Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s Cold War, Jim: but not as we know it

13

Comments

  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Sean_F said:

    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.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon

    This is a great takedown of Pinker and co.

    "opposing reason is, by definition, unreasonable.” Steven Pinker is fond of definitions. Early on in this monumental apologia for a currently fashionable version of Enlightenment thinking, he writes: “To take something on faith means to believe it without good reason, so by definition a faith in the existence of supernatural entities clashes with reason.” Well, it’s good to have that settled once and for all. There is no need to trouble yourself with the arguments of historians, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists, who treat religion as a highly complex phenomenon, serving a variety of human needs. All you need do is consult a dictionary, and you will find that religion is – by definition – irrational."



  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    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?

    Might be some fire sales in Mayfair shortly xD
    Half the reason I'm asking, if prices in Kensington crash then the ripple effect will cause prices to fall in West Hampstead. I'm in no rush to buy given I won't be back until much later in the year.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    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.

    Because we didn't hear as much about such things before. The fact we hear more about it does not mean there is more of it about.

    https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace#the-share-of-war-deaths-is-declining-even-faster

    Things are getting better. We have top hope the trend continues.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    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?

    Might be some fire sales in Mayfair shortly xD
    Half the reason I'm asking, if prices in Kensington crash then the ripple effect will cause prices to fall in West Hampstead. I'm in no rush to buy given I won't be back until much later in the year.
    buy as soon as possible, before the Brexit boom
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    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?

    Might be some fire sales in Mayfair shortly xD
    Half the reason I'm asking, if prices in Kensington crash then the ripple effect will cause prices to fall in West Hampstead. I'm in no rush to buy given I won't be back until much later in the year.
    Max

    My view is that you should ask yourself: am I a property speculator? Is this primarily an investment or is it a home?

    If it is a home, then personal timing trumps cyclical timing, because you will hold the property long enough for things to come out in the wash.


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    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.
    You silly Cnut ....

    This bloody dyslexia .... :smiley:
  • Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    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.

    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.

    Welcome, Mr Knox. Do you have a brother, Tom?
    Thanks for the welcome.

    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).
    “Tom Knox” is the pen name of some Cornish chick who posts on here occasionally...
    Ohh... I did not know that.

    We are in no way related...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited March 2018

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    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?

    Might be some fire sales in Mayfair shortly xD
    Half the reason I'm asking, if prices in Kensington crash then the ripple effect will cause prices to fall in West Hampstead. I'm in no rush to buy given I won't be back until much later in the year.
    Max

    My view is that you should ask yourself: am I a property speculator? Is this primarily an investment or is it a home?

    If it is a home, then personal timing trumps cyclical timing, because you will hold the property long enough for things to come out in the wash.


    Well it's a home, I'm planning to come back to London later in the year, but I'm in no rush to buy, so if there's a significant price fall in the offing I can hold off for a bit.

    In a worst case scenario that I don't get something in time, my family home is empty for 6 months a year from October, so it's no disaster.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Alistair said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    There's a long back and forth on the letters pages of the Glasgow Herald during WWII bemoaning Jewish refugees/immigrants being conchies, black marketeers, taking up housing stock etc. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. F, blips?

    Well, that's one way to describe the Holocaust, I suppose.

    And that's without getting into the potential for another Dark Ages* style collapse.

    *I know some people don't like the term, and some revisionists even try to pretend their was no decline, but it's a convenient tag.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    nielh said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon

    This is a great takedown of Pinker and co.

    "opposing reason is, by definition, unreasonable.” Steven Pinker is fond of definitions. Early on in this monumental apologia for a currently fashionable version of Enlightenment thinking, he writes: “To take something on faith means to believe it without good reason, so by definition a faith in the existence of supernatural entities clashes with reason.” Well, it’s good to have that settled once and for all. There is no need to trouble yourself with the arguments of historians, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists, who treat religion as a highly complex phenomenon, serving a variety of human needs. All you need do is consult a dictionary, and you will find that religion is – by definition – irrational."



    He equates being rational with being good. Which is naive.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.
    Somewhere a Putin supporter is writing that Kazakhstan and Belarus are always 100% loyal and solid with Russia...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    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?

    Might be some fire sales in Mayfair shortly xD
    Half the reason I'm asking, if prices in Kensington crash then the ripple effect will cause prices to fall in West Hampstead. I'm in no rush to buy given I won't be back until much later in the year.
    Max

    My view is that you should ask yourself: am I a property speculator? Is this primarily an investment or is it a home?

    If it is a home, then personal timing trumps cyclical timing, because you will hold the property long enough for things to come out in the wash.


    Well it's a home, I'm planning to come back to London later in the year, but I'm in no rush to buy, so if there's a significant price fall in the offing I can hold off for a bit.

    In a worst case scenario that I don't get something in time, my family home is empty for 6 months a year from October, so it's no disaster.
    Which would you regret the least ?

