Dreadful article. Russia is enemy number one (with the Orwellian propaganda campaign to match) because of its refusal to roll over and accept its encirclement by military bases and the destruction of its allies in the middle east -being one of only two countries that can effectively give the US imperial war machine the two fingers. Thats it. Whatever its dubious human rights aspects, they pale into insignificance in comparison to some of our allies that have visited with full red carpet recently.
Still only nonsensical motives have been put forward as to why the already domestically popular Putin government would carry out an act guaranteed to harm its interests in the runup to a very prestigious international sporting event held on its territory, all to kill a spy that they had in prison themselves not so long ago.
Most of the evidence seems to rest on the testimony of an obvious fantasist defector (just check out his Amazon ebook ffs) and that Russia are ‘being sarcastic’.
Hi there. RCS has mentioned on here before that we have a fair number of Russian IP addresses on the site. Now fairly or otherwise, given your views people are likely to be a little suspicious as to your whereabouts. If you don't mind me asking, where are you based? In the UK?
It's comforting to know that we here on pb.com are such a lynch-pin of western imperialism that we are worthy of scrutiny by Putin's troll farms.
Typo - lynch-pyn.
Just testing to see whether the troll-farmers would spot it!
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
The 'we're to blame for our treatment of Germany' has had its own airing on internet forums a few times, an interesting argument which has some merit as a possible factor*, similarly with Russia.
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
I think we could have acted differently towards Russia and the results may have been different. Though I am thinking years gone by at the moment and in the last few years the Russians have generally chose confrontation over cooperation.
The Tories would not have all their loot and London would have lost out in being the laundering capital of the world though. All those missed back handers would have been too much.
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
@JWisemann has just arrived at Luton airport back from his Moscow meeting with President Putin. Mr Wisemann, waving a signed agreement to cheering crowds, declared this is "peace for our time".
The statement confirms that the Russian government was not responsible for the House of Commons fire destruction or the "Crystal Night" against gays. Putin's "Anschlusski" in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a figment of the the imagination of the world wide pineapple pizza conspiracy. Mr Wisemann assured the jubilant masses that the Russian leader had no more territorial claims in Europe.
Isn't the reality that Russia is a nasty paper tiger. Yes they have the largest geographical country in the world and a population of 144m , but their economy is significantly smaller than Italy.
On top of that most of their wealth has been stolen by Putin and his cronies.
Financial sanctions are already preventing them accessing their potential mineral wealth.
Yes we should be concerned about how criminal the Russian state is, but if Italy had a new mussolini in power threatening the UK we wouldn't be all that worried.
I'm not defending Russia at all, just saying how crap they are compared to their image and historic power.
Exactly. Russia is only powerful because they are bolder than the West and (rightfully so far) expect us to back down.
If there's one thing that pi**es me off on the Internet, it's people who cannot spell linch-pin correctly. I mean, it's simple enough, isn't it? Only fools, idiots and communists could not spell such a lynchpin of our language properly. If I see anyone else spell lynch-pin incorrectly I'll skream and skream until I'm blue in the face.
Dreadful article. Russia is enemy number one (with the Orwellian propaganda campaign to match) because of its refusal to roll over and accept its encirclement by military bases and the destruction of its allies in the middle east -being one of only two countries that can effectively give the US imperial war machine the two fingers. Thats it. Whatever its dubious human rights aspects, they pale into insignificance in comparison to some of our allies that have visited with full red carpet recently.
Still only nonsensical motives have been put forward as to why the already domestically popular Putin government would carry out an act guaranteed to harm its interests in the runup to a very prestigious international sporting event held on its territory, all to kill a spy that they had in prison themselves not so long ago.
Most of the evidence seems to rest on the testimony of an obvious fantasist defector (just check out his Amazon ebook ffs) and that Russia are ‘being sarcastic’.
Hi there. RCS has mentioned on here before that we have a fair number of Russian IP addresses on the site. Now fairly or otherwise, given your views people are likely to be a little suspicious as to your whereabouts. If you don't mind me asking, where are you based? In the UK?
It's comforting to know that we here on pb.com are such a lynch-pin of western imperialism that we are worthy of scrutiny by Putin's troll farms.
Typo - lynch-pyn.
Just testing to see whether the troll-farmers would spot it!
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Any explanation of why younger people have turned their backs on the Conservatives that doesn’t mention Brexit is worthless.
Correct. If Brexit goes as expected we could well be witnessing the beginning of the slow death of Tory Britain.
Not true. The Tories have just relaunched their youth wing, which will no doubt help them reconnect with the under fifties.
Good news!
Unfortunately for Labour old Solzhenhitsyn doesn't cut it anymore. Get Jess Phillips in and it'll be time to open the bubbly
Jess Philipps is perhaps the only Labour MP I have heard consensus criticism of in young left wing forums.
I don't think she's very popular at all, not a big fan myself.
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
There is a wonderful 1919 Punch cartoon of a fuming Junker aristocrat brandishing the Treaty of Versailles and shouting, 'Monstrous! It's fully a quarter of what we'd have made them pay if they'd lost!'
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
If there's one thing that pi**es me off on the Internet, it's people who cannot spell linch-pin correctly. I mean, it's simple enough, isn't it? Only fools, idiots and communists could not spell such a lynchpin of our language properly. If I see anyone else spell lynch-pin incorrectly I'll skream and skream until I'm blue in the face.
Linch 'em, it's the only language that sort understands.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is King. I guess this explains his electoral success. He's a stupid person's idea of what intelligence looks like.
How would there be any more people smuggling under this scenario than under current arrangements? You are a bit ridiculous in your arguments against Brexit.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Are they 'on the other side of the divide?' I would have said personally that Corbyn for all his unconvincing bluster about the workers was very much a right-wing populist in the tradition of Farage, Trump, Chavez, Putin and Mussolini.
Obviously there are some differences. He hasn't murdered anyone (that we know of) and where most of them have been accused of taking money from Putin nobody doubts that he's behaving like a fool for free.
And of course some of those on that list were intelligent.
But the similarities between Corbyn's inability to condemn Putin and Trump's contortions over Russia a few months ago have been striking me afresh this week.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
There is a wonderful 1919 Punch cartoon of a fuming Junker aristocrat brandishing the Treaty of Versailles and shouting, 'Monstrous! It's fully a quarter of what we'd have made them pay if they'd lost!'
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Isn't the reality that Russia is a nasty paper tiger. Yes they have the largest geographical country in the world and a population of 144m , but their economy is significantly smaller than Italy.
On top of that most of their wealth has been stolen by Putin and his cronies.
Financial sanctions are already preventing them accessing their potential mineral wealth.
Yes we should be concerned about how criminal the Russian state is, but if Italy had a new mussolini in power threatening the UK we wouldn't be all that worried.
I'm not defending Russia at all, just saying how crap they are compared to their image and historic power.
It is the size of their armed forces, and their willingness to use them, which is the source of concern. And Italy doesn't have nukes.
It's quite plausible that Russia's political/economic arrangements aren't sustainable in the medium to long term, but that's not really the immediate concern.
