron, amongst others.
Which is actually quite hard on Macron, who at least tried
Call my name or walk on by"
I don't have the Sky News app.
My God, I'm going to miss the rest of the episode!
I will now fail to understand why Ukraine isn't really a thing and the glorious Russian liberation of the fascistically oppressed people of the non-country once referred to as "Ukraine" by the wicked American imperialists will be celebrated by all.
A tragedy.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1495835418264231937
Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own.
Could use some work
Nobody can accuse Macron of avoiding any tactics to prevent war. It was worth a go. Jaw jaw and all that.
"My name is Big Vlad and I'm here to say
Ukraine is a geopolitical fiction created in the 1920s by Bolsheviks to encourage nationalist ambitions on the imperial periphery and has no statehood traditions of its own, okay?"
FTFY
I mean, jeez. *comes to PB for some non moronic conversation *
enough
women
initial
Now back to Alex Salmond in the studio.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
Macron overdid the grandiosity, as French Presidents are wont
Back to the speech, this begins to sound, ominously, like a justification like Russia taking over ALL of Ukraine, not just a few chunks
The 1984 Act brought together various existing powers dating back as far as 1936, and which builds on a tradition of legislation going back to perhaps the 1848 Act? I would have thought that a conservative would recognise the value of conserving a tried and tested system, rather than tearing it down in some libertarian spasm.
Of course, all countries are ultimately 'invented', and many are even younger than Ukraine. Even great Russia did not always have even the scale of today's boundaries. Might as well argue to restore the Kievan Rus.
Putin attacks the Ukrainian authorities
You may wish to choose another term than attacks BBC, unless it is literal.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
(C) Nick Palmer.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1495839620579352590
It's the way he tells them. I am sure he truly believes the stuff about how the West reneged about NATO membership for various others, it may even be true what do I know, but can a man who has his proxies invade another country, and then years later gathers up 100k troops on the border while NATO, er, has not, truly genuinely believe that it is NATO ratcheting things up now?
Even if he genuinely believes actions 25 years ago from NATO were provocative enough to justify this, the proximate cause of this escalation definitely wasn't that.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1495837449343410182
It's a petty point, but it's not about convincing non-allies, allies will already be on board, and the Russian public, like our public, aren't about to change their entire opinion based on one speech, so seriously why bother with a long speech not a short one?
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
Schulz, Macron, Johnson, along with Lukashenko on the Russian side are all going to go along with what the big dogs say & do.
We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list-of-signatories-stop-the-war-statement-on-the-crisis-over-ukraine/
as usual not a single critical word about their Russian friends.
See it too often and it loses its appeal, and hope for clarity and it is generally not great, but it's distinctive, he's capable of being pretty funny, and he is in his better moments able to lay on a bit of seriousness to make a solid point.
But orator? No.
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495844601625780233
It was always eventually going to wear thin. In all fairness it has taken over 30 years for the lustre to fade.
Whereas I am thinking about the sentences I spoke two or three sentences *after* I spoke them. In other words, my mouth runs ahead of my brain (as can probably be discerned from my posts on here). A politician needs the opposite.
Johnson is a goodish writer. I am far from sure he can think well on his feet. When speaking, there is no 'edit' function.
Literally only a few pages in and it is talking about the various space agencies involved, noting 'Nobody expected much from the Russians, who had been chronically short of funds since their annexation of Ukraine and the ensuing decade of being exluded from the world economy'.
Cannot get away from the news tonight.
The Finns would be well advised to apply to join NATO for starters.
He has to learn that if he’s got his beady eyes on somewhere else the cost is very very high and ultimately the guys he needs in Moscow will not be happy when they cannot get their money, their wives cannot shop in London and Paris.
That’s where this will bite him - he doesn’t give a shit about dead Russians yet alone dead Ukrainians but when the chaos propping him up get hit they will either arrange his replacement or make damn sure he doesn’t start up again elsewhere.
It’s to the west’s eternal shame they didn’t act like this in 2013/2014 as this would not be happening now.
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1495845886085283848
Refugees from the separatist-held territories of East Ukraine watching a television address by President Vladimir V. Putin from their hotel room on Monday in Taganrog, Russia.
Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/21/world/ukraine-russia-putin-biden#russia-will-recognize-two-regions-in-ukraine-a-possible-prelude-to-invasion
I am all for self-determination, and have nothing against using plebiscites to determine the will of the people. But they are neither unproblematic in their execution nor in the issue of who, precisely, are the people to be consulted. Gerrymandering is alive and well ...
https://mobile.twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1495827707632001030
So what does their 'failure' have to do with Putin's actions being ok? If there's an attempt at equivalence being made it is missing the mark considerably, and trying to paint everyone thinking it is not ok as tumescent for war is not a credible smear.
Ah, nothing gets past you, @JosiasJessop
You are so smart.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
As you guessed, @NickPalmer works along side me.
Oh, you Cambridge folk are too smart for us Russkies. You've got us rumbled.
One of the smartest (PhD) people in my year at Uni is forever spamming Instagram with hers. Weird.
I'm Aries.