    1) Buying now and seeing the price drop
    2) Not buying now and seeing the price rise
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.
  • nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    Of course we are not isolated - next week the EU will discuss a co-ordinated response with condemnation of Russia from the Dutch, Germany and France, together with Donald Tusk. Teresa May has invited the OPCW to inspect the nerve agent for independent verification and they are coming to Salisbury next week. The US, Australia, New Zealand and Nato have all condemned Russia.

    The most alarming thought of this whole matter is that UK National Security do not consider Corbyn trustworthy enough to share the information available to TM, no doubt including the Porton Down identification of the military grade nerve agent used.

    There can be no doubt that the information shown to TM and Boris is conclusive and dictates the way she has acted in the defence of our Country .

    This is nothing like Iraq. This is an identifiable chemical weapon used on British soil and Putin is going to find he will receive a reaction from the West that he may well have underestimated
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.

    Historical analogies are often rubbish. That one is more rubbish than usual. ;)

    It is totally and utterly irrelevant. Are things guaranteed to get better? No. Have then been getting better? On many measures, yes. Your comment says things got worse once. That is true, but as the world is a very different place there are no practical lessons to be learnt from it.

    IMO an average citizen of the world is better off living in this decade than any other previous decade.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.

    This isn't leadership. It is us who was (apparently) attacked. We are acting in response to an attack.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,716
    edited March 2018

    Mr. F, blips?

    Well, that's one way to describe the Holocaust, I suppose.

    And that's without getting into the potential for another Dark Ages* style collapse.

    *I know some people don't like the term, and some revisionists even try to pretend their was no decline, but it's a convenient tag.

    Tamurlane? Ghengis Khan? What’s the Native American population of the US today compared with, say, 1700?
    I realise that in the latter case there’s a confounding element of disease.
  • nielh said:

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.

    This isn't leadership. It is us who was (apparently) attacked. We are acting in response to an attack.
    How can you act in the absence of an attack !!!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    Kyle_Knox said:

    Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    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.

    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.

    Welcome, Mr Knox. Do you have a brother, Tom?
    Thanks for the welcome.

    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).
    “Tom Knox” is the pen name of some Cornish chick who posts on here occasionally...
    Ohh... I did not know that.

    We are in no way related...
    Chick????????
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.

    This isn't leadership. It is us who was (apparently) attacked. We are acting in response to an attack.
    How can you act in the absence of an attack !!!
    That’s how conspiracy theories start, Big G.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    MaxPB said:

    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?

    I'm not comfortable with giving financial advice without an indepth analysis of your finances and the market trend. But I will note that with property people swallow logs and strain at gnats.

    Prices may drop (the most that property dropped in one year since - say - 1980 was 20% in 2008/9, and that recovered by 10% the next year) or they may not. But I assume you're not planning to sell up within 4-5 years, so you will ride out any changes in price. Plus you are not immortal: waiting five years for a "better" property will mean you will pay off the mortgage five years later, and that itself has a cost.

    Consequently I tend to believe that on general principles, buying an adequate property now and incrementally improving it is better than waiting for an optimal property. "Good enough now" is a pretty good heuristic.

    However you have a lot of money and wealthy people have a different attitude to purchases, being willing to spend more on marginal improvement and more anguished by marginal decreases. If you are planning to buy-improve-and-flip in 12-24 months then that's a different approach and I can't really advise you pro-or-con.

    But we are ignoring something obvious: you are engaged to be wed, I believe (congrats again, btw). Your soon-to-be wife will have her own opinion and you may perhaps be consulting her instead of PB.

  • nielh said:

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    No, that’s leadership. Taking a position and getting other countries to follow you.

    Which is why the UK has managed to get US, France and Germany on board with a joint statement. None of those countries would have done it by themselves.

    Leadership.

    I would add Canada and Australia to that list, but they are always 100% loyal and solid with the UK, and don’t need us to lead them anywhere. They always stand with us.

    This isn't leadership. It is us who was (apparently) attacked. We are acting in response to an attack.
    How can you act in the absence of an attack !!!
    That’s how conspiracy theories start, Big G.
    Good point
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Facebook are only now suspending Cambridge Analytica’s access to their platform.
    https://twitter.com/boztank/status/974815704766541824?s=21
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2018
    kjh said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    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.

    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.

    Welcome, Mr Knox. Do you have a brother, Tom?
    Thanks for the welcome.

    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).
    “Tom Knox” is the pen name of some Cornish chick who posts on here occasionally...
    Ohh... I did not know that.

    We are in no way related...
    Chick????????
    Once she reaches full maturity she will be the Cornish chicken who posts on here occasionally...

    Alternatively that may have been a classification error to start with.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Good piece by James Forsythe on Whitehall's thinking re Salisbury and Russia and why we must refocus defence and energy policy.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/two-things-that-must-change-after-salisbury/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    King Cole, we could also compare the Polish population with what it might have been had it not been for WWII. Or the state of Cambodia.