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
I read an article on 'open democracy russia', essentially arguing that elections are all part of a "potemkin civil society" in Russia. It is quite a persuasive argument. No doubt it serves both a domestic purpose, and an international purpose.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Contrast this with China. The aim there is to literally subsume all human expression, to further the aims of the state. If you are in any doubt about this, research the 'social credit' system that they are introducing. The government is judging its citizens on every book they read, every comment they make on social media. If you do the wrong thing, you won't be able to get a job, travel anywhere, or even start a relationship. To my mind, it is the gravest threat in human history to the idea of freedom and indivdual liberty, and yet because China doesn't (appear, right now) to pose a direct threat to us, we are happy to go along with it, allowing chinese businesses (who are intrinsically connected to the government) to invest in our economy, even very sensitive areas of it.
To try and take a strategic perspective on all this, it is ultimately in our interest to work with Russia, however difficult that is going to be. That is the view that I am coming to. What is a conflict actually going to achieve? It is going to be mutually destructive, and merely hasten the demise of both sides.
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
No, he wants to West to know and believe he’s electorally popular.
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
I'm sure if you went through newspapers' letters pages from 1938, you'd see all those arguments.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Are they 'on the other side of the divide?' I would have said personally that Corbyn for all his unconvincing bluster about the workers was very much a right-wing populist in the tradition of Farage, Trump, Chavez, Putin and Mussolini.
Obviously there are some differences. He hasn't murdered anyone (that we know of) and where most of them have been accused of taking money from Putin nobody doubts that he's behaving like a fool for free.
And of course some of those on that list were intelligent.
But the similarities between Corbyn's inability to condemn Putin and Trump's contortions over Russia a few months ago have been striking me afresh this week.
The far left is essentially the hard right on foreign policy issues - anti-EU, anti-NATO, isolationist, pro-Russia.
How would there be any more people smuggling under this scenario than under current arrangements? You are a bit ridiculous in your arguments against Brexit.
Think about what you just wrote. Then let’s talk about taking back control.
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
I'm sure if you went through newspapers' letters pages from 1938, you'd see all those arguments.
Pretty sure you'd have heard some of them in parliament also.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Only those lot.
The Tory Brexiteers hold nothing but contempt for Putin, and what I think of him is unprintable.
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
There is a wonderful 1919 Punch cartoon of a fuming Junker aristocrat brandishing the Treaty of Versailles and shouting, 'Monstrous! It's fully a quarter of what we'd have made them pay if they'd lost!'
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
Bit difficult to see who else they could have been saddled on, however. It was most unlikely that no financial cost could have been levied given the sheer scale of the damage to France, Belgium and Poland. To take only the most obvious example, Ypres was entirely destroyed.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
No, he wants to West to know and believe he’s electorally popular.
But he doesn't want the 98% of a Saddam or the 100% of North Korean leaders. That would be absurd.
No, he'll be happy with high seventies. Wouldn't want the outside world to think the system was rigged now would he?
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
No, he wants to West to know and believe he’s electorally popular.
But he doesn't want the 98% of a Saddam or the 100% of North Korean leaders. that would be absurd.
No, he'll be happy with high seventies. Wouldn't want the outside world to think the system was rigged now would he?
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
There is a wonderful 1919 Punch cartoon of a fuming Junker aristocrat brandishing the Treaty of Versailles and shouting, 'Monstrous! It's fully a quarter of what we'd have made them pay if they'd lost!'
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
Machiavelli once said that a defeated enemy should be conciliated or annihilated. A very wise diplomatic historian (whose name to my shame escapes me) commented the real problem with Versailles was that it did neither.
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
Bit difficult to see who else they could have been saddled on, however. It was most unlikely that no financial cost could have been levied given the sheer scale of the damage to France, Belgium and Poland. To take only the most obvious example, Ypres was entirely destroyed.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
Germany was more than anyone else responsible for the war. But the allies should have put on much smaller financial reparations and, if needed, harshness elsewhere to make up for it. If Weimar had improved living standards, Germany would have cemented democracy and Franco-German friendship 30 years earlier. German poverty mattered far more for Hitler's rise than any territorial losses.
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
No, he wants to West to know and believe he’s electorally popular.
But he doesn't want the 98% of a Saddam or the 100% of North Korean leaders. That would be absurd.
No, he'll be happy with high seventies. Wouldn't want the outside world to think the system was rigged now would he?
Didn't Saddam claim 100% of the vote as well in 2002?
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Any explanation of why younger people have turned their backs on the Conservatives that doesn’t mention Brexit is worthless.
Correct. If Brexit goes as expected we could well be witnessing the beginning of the slow death of Tory Britain.
Not true. The Tories have just relaunched their youth wing, which will no doubt help them reconnect with the under fifties.
And a very fine thing it was, if falling somewhat short in the youth quotient.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
I read an article on 'open democracy russia', essentially arguing that elections are all part of a "potemkin civil society" in Russia. It is quite a persuasive argument. No doubt it serves both a domestic purpose, and an international purpose.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Contrast this with China. The aim there is to literally subsume all human expression, to further the aims of the state. If you are in any doubt about this, research the 'social credit' system that they are introducing. The government is judging its citizens on every book they read, every comment they make on social media. If you do the wrong thing, you won't be able to get a job, travel anywhere, or even start a relationship. To my mind, it is the gravest threat in human history to the idea of freedom and indivdual liberty, and yet because China doesn't (appear, right now) to pose a direct threat to us, we are happy to go along with it, allowing chinese businesses (who are intrinsically connected to the government) to invest in our economy, even very sensitive areas of it.
To try and take a strategic perspective on all this, it is ultimately in our interest to work with Russia, however difficult that is going to be. That is the view that I am coming to. What is a conflict actually going to achieve? It is going to be mutually destructive, and merely hasten the demise of both sides.
You could turn your final conclusion on its head - it is in Russia's interests to work, even integrate, with the West and its leadership will realise this in the end, but they cannot dictate the terms.
In some respects their dilemma as a proud imperial power on the edge of Europe struggling with loss of status in a multilateral world is similar to the UK's so we should be uniquely placed to empathise with Russia, if we have enough capacity for self-reflection.
I haven't read the comments yet but one thing I'd quibble with in David's piece is the idea that Putin "feels compelled to put on the facade of elections". Elections are a necessary part of giving his regime domestic legitimacy - they're not done for show to impress the outside world.
That supports David’s point: they are there to give his regime both domestic credibility and international legitimacy.
He doesn't need elections for international legitimacy - we have no problem dealing with the Chinese or Saudi leaders. It's all about maintaining control domestically.
No, he wants to West to know and believe he’s electorally popular.
But he doesn't want the 98% of a Saddam or the 100% of North Korean leaders. That would be absurd.
No, he'll be happy with high seventies. Wouldn't want the outside world to think the system was rigged now would he?
Didn't Saddam claim 100% of the vote as well in 2002?
Ah yes, I was thinking of the earlier vote, which was not such a landslide:
"On 16 October 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995.
Outside governments dismissed the vote as lacking credibility."