    Mr. Jessop, I agree with that (average citizen being better off now). However, reverses, both small and large, can and do happen and will continue to do so. I'm concerned we may end up seeing numerous setbacks.

    Just look how poisonous the political atmosphere is in the US and UK right now, or the problems in Sweden and Germany. China's expanding militarily, Russia seems to have decided using chemical weapons is a good idea, free speech is being rolled back in the West (whatever one thinks of Lauren Southern, barring her from the country because she handed out leaflets saying 'Allah is gay' is nuts), Japan's tooling up, South Africa seems poised to grab land from white farmers etc ad nauseum.

    If the EU integrates a lot more, then, as I've said before, I fear its collapse will lead to a war.

    Anyway, I've got exciting proofreading to do.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    Of course we are not isolated - next week the EU will discuss a co-ordinated response with condemnation of Russia from the Dutch, Germany and France, together with Donald Tusk. Teresa May has invited the OPCW to inspect the nerve agent for independent verification and they are coming to Salisbury next week. The US, Australia, New Zealand and Nato have all condemned Russia.

    The most alarming thought of this whole matter is that UK National Security do not consider Corbyn trustworthy enough to share the information available to TM, no doubt including the Porton Down identification of the military grade nerve agent used.

    There can be no doubt that the information shown to TM and Boris is conclusive and dictates the way she has acted in the defence of our Country .

    This is nothing like Iraq. This is an identifiable chemical weapon used on British soil and Putin is going to find he will receive a reaction from the West that he may well have underestimated
    Your point 2 doesn't quite follow your point 3, Big G.

    If there can be no doubt whatsoever that the information is conclusive, why won't they share it with Jeremy Corbyn?

    Could it be because there is, at least some doubt?

    I'm not wanting to peddle consipiracy theories here, but it seems possible that there is a balance of probabilities type situation here. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Russians have deliberately engineered such a situation, to wrong foot us.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. H, probably worried he might have a chat with a 'Czech diplomat' again.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.

    Historical analogies are often rubbish. That one is more rubbish than usual. ;)

    It is totally and utterly irrelevant. Are things guaranteed to get better? No. Have then been getting better? On many measures, yes. Your comment says things got worse once. That is true, but as the world is a very different place there are no practical lessons to be learnt from it.

    IMO an average citizen of the world is better off living in this decade than any other previous decade.
    I think a better historical analogy is this. Pinker's arguments were commonplace in Western liberal middle class circles, up till 1914. The world was more prosperous and inter-connected than ever before. Democracy was spreading. The status of women was improving. Religious toleration was the norm in North America and most of Europe. Violence had fallen to very low levels, and criminal justice systems were becoming more humane. War between advanced economies was unthinkable because everyone had too much to lose, and things would continue in this direction.

    Then, history intervened.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    Oh, pull the other one. I heard no-one saying Crimeans did not have the right to self-determination: just that self-determination should be done freely and fairly, something that was most assuredly not the case in their 'vote'.

    Anyway, I'm off to the cinema. Have fun everyone!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    It's been a bad week for those apologists for Corbyn being an apologist for Putin. The tortured logic, the lame excuses.

    It's almost as if they are beginning to find it all a bit embarrassing....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    My word there's a few notable chicken and eggs there .... and an ostrich one :

    The reason some countries bordering Russia want to join NATO was because they feared Russian territorial expansionism again and with justification - Georgia, Crimea and eastern Ukraine refer. Free democratic nations value their newly found status and a free to exercise choices about their defence.

    Surely we learnt from the Litvinenko murder that "judicious level" and "balanced dialogue" responses to Putin are worthless.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    nielh said:

    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.
    There was a pub with a couple of fruit machines. One day some heavies turned up and demanded the landlord install different fruit machines, an offer that could not be refused, so regretfully the landlord cancelled his arrangement with the original supplier. But he was surprised when the following morning, the new heavies returned, with apologies but no explanation, to remove their machines. Years later, the landlord learned the first machine company was owned by the twins. True story.

    There was a firm that supplied software to a major record chain. It was approached by a rival national chain. The first chain said that if it went ahead, it would sue and even though the case had no merit, it would tie things up in court long enough to scupper the deal. True story.

    Gangsters are just businessmen who use the threat of violence rather than the courts to enforce contracts and settle disputes. (Which is not to say the reverse is true!)
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited March 2018
    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    Of course we are not isolated - next week the EU will discuss a co-ordinated response with condemnation of Russia from the Dutch, Germany and France, together with Donald Tusk. Teresa May has invited the OPCW to inspect the nerve agent for independent verification and they are coming to Salisbury next week. The US, Australia, New Zealand and Nato have all condemned Russia.

    The most alarming thought of this whole matter is that UK National Security do not consider Corbyn trustworthy enough to share the information available to TM, no doubt including the Porton Down identification of the military grade nerve agent used.

    There can be no doubt that the information shown to TM and Boris is conclusive and dictates the way she has acted in the defence of our Country .

    This is nothing like Iraq. This is an identifiable chemical weapon used on British soil and Putin is going to find he will receive a reaction from the West that he may well have underestimated
    Your point 2 doesn't quite follow your point 3, Big G.

    If there can be no doubt whatsoever that the information is conclusive, why won't they share it with Jeremy Corbyn?

    Could it be because there is, at least some doubt?

    I'm not wanting to peddle consipiracy theories here, but it seems possible that there is a balance of probabilities type situation here. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Russians have deliberately engineered such a situation, to wrong foot us.


    The simple answer is that Corbyn is considered a security risk and while he may have received a privvy council briefing it would appear he is not trusted to receive the details provided to the PM.

  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.

    Historical analogies are often rubbish. That one is more rubbish than usual. ;)

    It is totally and utterly irrelevant. Are things guaranteed to get better? No. Have then been getting better? On many measures, yes. Your comment says things got worse once. That is true, but as the world is a very different place there are no practical lessons to be learnt from it.

    IMO an average citizen of the world is better off living in this decade than any other previous decade.
    I think a better historical analogy is this. Pinker's arguments were commonplace in Western liberal middle class circles, up till 1914. The world was more prosperous and inter-connected than ever before. Democracy was spreading. The status of women was improving. Religious toleration was the norm in North America and most of Europe. Violence had fallen to very low levels, and criminal justice systems were becoming more humane. War between advanced economies was unthinkable because everyone had too much to lose, and things would continue in this direction.

    Then, history intervened.
    The problems with Pinkers analysis are much deeper than that.

    He (and Dawkins, and others) essentially postulate a specific theory about evolution, and try to explain that happens in the world based on that, whilst dismissing any other alternative explanations on the grounds they are unscientific.

    It leads to, amongst other things, a deeply flawed understanding of rationality and the limits of human knowledge.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.

    Historical analogies are often rubbish. That one is more rubbish than usual. ;)

    It is totally and utterly irrelevant. Are things guaranteed to get better? No. Have then been getting better? On many measures, yes. Your comment says things got worse once. That is true, but as the world is a very different place there are no practical lessons to be learnt from it.

    IMO an average citizen of the world is better off living in this decade than any other previous decade.
    I think a better historical analogy is this. Pinker's arguments were commonplace in Western liberal middle class circles, up till 1914. The world was more prosperous and inter-connected than ever before. Democracy was spreading. The status of women was improving. Religious toleration was the norm in North America and most of Europe. Violence had fallen to very low levels, and criminal justice systems were becoming more humane. War between advanced economies was unthinkable because everyone had too much to lose, and things would continue in this direction.

    Then, history intervened.
    Worth noting that in 1914 France and Germany were each others major trading partners, trade is no guarantee of peace.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    TBF, the enclave is surrounded.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Jessop, perhaps. Rome improved greatly under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and then again from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (who properly ruined the Golden Age of Imperial Rome when he let his mad bastard of a [possible] son get the gig). That didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century.

    Historical analogies are often rubbish. That one is more rubbish than usual. ;)

    It is totally and utterly irrelevant. Are things guaranteed to get better? No. Have then been getting better? On many measures, yes. Your comment says things got worse once. That is true, but as the world is a very different place there are no practical lessons to be learnt from it.

    IMO an average citizen of the world is better off living in this decade than any other previous decade.
    I think a better historical analogy is this. Pinker's arguments were commonplace in Western liberal middle class circles, up till 1914. The world was more prosperous and inter-connected than ever before. Democracy was spreading. The status of women was improving. Religious toleration was the norm in North America and most of Europe. Violence had fallen to very low levels, and criminal justice systems were becoming more humane. War between advanced economies was unthinkable because everyone had too much to lose, and things would continue in this direction.

    Then, history intervened.
    Worth noting that in 1914 France and Germany were each others major trading partners, trade is no guarantee of peace.
    Trade is not the same as economic integration. It’s why cross-border supply chains and services are the most challenging issues for Brexit.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    tlg86 said:

    TBF, the enclave is surrounded.
    It's an exclave.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061
    geoffw said:

    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
    I don't think than we can accept that, anymore than we as the UK could do the same south of the Irish border.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Foxy said:

    geoffw said:

    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
    I don't think than we can accept that, anymore than we as the UK could do the same south of the Irish border.

    Russians often refer to the "near abroad". By this they mean their sphere of influence.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    geoffw said:

    tlg86 said:

    TBF, the enclave is surrounded.
    It's an exclave.
    You wouldn’t know I had a geography degree. :blush:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    geoffw said:

    Foxy said:

    geoffw said:

    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
    I don't think than we can accept that, anymore than we as the UK could do the same south of the Irish border.