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
Bit difficult to see who else they could have been saddled on, however. It was most unlikely that no financial cost could have been levied given the sheer scale of the damage to France, Belgium and Poland. To take only the most obvious example, Ypres was entirely destroyed.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
Now in fairness I have also heard convincing arguments against the war being Germany's fault. Although I'm happy to be corrected on any of this.
The Germans declared war first but the French mobilised their army prior to this, which given the cost I understand is basically a declaration of war. Maybe the Russians also but slightly more hazy on that point.
Aside from the timing of the declaration(s) of war and mobilising armies the political situation that setup the war and the escalation on all sides in the build up has a fair amount of guilt on all sides. The Germans weren't shrinking violets but neither were many of the other countries on the continent. Happy for my argument to be ripped apart here but from what I understand although Germany were a major player saying they were at fault but others were not is wrong.
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Yet compared to a century ago working hours are still far shorter on average and most are still owner occupiers whereas then most were renters. Yes it may not quite be as good as it was in the 90s for young people but we do need some context
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
snip With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
Machiavelli once said that a defeated enemy should be conciliated or annihilated. A very wise diplomatic historian (whose name to my shame escapes me) commented the real problem with Versailles was that it did neither.
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
Bit difficult to see who else they could have been saddled on, however. It was most unlikely that no financial cost could have been levied given the sheer scale of the damage to France, Belgium and Poland. To take only the most obvious example, Ypres was entirely destroyed.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
Germany was more than anyone else responsible for the war. But the allies should have put on much smaller financial reparations and, if needed, harshness elsewhere to make up for it. If Weimar had improved living standards, Germany would have cemented democracy and Franco-German friendship 30 years earlier. German poverty mattered far more for Hitler's rise than any territorial losses.
Yes - but while Versailles was a factor in that, it was not by any means the only factor. Crippling debts, political mismanagement, government corruption (long before Hitler came to power) the Great Depression and the imbalance of other economies in Europe disrupting trade were all significant factors that would have been there irrespective of Versailles.
It is also worth remembering that Weimar democracy was effectively dead under Hindenburg, who was ruling as de facto dictator under Article 48 long before Hitler came to power (and unhelpfully was so senile his notoriously bent son was doing most of the actual ruling). Hitler and the Enabling Act merely applied the coup de grâce.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Not Boris or Gove though
Yep, no more £160,000 tennis matches with friends of Vladimir Putin for Boris for a while.
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Yet compared to a century ago working hours are still far shorter on average and most are still owner occupiers whereas then most were renters. Yes it may not quite be as good as it was in the mid to late 90s for young people but we do need some context
I don't think "you have it better than the WW1 generation" is a compelling argument for the Tories.
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Yet compared to a century ago working hours are still far shorter on average and most are still owner occupiers whereas then most were renters. Yes it may not quite be as good as it was in the mid to late 90s for young people but we do need some context
I suggest that: 'well, your generation has never had so good, apart from the years 1920 - 2017' is not a good message for the conservative party.
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Yet compared to a century ago working hours are still far shorter on average and most are still owner occupiers whereas then most were renters. Yes it may not quite be as good as it was in the mid to late 90s for young people but we do need some context
Ancient history doesn't matter - it's recent history (from living relatives) and how things look elsewhere that is important..
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Not Boris or Gove though
Yep, no more £160,000 tennis matches with friends of Vladimir Putin for Boris for a while.
I am not sure the Russians Boris plays tennis with are now friends of Putin
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
Machiavelli once said that a defeated enemy should be conciliated or annihilated. A very wise diplomatic historian (whose name to my shame escapes me) commented the real problem with Versailles was that it did neither.
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
I do wonder in lots of different circumstances if the problem has become we've become too nice but not quite nice enough. We no longer destroy our enemies by eradicating their cities and salting their lands. But in plenty of circumstances we haven't tried hard enough to become a united people to strive together rather than against each other. Although there are some circumstances which come to mind such as France-Germany and America-Japan or even France and Britain. Unfortunately I think it requires an outside force, we are still waiting on the alien invasion to unite humanity.
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
snip With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
Machiavelli once said that a defeated enemy should be conciliated or annihilated. A very wise diplomatic historian (whose name to my shame escapes me) commented the real problem with Versailles was that it did neither.
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
It's easy to overstate the West's ability to shape events within Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Ultimately Russia remained a sovereign state responsible for its own fate.
I think the biggest way in which that period now impacts on the thinking of the Russian elite is the absolute fear of revolutionary political change and inherent risks to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
Lost for the next election, but not necessarily for life, though that is a danger. Young people these days feel saddled with debt for the next couple decades, see house prices far out of reach for anything decent, and have to work very long hours in the post-80s culture that has developed. They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Yet compared to a century ago working hours are still far shorter on average and most are still owner occupiers whereas then most were renters. Yes it may not quite be as good as it was in the mid to late 90s for young people but we do need some context
I don't think "you have it better than the WW1 generation" is a compelling argument for the Tories.
Better than the 1950s and most of the 1960s generation too and without the inflation and mass unemployment of the 1970s and early 1980s and indeed their predecessors just a decade ago
The Russians rather than the French had mobilised their army. However, that was aimed at helping Serbia against a genocidal war launched by Austria (shocking fact for today - one in four Serbs alive in May 1914 were dead by Christmas 1914) and had nothing to do with Germany. Germany took it as an excuse to declare war despite repeated assurances from the Russians that there was no threat intended to German interests.
They declared war on France because the Schlieffen plan of 1908(?) stated that France had to be conquered before Russia was attacked. Again, that was an unforced error.
They invaded Belgium, which was a state guaranteed neutrality by the Treaty of London in 1839 (which the Germans wilfully and openly abrogated) because they thought the heavily fortified French border would be too difficult to assault directly. Again, that was a decision they made that they did not have to.
Having invaded Belgium, had they gone through quickly without doing much damage Morley and Lloyd George (ironically) might have forced Asquith to stay neutral. By 'raping' Belgium, burning its cities to the ground and carrying out mass killings of civilians notably in Dinant and Leuven, they made it a matter of honour for the British state to respond.
That is not to say that other factors - Russia's own territorial ambitions in Europe, the ongoing collapse of Ottoman Turkey, French grievances over the Franco-Prussian War and imperial expansion in Africa all spring to mind - were not important. That is why I very carefully said that the 'degree and timing' of the war was what rested at Germany's door. It may have happened even if the Kaiser had not been psychotic. But it definitely bore the guilt and the reluctance of the Germans to accept that until a new wave of social democracy after Adenauer's retirement was a constant running problem in European politics.
The worst part is that the reparations were saddled on the new liberal democracy, which undermined its comparison to the conservative monarchy.
Bit difficult to see who else they could have been saddled on, however. It was most unlikely that no financial cost could have been levied given the sheer scale of the damage to France, Belgium and Poland. To take only the most obvious example, Ypres was entirely destroyed.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
Now in fairness I have also heard convincing arguments against the war being Germany's fault. Although I'm happy to be corrected on any of this.