    Russians often refer to the "near abroad". By this they mean their sphere of influence.
    How much influence does the Kremlin have over the government in Chechnya?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,716

    King Cole, we could also compare the Polish population with what it might have been had it not been for WWII. Or the state of Cambodia.

    Mr. Jessop, I agree with that (average citizen being better off now). However, reverses, both small and large, can and do happen and will continue to do so. I'm concerned we may end up seeing numerous setbacks.

    Just look how poisonous the political atmosphere is in the US and UK right now, or the problems in Sweden and Germany. China's expanding militarily, Russia seems to have decided using chemical weapons is a good idea, free speech is being rolled back in the West (whatever one thinks of Lauren Southern, barring her from the country because she handed out leaflets saying 'Allah is gay' is nuts), Japan's tooling up, South Africa seems poised to grab land from white farmers etc ad nauseum.

    If the EU integrates a lot more, then, as I've said before, I fear its collapse will lead to a war.

    Anyway, I've got exciting proofreading to do.

    Mr D, it would appear the population of Poland is recovering fairly rapidly, as is that of Cambodia, and indeed the latter feels able to indulge in border disputes with it’s neighbour.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880



    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border

    Who made this promise?

    NATO had a border with Russia since it was founded.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    geoffw said:

    Foxy said:

    geoffw said:

    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it explains why ordinary Russians would probably vote Putin in an entirely free election. If we shove someone around enough, we shouldn't be surprised if they choose a thug to shove back.

    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
    I don't think than we can accept that, anymore than we as the UK could do the same south of the Irish border.

    Russians often refer to the "near abroad". By this they mean their sphere of influence.
    How much influence does the Kremlin have over the government in Chechnya?
    I would have thought rather a lot as it's a constituent country of the Russian Federation and a large chunk of the Russian Army is there on 'peacekeeping' duties.

    Just had a total whiteout in Cannock.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    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?

    Riiiight.
    You've said it there yourself: "We're isolated because we're the only one standing up robustly to Russia".
    On Russia, There Are Two Trumps

    "When it comes to Russia, there is the Trump administration and there is the president.

    The Trump administration denounces Russia for using nerve agent on British soil. President Donald Trump says nothing for days, then calls it a very sad situation.

    The Trump administration castigates Russia for indiscriminate killing in Syria. Trump says nothing about it.

    The Trump administration sanctions Russian hackers for meddling in the 2016 election. Trump muses that it could have been China or many other people."
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/17/trump-russia-administration-policy-217649
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited March 2018
    eek said:

    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html

    I can't help feeling he committed a tactical error.

    He should have called the judge every name under the sun, accused him of every crime in the calendar, and then the judge would have had to declare him legally alive to sanction him.

    However, as he would not have been legally alive at the time of the alleged offence, he would have got off on appeal.

    In any case, imagine how immensely satisfying such a course of action would be. Think of all the names we call judges in our minds when they invariably mess up. And yet we can't say them aloud because for archaic reasons they are protected by law from being criticised.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html

    I can't help feeling he committed a tactical error.

    He should have called the judge every name under the sun, accused him of every crime in the calendar, and then the judge would have had to declare him legally alive to sanction him.

    However, as he would not have been legally alive at the time of the alleged offence, he would have got off on appeal.

    In any case, imagine how immensely satisfying such a course of action would be. Think of all the names we call judges in our minds when they invariably mess up. And yet we can't say them aloud because for archaic reasons they are protected by law from being criticised.
    Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. You don't have to be alive to be judicially punished and the contempt of court would have taken place regardless of the life-status of the miscreant. Being dead is no defence.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2018
    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html

    I can't help feeling he committed a tactical error.

    He should have called the judge every name under the sun, accused him of every crime in the calendar, and then the judge would have had to declare him legally alive to sanction him.

    However, as he would not have been legally alive at the time of the alleged offence, he would have got off on appeal.

    In any case, imagine how immensely satisfying such a course of action would be. Think of all the names we call judges in our minds when they invariably mess up. And yet we can't say them aloud because for archaic reasons they are protected by law from being criticised.
    Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. You don't have to be alive to be judicially punished and the contempt of court would have taken place regardless of the life-status of the miscreant. Being dead is no defence.
    Having just read an article on Douglas Adams I wonder if being legally dead has tax advantages...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html

    I can't help feeling he committed a tactical error.

    He should have called the judge every name under the sun, accused him of every crime in the calendar, and then the judge would have had to declare him legally alive to sanction him.

    However, as he would not have been legally alive at the time of the alleged offence, he would have got off on appeal.

    In any case, imagine how immensely satisfying such a course of action would be. Think of all the names we call judges in our minds when they invariably mess up. And yet we can't say them aloud because for archaic reasons they are protected by law from being criticised.
    Shouldn't he just rob banks and live the life of Reilly - whilst "dead". The police couldn't come looking for a dead man - that would be a waste of police time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Italy giving it a real go.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    Foxy said:

    geoffw said:

    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:



    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.

    I think thar's correct. Western assistance to countries that happen to border Russia has been cheerfully indiscriminate, and includes places like Ukraine where the people we encourage include both genuine democrats and some remarkably unpleasant neo-nazi types who Russia quite reasonably dislikes. We are also quite selective about the right of peoples to self-determination - very important for the Baltic States, not significant for Crimea.

    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border, but also the happy accommodation of their kleptocrats by the City and property companies with Briish government indulgence. This doesn't in the least justify Russian authorisation of foreign assassination or other gangster-like activity, but it
    Which is why, despite everything, we need to keep a lid on the urge to showdowns, maintain retaliaion at a judicious level, and try to keep up a balanced dialogue. It isn't a matter of being pro-Russian, let alone nostalgia for bygone Soviet times. It's simply rational big power politics.
    I disagree that we've been shoving the Russians around. Eastern Europe is not their protectorate.
    Sphere of influence. The near abroad.
    I don't think than we can accept that, anymore than we as the UK could do the same south of the Irish border.

    Russians often refer to the "near abroad". By this they mean their sphere of influence.
    How much influence does the Kremlin have over the government in Chechnya?
    I would have thought rather a lot as it's a constituent country of the Russian Federation and a large chunk of the Russian Army is there on 'peacekeeping' duties.
    You would have thought so, but it’s not the case.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/chechnya-ramzan-kadyrov-russia.html
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Putin has an increasingly acute, purely personal problem, highlighted by yesterday's announcement about Zuma: once you have amassed your hundreds of billions, how do you safely get off the still-revolving roundabout and live out your days in peace? It isn't easy, especially when you have (presumably) created (and bequeathed to your successor) the mightiest killing-Russian-billionaires-abroad team the world has yet seen, and created a thousand precedents for imprisoning them for years on bogus charges if they choose to stay at home.

    You don't.

    Since 1613, very few of Russia's leaders have opted to live out their lives in peace. 27 men and 4 women have ruled in that time (this is a bit definitional but it's my count). Of those:

    18 died naturally in office.
    2 were deposed in armed coups; both were later killed.
    3 were deposed in revolutions of some sort; one was killed, one died in exile, one is still living.
    2 were deposed in political coups; both died naturally in enforced retirement.

    Only four have resigned or otherwise given up power within the norms that western democracies would recognise - and two of those are Putin's first term, and Medvedev, which arguably don't count if we view a single Putin ascendency since the start of the century.

    So, in over 300 years, only Boris Yeltsin have voluntarily given up power - though even within Russia would he have struggled to win another election, and only Prince George Lvov resigned in the sort of political power struggle familiar to France, Italy or the like.

    The rule remains today, as in the time of the tsars, if you get the job, you keep it for life - because if you can't, the best you can hope for is a comfortable but wholly invisible retirement in an internal exile.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Dura_Ace said:



    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border

    Who made this promise?

    NATO had a border with Russia since it was founded.

    Yes, technically, NATO had two very short boundaries with the Soviet Union, i.e. in Norway and Turkey.

    It mainly had a border with Warsaw Pact countries. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed mainly in protest at West Germany joining NATO.

    The length of border across which Russia faces NATO is considerably greater than it was during the Cold War. There are still some buffer states, incl Belarus. There's also Finland, which has been neutral for a long time for this very reason.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Dura_Ace said:



    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border

    Who made this promise?

    NATO had a border with Russia since it was founded.

    Yes, technically, NATO had two very short boundaries with the Soviet Union, i.e. in Norway and Turkey.

    It mainly had a border with Warsaw Pact countries. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed mainly in protest at West Germany joining NATO.

    The length of border across which Russia faces NATO is considerably greater than it was during the Cold War. There are still some buffer states, incl Belarus. There's also Finland, which has been neutral for a long time for this very reason.
    The Turkish one didn't count: NATO's Article 5 only applied (and applies) to Europe and N America.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    eek said:

    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Utterly off-topic but anyone seen the Romanian who has been declared dead while sat in the courtroom

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/romanian-court-tells-man-he-s-dead-20180317-p4z4tt.html

    I can't help feeling he committed a tactical error.

    He should have called the judge every name under the sun, accused him of every crime in the calendar, and then the judge would have had to declare him legally alive to sanction him.

    However, as he would not have been legally alive at the time of the alleged offence, he would have got off on appeal.

    In any case, imagine how immensely satisfying such a course of action would be. Think of all the names we call judges in our minds when they invariably mess up. And yet we can't say them aloud because for archaic reasons they are protected by law from being criticised.
    Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. You don't have to be alive to be judicially punished and the contempt of court would have taken place regardless of the life-status of the miscreant. Being dead is no defence.
    Having just read an article on Douglas Adams I wonder if being legally dead has tax advantages...