The Germans declared war first but the French mobilised their army prior to this, which given the cost I understand is basically a declaration of war. Maybe the Russians also but slightly more hazy on that point.
Aside from the timing of the declaration(s) of war and mobilising armies the political situation that setup the war and the escalation on all sides in the build up has a fair amount of guilt on all sides. The Germans weren't shrinking violets but neither were many of the other countries on the continent. Happy for my argument to be ripped apart here but from what I understand although Germany were a major player saying they were at fault but others were not is wrong.
There are myriad books written on the causes of WWI. Most of us have our favourites. Mine is the 'blank cheque' that Germany gave to Austria in July '14. If not for that, the conflict might have remained 'some damn foolish thing in the Balkans', without the concomitant invoking of the grand alliances.
On topic, the question that is not asked enough is what the Russian government is trying to achieve. Its disruptive and unlawful policies are born of economic weakness and fear of encirclement, a wish to reassert regional domination not get world domination. It seeks la gloire and impact.
The way to deal with it is to attack those aims, to seek to expose Russia’s weakness, to seek to deny it soft power. That is easily achievable but requires a collective will among western countries that is so far lacking, including in Britain, largely because Russia is seen as an irritant rather than an existential threat. This may be a new Cold War that only one side wishes to participate in.
I asked exactly that question last week.
Our response has to be framed in the context of what Putin hopes to achieve, and we must attempt to deny him that.
We could start with a public enquiry into how Putin's little helpers in UK and Europe are aided by both overt and covert means. In the US there is the Mueller enguiry, but we need the equivalent here to investigate those increasingly on the far right and even centre right have allowed themselves to become Putin's useful idiots. The Salisbury poisoning is despicable, but the poisoning of our political system much more threatening. The article below is from 2014, but when we see how things have developed, quite prescient:
(Snip)
Yet politically, the far left - in the form of Labour's top leadership - are currently acting as Putin's little helpers. They deserve just as much censure, if not more.
And on the other side of the divide Farage, Arron Banks and all the other bad boys of Brexit. Funny that, isn’t it?
Not Boris or Gove though
Yep, no more £160,000 tennis matches with friends of Vladimir Putin for Boris for a while.
I am not sure the Russians Boris plays tennis with are now friends of Putin
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
I really don't buy that. The problem with Russia isn't our treatment of them after the fall of the USSR; it is that their existing set-up did not prevent a bunch of people grabbing money and power when it did fall. There was nothing we could do to prevent that.
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
snip With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
Machiavelli once said that a defeated enemy should be conciliated or annihilated. A very wise diplomatic historian (whose name to my shame escapes me) commented the real problem with Versailles was that it did neither.
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
That is a very fair point. Our behaviour during the financial crises the Soviet and Russian states experienced from 1988 to 2000 does not redound to the West's credit.
A loan to Gorbachev in 1989 of a few billion dollars might have avoided all this. It was refused.
@williamglenn You may be right, but what was clearly needed was a massive investment in a peaceful and gradual transition to a mixed economy - akin to what occured in other parts of eastern europe.
Instead, the west was awash at the time with 'the end of history' dogma, and unfounded confidence that unlimited capitalism gradually leads to liberal democracy. This assumption, which has now been totally rubbished by events, has led to a totalitarian nightmare in China, and Putins Russia.
Yeah, it is a cold war. The difference between this cold war and the cold war of Soviet era is that this cold war is much more covert and deceptive. Without looking closer, it might be a bit difficult to see that Russia is not a friendly power, especially if you listen to the words they are - or, at least, were until the Ukrainian war - espousing.
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
Mr. H, that always seems really odd to me. Like people who think history is some sort of relentless march of progress, with everything improving as time passes. Things often get worse, rather than better.
Hadn't heard the Belgium point raised, in regards to German actions there anyway. I understand Belgium resisted rather than grant them free passage but I assume you are saying the Germans went above and beyond just beating their defences and passing through and went out of their way to attack civilians?
Whilst I am not approving of passing through Belgium from a strategic point of view if the war has started it does make sense to go around French defences.
In regards to the Russians mobilising for the Serbians which meant the Germans mobilised for the Austrians isn't that basically the fault of the whole web of alliances which had been created?
In this aspect you can bring it down to the smaller nations forcing the bigger ones in to follow them.
Whilst the Kaiser was aggressive and incompetent from a grand strategy point of view I do feel much of the situation had been created around Germany as well.
All that said my main feeling on the war even if France and Britain had been at fault is the allies needed to win as we were the democracies.
Yeah, it is a cold war. The difference between this cold war and the cold war of Soviet era is that this cold war is much more covert and deceptive. Without looking closer, it might be a bit difficult to see that Russia is not a friendly power, especially if you listen to the words they are - or, at least, were until the Ukrainian war - espousing.
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
Yeah, it is a cold war. The difference between this cold war and the cold war of Soviet era is that this cold war is much more covert and deceptive. Without looking closer, it might be a bit difficult to see that Russia is not a friendly power, especially if you listen to the words they are - or, at least, were until the Ukrainian war - espousing.
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
I really don't buy that. The problem with Russia isn't our treatment of them after the fall of the USSR; it is that their existing set-up did not prevent a bunch of people grabbing money and power when it did fall. There was nothing we could do to prevent that.
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
I think this is too easy an answer.
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
*Although I have seen it convincingly argued that it wasn't particularly harsh by the standard of previous recent treaties to the loser.
There is a wonderful 1919 Punch cartoon of a fuming Junker aristocrat brandishing the Treaty of Versailles and shouting, 'Monstrous! It's fully a quarter of what we'd have made them pay if they'd lost!'
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
Although 1) is a stupid move really even without the benefit of hindsight I have become more forgiving with time as I've learnt more about the treaty in general. Interesting idea on what should have been done, I don't think I've ever thought about it or discussed it much deeper than making Germany a workable proposition economically and maybe getting rid of the sense of being hard done by, though both those still risk a similar outcome anyway.
IMHO, the only legitimate grievance which Germany had was the loss of Danzig.
It was never realistic to suppose that starting and losing WWI would have no consequences at all.
Hadn't heard the Belgium point raised, in regards to German actions there anyway. I understand Belgium resisted rather than grant them free passage but I assume you are saying the Germans went above and beyond just beating their defences and passing through and went out of their way to attack civilians?
Whilst I am not approving of passing through Belgium from a strategic point of view if the war has started it does make sense to go around French defences.
In regards to the Russians mobilising for the Serbians which meant the Germans mobilised for the Austrians isn't that basically the fault of the whole web of alliances which had been created?
In this aspect you can bring it down to the smaller nations forcing the bigger ones in to follow them.
Whilst the Kaiser was aggressive and incompetent from a grand strategy point of view I do feel much of the situation had been created around Germany as well.
All that said my main feeling on the war even if France and Britain had been at fault is the allies needed to win as we were the democracies.
In answer to your points:
1) Yes. What the Germans did went far beyond legitimate retaliation.
2) Just because avoiding the French fortifications was militarily sensible does not make what happened any more legal or justifiable.