    The estate agent after which the HHGTG character was named
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Dura_Ace said:



    There are some legitimate Russian complaints about how we've treated them - in particular the broken promise not to extend NATO to their border

    Who made this promise?

    NATO had a border with Russia since it was founded.

    Yes, technically, NATO had two very short boundaries with the Soviet Union, i.e. in Norway and Turkey.

    It mainly had a border with Warsaw Pact countries. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed mainly in protest at West Germany joining NATO.

    The length of border across which Russia faces NATO is considerably greater than it was during the Cold War. There are still some buffer states, incl Belarus. There's also Finland, which has been neutral for a long time for this very reason.
    The Turkish one didn't count: NATO's Article 5 only applied (and applies) to Europe and N America.
    I don’t think that’s an accurate interpretation.

    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    - on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

    - on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    "Washington (CNN)Pennsylvania's Republican Party is asking for an investigation into Tuesday's special election.

    The party has asked the Pennsylvania secretary of state to look into "a number of irregularities" it says occurred during voting in the House race between Republican Rick Saccone and Democrat Conor Lamb.

    Lamb has claimed victory in the race over Saccone, and holds a narrow lead of fewer than 700 votes. CNN has not projected a winner in the race.

    In a letter, Pennsylvania GOP general counsel Joel Frank said there had been complaints of voting machines not being calibrated, voters not appearing on voter rolls, questions over website information on polling places, and notice of overseas and military voting.

    A letter addressed to the US Department of Justice from Frank also requests the appointment of federal observers "to monitor" the May 15 primary "for practices that may infringe on the ability of all duly qualified Pennsylvania voters to cast their votes in accordance with the voting protections afforded under federal laws."

    Currently 50/1
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Just wow. I sometimes wonder whether the US is going to get through this schism.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Kyle_Knox said:

    Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    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.

    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.

    Welcome, Mr Knox. Do you have a brother, Tom?
    Thanks for the welcome.

    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).
    “Tom Knox” is the pen name of some Cornish chick who posts on here occasionally...
    Ohh... I did not know that.

    We are in no way related...
    She’s written a couple of okay books - the Ice Twins and the Fire Child I think
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Roger said:

    Interesting interview with John Simpson on radio yesterday. He likes Putin and has a certain sympathy for him. He believes that if the West/America hadn't kicked Russia when it was down and instead embraced it the problems that we are seeing now wouldn't be happening. A persuasive argument.

    So, basically its all our fault.

    Well, no wonder you like the current Labour leadership.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Putin has an increasingly acute, purely personal problem, highlighted by yesterday's announcement about Zuma: once you have amassed your hundreds of billions, how do you safely get off the still-revolving roundabout and live out your days in peace? It isn't easy, especially when you have (presumably) created (and bequeathed to your successor) the mightiest killing-Russian-billionaires-abroad team the world has yet seen, and created a thousand precedents for imprisoning them for years on bogus charges if they choose to stay at home.

    You don't.

    Since 1613, very few of Russia's leaders have opted to live out their lives in peace. 27 men and 4 women have ruled in that time (this is a bit definitional but it's my count). Of those:

    18 died naturally in office.
    2 were deposed in armed coups; both were later killed.
    3 were deposed in revolutions of some sort; one was killed, one died in exile, one is still living.
    2 were deposed in political coups; both died naturally in enforced retirement.

    Only four have resigned or otherwise given up power within the norms that western democracies would recognise - and two of those are Putin's first term, and Medvedev, which arguably don't count if we view a single Putin ascendency since the start of the century.

    So, in over 300 years, only Boris Yeltsin have voluntarily given up power - though even within Russia would he have struggled to win another election, and only Prince George Lvov resigned in the sort of political power struggle familiar to France, Italy or the like.

    The rule remains today, as in the time of the tsars, if you get the job, you keep it for life - because if you can't, the best you can hope for is a comfortable but wholly invisible retirement in an internal exile.
    Not sure Gorbachev has been entirely quiet and invisible.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Charles said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    Kyle_Knox said:

    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.

    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.

    Welcome, Mr Knox. Do you have a brother, Tom?
    Thanks for the welcome.

    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).
    “Tom Knox” is the pen name of some Cornish chick who posts on here occasionally...
    Ohh... I did not know that.

    We are in no way related...
    She’s written a couple of okay books - the Ice Twins and the Fire Child I think
    Hmm. 'Okay books'? Just wait until she logs on later after a Champagne afternoon...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Just wow. I sometimes wonder whether the US is going to get through this schism.
    This is a retired four-star general.
    https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/974748724176941056?s=21
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,393
    Off topic: I've just walked home from town in a total blizzard and now there is lovely sunshine.