3) No, I can't agree with that. If that were the case there would have been a war in 1906 over Morocco. There wasn't. It was clearly a pretext not the cause.
4) it depends, does it not, on your definition of democracy? Germany had a wider franchise than either Britain or France in 1914, although against that the army was under parliamentary rather than Royal control in those countries. It was not that Germany was undemocratic, it was the sheer greed of its behaviour. One of the key lessons to learn early in studying German diplomatic history is how far Hitler extended it, rather than innovated it.
I have to go. Have a good morning, will be back later.
I wonder if Sturgeon's been given a private assurance that a second EU referendum is going to happen?
It's more that she hasn't surrendered anything. Any agreement to the UK retaining powers that should be devolved is contingent on those retained powers having a baked in sunset clause that guarantees their transference to the devolved governments.
What's happened is that Sturgeon/Jones have made a trivial 'concession' to appear reasonable but retain their central aim which is still opposed by the Tory government and apparently completely impossible to do.
The Russians rather than the French had mobilised their army. However, that was aimed at helping Serbia against a genocidal war launched by Austria (shocking fact for today - one in four Serbs alive in May 1914 were dead by Christmas 1914) and had nothing to do with Germany. Germany took it as an excuse to declare war despite repeated assurances from the Russians that there was no threat intended to German interests.
They declared war on France because the Schlieffen plan of 1908(?) stated that France had to be conquered before Russia was attacked. Again, that was an unforced error.
They invaded Belgium, which was a state guaranteed neutrality by the Treaty of London in 1839 (which the Germans wilfully and openly abrogated) because they thought the heavily fortified French border would be too difficult to assault directly. Again, that was a decision they made that they did not have to.
Having invaded Belgium, had they gone through quickly without doing much damage Morley and Lloyd George (ironically) might have forced Asquith to stay neutral. By 'raping' Belgium, burning its cities to the ground and carrying out mass killings of civilians notably in Dinant and Leuven, they made it a matter of honour for the British state to respond.
That is not to say that other factors - Russia's own territorial ambitions in Europe, the ongoing collapse of Ottoman Turkey, French grievances over the Franco-Prussian War and imperial expansion in Africa all spring to mind - were not important. That is why I very carefully said that the 'degree and timing' of the war was what rested at Germany's door. It may have happened even if the Kaiser had not been psychotic. But it definitely bore the guilt and the reluctance of the Germans to accept that until a new wave of social democracy after Adenauer's retirement was a constant running problem in European politics.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Czar decided to mobilise, then changed his mind and then changed it back again in the space of a day or night. Can't recall the book, possibly one by Sam McKeenin on Ottamans.
If he had decided not to mobilise, then maybe nothing at all would have happened.
Although probably another incident further down the line would have started the war, for all the factors you mention.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Russia is a gangster state. If you were to start a company that competed too effectively against a friend of The Boss then you would quickly find it anything but benign.
Yeah, it is a cold war. The difference between this cold war and the cold war of Soviet era is that this cold war is much more covert and deceptive. Without looking closer, it might be a bit difficult to see that Russia is not a friendly power, especially if you listen to the words they are - or, at least, were until the Ukrainian war - espousing.
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
I really don't buy that. The problem with Russia isn't our treatment of them after the fall of the USSR; it is that their existing set-up did not prevent a bunch of people grabbing money and power when it did fall. There was nothing we could do to prevent that.
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
I think this is too easy an answer.
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
And this is too simplistic an answer.
Ask yourself this, if you think the West treated Russia badly: why did the same investment that went into the Baltic states, Poland etc, not go into Belarus?
(As an aside, if you look at the rise of nationalism in Poland and Hungary, even being fully integrated with the EU and huge net recipients is not enough to prevent politics from happening.)
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
I'm sure if you went through newspapers' letters pages from 1938, you'd see all those arguments.
You'd also see letters complaining about political correctness gone mad, how you can't leave your house unlocked anymore, how people are far to reliant on the local council to do things and should pull their socks up and that there's too much immigration.
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
I really don't buy that. The problem with Russia isn't our treatment of them after the fall of the USSR; it is that their existing set-up did not prevent a bunch of people grabbing money and power when it did fall. There was nothing we could do to prevent that.
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
I think this is too easy an answer.
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
And this is too simplistic an answer.
Ask yourself this, if you think the West treated Russia badly: why did the same investment that went into the Baltic states, Poland etc, not go into Belarus?
Well, leaving the facts aside, the Russian answer to this question is that the line was drawn at a certain point. The iron curtain was moved a thousand kilometres to the east.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Russia is a gangster state. If you were to start a company that competed too effectively against a friend of The Boss then you would quickly find it anything but benign.
In 1992 I was living in uni halls in Stepney Green. One of our cleaners was a lady in her fifties or sixties. She kept on wittering on about how the East End was safer in the 1960 when the Kray's were in charge, and how lovely they had been.
I guessed she had never tried competing against them.
1) Yes. What the Germans did went far beyond legitimate retaliation.
2) Just because avoiding the French fortifications was militarily sensible does not make what happened any more legal or justifiable.
3) No, I can't agree with that. If that were the case there would have been a war in 1906 over Morocco. There wasn't. It was clearly a pretext not the cause.
4) it depends, does it not, on your definition of democracy? Germany had a wider franchise than either Britain or France in 1914, although against that the army was under parliamentary rather than Royal control in those countries. It was not that Germany was undemocratic, it was the sheer greed of its behaviour. One of the key lessons to learn early in studying German diplomatic history is how far Hitler extended it, rather than innovated it.
I have to go. Have a good morning, will be back later.
2) Well no clearly not but the war had started at that point, it provided a reason for Britain to get involved though.
3) I'll have to look that up, this is in reference to the web of alliances?
4) I did almost change it to more democratic although I didn't actually know about the franchise point I would consider Royal control of things like the army a pretty big aspect. I understand there was a lot of jealousy of the colonial possessions of say Britain and France.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Russia is a gangster state. If you were to start a company that competed too effectively against a friend of The Boss then you would quickly find it anything but benign.
Yeah, but this is true in large swathes of the world. The point I was making is about individual liberty.
I would say the same criticism of this diplomatic historian of versailles, could be applied to the post soviet union situation in the 1990's.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
I really don't buy that. The problem with Russia isn't our treatment of them after the fall of the USSR; it is that their existing set-up did not prevent a bunch of people grabbing money and power when it did fall. There was nothing we could do to prevent that.
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
I think this is too easy an answer.
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
It's because those countries had different political cultures and social histories to Russia. Besides, not all ex-Soviet states have ended up in such good positions.
All we could do was try to encourage them in the right direction as a friendly neighbour; dictating to them, or trying to force them in certain directions, would have been utterly counter-productive (and AIUI was when we tried it in limited ways).
The rise of Putin is the fault of a Russian state and system that favoured strong individuals as leaders, and protected such people.
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
I'm sure if you went through newspapers' letters pages from 1938, you'd see all those arguments.
You'd also see letters complaining about political correctness gone mad, how you can't leave your house unlocked anymore, how people are far to reliant on the local council to do things and should pull their socks up and that there's too much immigration.
You can leave your house unlocked if you like, if someone wants to rob you they generally will -- And if they aren't going to they won't . The main reason for locking is for insurance purposes to my mind
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
It's because those countries had different political cultures and social histories to Russia. Besides, not all ex-Soviet states have ended up in such good positions.
All we could do was try to encourage them in the right direction as a friendly neighbour; dictating to them, or trying to force them in certain directions, would have been utterly counter-productive (and AIUI was when we tried it in limited ways).
The rise of Putin is the fault of a Russian state and system that favoured strong individuals as leaders, and protected such people.
Well, all I can say in response is that it is a remarkable coincidence that those countries are all arranged in a line on the eastern border of the EU.
I think this is geopolitics and it is naive to think otherwise. Why aren't we supporting and investing in a democratic Kurdistan? It would be a major boost for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. There have been lots of favourable articles to that effect in the economist, of all places.
I think this analysis is what is behind Corbyn's perspective on Russia, and if you step back, it makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, it is a cold war. The difference between this cold war and the cold war of Soviet era is that this cold war is much more covert and deceptive. Without looking closer, it might be a bit difficult to see that Russia is not a friendly power, especially if you listen to the words they are - or, at least, were until the Ukrainian war - espousing.
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
London property people, I'm looking at a 3 bed flat in NW6 for just over £800k. It needs quite a bit of work, but I could probably move in as soon as I buy it. Good value, or is there better value around the corner?
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
It's because those countries had different political cultures and social histories to Russia. Besides, not all ex-Soviet states have ended up in such good positions.
All we could do was try to encourage them in the right direction as a friendly neighbour; dictating to them, or trying to force them in certain directions, would have been utterly counter-productive (and AIUI was when we tried it in limited ways).
The rise of Putin is the fault of a Russian state and system that favoured strong individuals as leaders, and protected such people.
Well, all I can say in response is that it is a remarkable coincidence that those countries are all arranged in a line on the eastern border of the EU.
I think this is geopolitics and it is naive to think otherwise. Why aren't we supporting and investing in a democratic Kurdistan? It would be a major boost for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. There have been lots of favourable articles to that effect in the economist, of all places.
I think this analysis is what is behind Corbyn's perspective on Russia, and if you step back, it makes a lot of sense.
No, it doesn't.
Those countries had suffered under Soviet rule for decades; a few had tried to break free and had suffered horrible repression as a result. If faced with looking at an imperfect but liberal EU, and the people who had enslaved your country, which would you pick?
Whereas the Russian perspective is very different. I have more than a little sympathy for them; we would all be paranoid if we had their history.
Kurdistan is a very interesting example, and I could witter on about that for ages (and have passim). However it's also a bogus one, as it also involves interfering with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. It is probably something that needs to happen, although a unified Kurdistan would initially be a disaster, for reasons I have given in the past.
Mr. H, that always seems really odd to me. Like people who think history is some sort of relentless march of progress, with everything improving as time passes. Things often get worse, rather than better.
I've never been at all convinced by the arguments by the arguments of Steven Pinker, that humans are becoming inevitably and inexorably kinder and more tolerant.
I would suggest that the fact we are 'leading' on this is more evidence of Britains isolation, than anything else.
We’re isolated because we’re the only one standing up robustly to Russia, and in fact should ‘lead’ by ignoring Russia/Putin and letting him do whatever he wants, just like everyone else?
Good thread Mr Herdson - and as with topics like 'Nationalisation' those with direct experience of 'cold war' are most robust in their response:
As you may know, three people, including Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, were taken seriously ill in Salisbury last week after being poisoning by a nerve agent. How closely are you following this story? Net 'Closely: 18-24: -16 65+: +44
From what you have seen or heard about this event, do you think the Russian state were or were not responsible for the poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter? Net 'responsible': 18-24: +53 65+: +77
How well or badly do you think Theresa May has responded to the incident in Salisbury? Net 'well': 18-24: -7 65+: +61
How well or badly do you think Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the incident in Salisbury? 18-24: -3 65+: -46
Do you support or oppose the government taking these measures against Russia? 18-24: +13 65+: +64
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Any explanation of why younger people have turned their backs on the Conservatives that doesn’t mention Brexit is worthless.
Correct. If Brexit goes as expected we could well be witnessing the beginning of the slow death of Tory Britain.
Not true. The Tories have just relaunched their youth wing, which will no doubt help them reconnect with the under fifties.
Good news!
Unfortunately for Labour old Solzhenhitsyn doesn't cut it anymore. Get Jess Phillips in and it'll be time to open the bubbly
Jess Philipps is perhaps the only Labour MP I have heard consensus criticism of in young left wing forums.
That's becaue she sees Corbyn/McDonell for what they are and she thinks there are as many drunken slobs in Birmingham as there are in Cologne.
Mr. H, that always seems really odd to me. Like people who think history is some sort of relentless march of progress, with everything improving as time passes. Things often get worse, rather than better.
I've never been at all convinced by the arguments by the arguments of Steven Pinker, that humans are becoming inevitably and inexorably kinder and more tolerant.
They are certainly not. Tolerance gets twisted into a creed that begets intolerance.
That’s why our institutions and traditions are such an important cultural framework.
Mr. F, I'd not heard that argument before. One can only assume he doesn't watch the news. I wonder how he accounts for ISIS. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or North Korea.
For the Tories, 18-24 is totally lost. It is trendy to like Corbyn come what may.
More interesting battleground is the 30 year olds. I pointed out just before the GE that I saw a worrying trend in May had managed to totally wipe out her massive lead among that age bracket.
They feel exploited by bosses and landlords. Only be breaking that feeling will the Tories survive.
Any explanation of why younger people have turned their backs on the Conservatives that doesn’t mention Brexit is worthless.
Correct. If Brexit goes as expected we could well be witnessing the beginning of the slow death of Tory Britain.
Not true. The Tories have just relaunched their youth wing, which will no doubt help them reconnect with the under fifties.
Good news!
Unfortunately for Labour old Solzhenhitsyn doesn't cut it anymore. Get Jess Phillips in and it'll be time to open the bubbly
Jess Philipps is perhaps the only Labour MP I have heard consensus criticism of in young left wing forums.
That's becaue she sees Corbyn/McDonell for what they are and she thinks there are as many drunken slobs in Birmingham as there are in Cologne.
Probably more to do with the constant complaining in right wing media.
Mr. H, that always seems really odd to me. Like people who think history is some sort of relentless march of progress, with everything improving as time passes. Things often get worse, rather than better.
I've never been at all convinced by the arguments by the arguments of Steven Pinker, that humans are becoming inevitably and inexorably kinder and more tolerant.
It is only one measure but generally haven't more people been living under democratic governments as time has gone on. Also less poverty in the world.
Mr. F, I'd not heard that argument before. One can only assume he doesn't watch the news. I wonder how he accounts for ISIS. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or North Korea.
I’m of the view that these things are tidal; waves wash in, fall back, then come forward a little more each time.
London property people, I'm looking at a 3 bed flat in NW6 for just over £800k. It needs quite a bit of work, but I could probably move in as soon as I buy it. Good value, or is there better value around the corner?
Is NW6 the posh description for Kilburn these days ?
London property people, I'm looking at a 3 bed flat in NW6 for just over £800k. It needs quite a bit of work, but I could probably move in as soon as I buy it. Good value, or is there better value around the corner?
If the Internet had existed 80 years ago, I'm sure we'd have heard similar arguments to those on modern social media. We're to blame for our treatment of Germany; Germany is our friend; who cares about the Czechs anyway; Germany is Christian; we can't do anything to stop Germany etc.
I'm sure if you went through newspapers' letters pages from 1938, you'd see all those arguments.
You'd also see letters complaining about political correctness gone mad, how you can't leave your house unlocked anymore, how people are far to reliant on the local council to do things and should pull their socks up and that there's too much immigration.
Really? While I’m prepared to believe there’s very little new under the sun I’m not sure that matters were replicated so exactly. However, when/where was that headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”?
Mr. F, I'd not heard that argument before. One can only assume he doesn't watch the news. I wonder how he accounts for ISIS. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or North Korea.
His argument is that they're just blips on the way to progress. His view is that a far higher percentage of the population died violently in hunter/gatherer societies or medieval societies, which is probably true, so far as it goes, but pretty cold comfort.
King Cole, I suspect things are more cyclical than that. I don't agree entirely with Polybius, but I think he was at least partly right about the three good and three bad forms of governance.
Comments
Is he The Doctor after next?
The statement confirms that the Russian government was not responsible for the House of Commons fire destruction or the "Crystal Night" against gays. Putin's "Anschlusski" in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a figment of the the imagination of the world wide pineapple pizza conspiracy. Mr Wisemann assured the jubilant masses that the Russian leader had no more territorial claims in Europe.
https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/974900643281489920?s=21
The real problems of Versailles were:
1/that the financial clauses far exceeded the ability of the German state to pay. Germany had pretty well bankrupted itself in an effort to win the war, intending to plunder its defeated enemies to pay for the cost (that's why Brest-Litovsk was so brutal). It therefore had no chance of finding £1.6 billion in reparations after it had lost (as Keynes pointed out at the time);
2/ that because of the collapse of Austria, the internal weaknesses of the former Russian Empire and the massive material losses of France, Germany still remained the dominant power in continental Europe. There was no successor state in the East with the power to challenge it, and nobody in the west or south with the will do to so. That meant in the hands of a single-minded leader it could rapidly reassert itself.
With hindsight I would personally argue the mistake at Versailles was not to break Germany up into Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Hanover and Prussia. That might have kept things under control. However, I think the Allies were fearful that Communism would spread under those circumstances (there had after all already been attempts at proclaiming Socialist republics in Hungary, Bavaria and Berlin). They mistakenly thought a united Germany might be their new enemies' enemy. It was a pretty costly mistake.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/former-playboy-model-karen-mcdougal-describes-affair-with-trump-in-a-new-yorker-story.html
In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is King. I guess this explains his electoral success. He's a stupid person's idea of what intelligence looks like.
Obviously there are some differences. He hasn't murdered anyone (that we know of) and where most of them have been accused of taking money from Putin nobody doubts that he's behaving like a fool for free.
And of course some of those on that list were intelligent.
But the similarities between Corbyn's inability to condemn Putin and Trump's contortions over Russia a few months ago have been striking me afresh this week.
It's quite plausible that Russia's political/economic arrangements aren't sustainable in the medium to long term, but that's not really the immediate concern.
In more general terms, as a totalitarian state Russia seems quite benign: you are free to think and do what you want, as long as you don't overstep the mark re your actions and criticisms of the state, in which case you are finished (via the potemkin judiciary).
Contrast this with China. The aim there is to literally subsume all human expression, to further the aims of the state. If you are in any doubt about this, research the 'social credit' system that they are introducing. The government is judging its citizens on every book they read, every comment they make on social media. If you do the wrong thing, you won't be able to get a job, travel anywhere, or even start a relationship. To my mind, it is the gravest threat in human history to the idea of freedom and indivdual liberty, and yet because China doesn't (appear, right now) to pose a direct threat to us, we are happy to go along with it, allowing chinese businesses (who are intrinsically connected to the government) to invest in our economy, even very sensitive areas of it.
To try and take a strategic perspective on all this, it is ultimately in our interest to work with Russia, however difficult that is going to be. That is the view that I am coming to. What is a conflict actually going to achieve? It is going to be mutually destructive, and merely hasten the demise of both sides.
The Tory Brexiteers hold nothing but contempt for Putin, and what I think of him is unprintable.
Similarly the 'war guilt' clause that proves so controversial. Germany was largely responsible for the scale and timing of the war. It deliberately declared war on Russia, then France, then invaded Belgium bringing in the UK. None of those were actually necessary. It was done because the Kaiser wanted a war. That is why you get stories of conservative German historians in the 1950s and 1960s destroying embarrassing documentation showing the aggressive thinking of the Kaiser and the Army.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/opinion/5832987/three-ways-russia-is-testing-britain-ahead-of-the-countrys-election/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
No, he'll be happy with high seventies. Wouldn't want the outside world to think the system was rigged now would he?
I have to say I think the real irony was that Germany still felt hard done by having been, on the whole and given what happened, treated quite leniently. Whether Versailles was ever practical politics was a different question (and that is where Keynes' assessment comes in).
In some respects their dilemma as a proud imperial power on the edge of Europe struggling with loss of status in a multilateral world is similar to the UK's so we should be uniquely placed to empathise with Russia, if we have enough capacity for self-reflection.
"On 16 October 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995.
Outside governments dismissed the vote as lacking credibility."
The Germans declared war first but the French mobilised their army prior to this, which given the cost I understand is basically a declaration of war. Maybe the Russians also but slightly more hazy on that point.
Aside from the timing of the declaration(s) of war and mobilising armies the political situation that setup the war and the escalation on all sides in the build up has a fair amount of guilt on all sides. The Germans weren't shrinking violets but neither were many of the other countries on the continent. Happy for my argument to be ripped apart here but from what I understand although Germany were a major player saying they were at fault but others were not is wrong.
It wasn't either a concilliation or an anhillation. It was a bodged anhillation, that tried to dress itself up as a concilliation, which led to loathing of the victors, which led to a failed state, which led to Putin.
You can't understand modern Russia without understanding this history. Russia is a case study in the spectacular failure of neoliberalism, and Putin is a frankenstein of our own creation.
It is also worth remembering that Weimar democracy was effectively dead under Hindenburg, who was ruling as de facto dictator under Article 48 long before Hitler came to power (and unhelpfully was so senile his notoriously bent son was doing most of the actual ruling). Hitler and the Enabling Act merely applied the coup de grâce.
I think the biggest way in which that period now impacts on the thinking of the Russian elite is the absolute fear of revolutionary political change and inherent risks to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russians rather than the French had mobilised their army. However, that was aimed at helping Serbia against a genocidal war launched by Austria (shocking fact for today - one in four Serbs alive in May 1914 were dead by Christmas 1914) and had nothing to do with Germany. Germany took it as an excuse to declare war despite repeated assurances from the Russians that there was no threat intended to German interests.
They declared war on France because the Schlieffen plan of 1908(?) stated that France had to be conquered before Russia was attacked. Again, that was an unforced error.
They invaded Belgium, which was a state guaranteed neutrality by the Treaty of London in 1839 (which the Germans wilfully and openly abrogated) because they thought the heavily fortified French border would be too difficult to assault directly. Again, that was a decision they made that they did not have to.
Having invaded Belgium, had they gone through quickly without doing much damage Morley and Lloyd George (ironically) might have forced Asquith to stay neutral. By 'raping' Belgium, burning its cities to the ground and carrying out mass killings of civilians notably in Dinant and Leuven, they made it a matter of honour for the British state to respond.
That is not to say that other factors - Russia's own territorial ambitions in Europe, the ongoing collapse of Ottoman Turkey, French grievances over the Franco-Prussian War and imperial expansion in Africa all spring to mind - were not important. That is why I very carefully said that the 'degree and timing' of the war was what rested at Germany's door. It may have happened even if the Kaiser had not been psychotic. But it definitely bore the guilt and the reluctance of the Germans to accept that until a new wave of social democracy after Adenauer's retirement was a constant running problem in European politics.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/suspected-russian-spy-pictured-with-his-good-friend-boris-johnson-2018-2
People like Putin and the oligarchs would have risen to the top whatever we had done; their system was not robust enough to prevent it, and whatever actions we too would have been perverted by them to further their aims.
The problem was that the USSR destroyed itself (albeit under a little pressure); it was not beaten in any military victory, and we had no power to force them to democracy or a (from our perspective) 'better' way.
In short: we did not create Putin; and we were powerless to prevent the creation of such a creature (and you can imagine the bleating from some if we'd tried to interfere to that degree).
A loan to Gorbachev in 1989 of a few billion dollars might have avoided all this. It was refused.
You may be right, but what was clearly needed was a massive investment in a peaceful and gradual transition to a mixed economy - akin to what occured in other parts of eastern europe.
Instead, the west was awash at the time with 'the end of history' dogma, and unfounded confidence that unlimited capitalism gradually leads to liberal democracy. This assumption, which has now been totally rubbished by events, has led to a totalitarian nightmare in China, and Putins Russia.
(edited due to blockquote mixup)
But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Cyber attacks in Estonia in 2005, the aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The involvement in the US Presidential Elections in 2016. The actions are clear.
In my blog I wrote about Sergei Skripal's poisoning attempts: https://animaerrante90.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/sergei-skripal-britain-stood-its-ground/
Maybe you will find the read interesting.
Whilst I am not approving of passing through Belgium from a strategic point of view if the war has started it does make sense to go around French defences.
In regards to the Russians mobilising for the Serbians which meant the Germans mobilised for the Austrians isn't that basically the fault of the whole web of alliances which had been created?
In this aspect you can bring it down to the smaller nations forcing the bigger ones in to follow them.
Whilst the Kaiser was aggressive and incompetent from a grand strategy point of view I do feel much of the situation had been created around Germany as well.
All that said my main feeling on the war even if France and Britain had been at fault is the allies needed to win as we were the democracies.
Edit: Interesting conversation!
No, I don't. "Kyle Knox" is a pseudoname, not my real name (I want to keep my real life away from my blogging and Kyle Knox has a good sound to it).
Look at Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary. Leaving aside the current issues with populism and dissatisfaction with the EU, the fate you describe above did not befall those countries. That is because there was a strategic policy of investing in those countries, both in the economy and in the institutions of civil society.
The same simply cannot be said of Russia. At best, it was simply left to its own devices.
The Russians see this investment in those countries as an attempt to build up a bulwark against Russia, particularly as the investment also came with a strategic expansion of NATO. It is because of this history that Russians percieve themselves as under threat from an expansionist west.
It was never realistic to suppose that starting and losing WWI would have no consequences at all.
1) Yes. What the Germans did went far beyond legitimate retaliation.
2) Just because avoiding the French fortifications was militarily sensible does not make what happened any more legal or justifiable.
3) No, I can't agree with that. If that were the case there would have been a war in 1906 over Morocco. There wasn't. It was clearly a pretext not the cause.
4) it depends, does it not, on your definition of democracy? Germany had a wider franchise than either Britain or France in 1914, although against that the army was under parliamentary rather than Royal control in those countries. It was not that Germany was undemocratic, it was the sheer greed of its behaviour. One of the key lessons to learn early in studying German diplomatic history is how far Hitler extended it, rather than innovated it.
I have to go. Have a good morning, will be back later.
What's happened is that Sturgeon/Jones have made a trivial 'concession' to appear reasonable but retain their central aim which is still opposed by the Tory government and apparently completely impossible to do.
If he had decided not to mobilise, then maybe nothing at all would have happened.
Although probably another incident further down the line would have started the war, for all the factors you mention.
Ask yourself this, if you think the West treated Russia badly: why did the same investment that went into the Baltic states, Poland etc, not go into Belarus?
(As an aside, if you look at the rise of nationalism in Poland and Hungary, even being fully integrated with the EU and huge net recipients is not enough to prevent politics from happening.)
I guessed she had never tried competing against them.
3) I'll have to look that up, this is in reference to the web of alliances?
4) I did almost change it to more democratic although I didn't actually know about the franchise point I would consider Royal control of things like the army a pretty big aspect. I understand there was a lot of jealousy of the colonial possessions of say Britain and France.
All we could do was try to encourage them in the right direction as a friendly neighbour; dictating to them, or trying to force them in certain directions, would have been utterly counter-productive (and AIUI was when we tried it in limited ways).
The rise of Putin is the fault of a Russian state and system that favoured strong individuals as leaders, and protected such people.
I think this is geopolitics and it is naive to think otherwise. Why aren't we supporting and investing in a democratic Kurdistan? It would be a major boost for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. There have been lots of favourable articles to that effect in the economist, of all places.
I think this analysis is what is behind Corbyn's perspective on Russia, and if you step back, it makes a lot of sense.
Those countries had suffered under Soviet rule for decades; a few had tried to break free and had suffered horrible repression as a result. If faced with looking at an imperfect but liberal EU, and the people who had enslaved your country, which would you pick?
Whereas the Russian perspective is very different. I have more than a little sympathy for them; we would all be paranoid if we had their history.
Kurdistan is a very interesting example, and I could witter on about that for ages (and have passim). However it's also a bogus one, as it also involves interfering with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. It is probably something that needs to happen, although a unified Kurdistan would initially be a disaster, for reasons I have given in the past.
Riiiight.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/
That’s why our institutions and traditions are such an important cultural framework.
Good morning everyone - I'm not really 'here' yet, only logged on to read David's article. Back later to read the comments.
However, when/where was that headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”?
Good morning, Miss JGP.