    Great timing!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Roger said:

    Interesting interview with John Simpson on radio yesterday. He likes Putin and has a certain sympathy for him. He believes that if the West/America hadn't kicked Russia when it was down and instead embraced it the problems that we are seeing now wouldn't be happening. A persuasive argument.

    No it isn't, it's the infantile reasoning bad people use to excuse their own bad behaviour, as well as the silly logic that we see elsewhere that allows no personal agency in conflicts such as the middle east other than as reactions to what is admittedly disastrous western interventions. It makes it seem as though other places are entirely defined only by our actions, it is insulting to other nations, both the ones we see as good and the ones we see as bad.

    Putin's actions, and his reported strategies of provocation so he can strengthen his domestic position, are well known and clearly a conscious choice. It may well be that the West collectively could have taken a different approach previously, but you know what, lots of countries and leaderships get dealt bad hands by others, and they don't toss over the table in response, they don't become even more authoritarian, they don't choose to engage in overtly hostile acts.

    The idea that because the West cocks up that the choices of people like Putin are therefore the West's responsibility places far too much culpability on the latter and removes the agency of the former. I am frankly astonished that an experienced correspondent like Simpson would peddle such a ridiculously simplistic argument which treats other nations like mere reactors, left with no option but to dance to a Western tune.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Putin has an increasingly acute, purely personal problem, highlighted by yesterday's announcement about Zuma: once you have amassed your hundreds of billions, how do you safely get off the still-revolving roundabout and live out your days in peace? It isn't easy, especially when you have (presumably) created (and bequeathed to your successor) the mightiest killing-Russian-billionaires-abroad team the world has yet seen, and created a thousand precedents for imprisoning them for years on bogus charges if they choose to stay at home.

    You don't.

    Since 1613, very few of Russia's leaders have opted to live out their lives in peace. 27 men and 4 women have ruled in that time (this is a bit definitional but it's my count). Of those:

    18 died naturally in office.
    2 were deposed in armed coups; both were later killed.
    3 were deposed in revolutions of some sort; one was killed, one died in exile, one is still living.
    2 were deposed in political coups; both died naturally in enforced retirement.

    Only four have resigned or otherwise given up power within the norms that western democracies would recognise - and two of those are Putin's first term, and Medvedev, which arguably don't count if we view a single Putin ascendency since the start of the century.

    So, in over 300 years, only Boris Yeltsin have voluntarily given up power - though even within Russia would he have struggled to win another election, and only Prince George Lvov resigned in the sort of political power struggle familiar to France, Italy or the like.

    The rule remains today, as in the time of the tsars, if you get the job, you keep it for life - because if you can't, the best you can hope for is a comfortable but wholly invisible retirement in an internal exile.
    Not sure Gorbachev has been entirely quiet and invisible.
    No, but he's thoroughly irrelevant within Russia. And how much of what he says gets reported? He had more leeway in the 1990s because of the unusually weak state at the time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Off topic: I've just walked home from town in a total blizzard and now there is lovely sunshine.

    Great timing!

    You're still having better timing than the Scots. Not a good day to have a mare - against Italy!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting piece, David, for which, as always, many thanks.

    I'm left with a couple of observations - "inconvenience terrorism" is one. Blacking out cities for a few hours, closing off the Internet for a day or two or more or similar is possibly the terrorism of the future for those not willing to commit suicide in some hugely mistaken and evil concept of martyrdom.

    The rules of engagement have changed - in the 70s and 80s it was 100 armoured divisions trying to reach the Rhine and Spetsnaz commandos trying to cause havoc which were the start of the nightmare that would end in nuclear fire.

    Now it's different - I doubt the Russian Army has the will or the means to defeat NATO militarily but it can cause chaos in our tech-dependent power-hungry civil societies by other means though one would like to think that would avoid the missiles firing. Indeed, one might argue elements of Russian society are no less dependent on the same tech as is the West.

    Thought two - Russia is, as many other states have before them, struggling to find its identity in a changing world. From 1945-91 it was militarily and diplomatically, if not economically, a global superpower with huge reach and influence. Now, that has gone - China has become the second superpower but of a quite different nature to the USSR. The USA is the global military power for all the PLA has the numbers.

    Russia, like Britain and France, retains status through its independent nuclear deterrent but as Britain struggled to find its identity in a changed world after a war it had won, Russia found itself in a changed world in a war it had lost without firing a shot.

    Whether comparable to the humiliation of France in 1940, the fall of Russia has been dramatic since 1988 as the fall of Britain was in its own way emphasised by Suez which prompted the then-Conservative Government to turn toward Europe and embark on a period of foreign and economic policy which has now ended.

    If some have been charged with trying to take Britain back to a romanticised notion of Empire, so Russia has tried to go back to its notion of previous power under Peter the Great or should it be "Putin the Great" (in his terms though the image building has not been dissimilar).

    Russia lashes out partly to test us but partly to convince itself it is still a player, someone who counts, someone who is respected and feared beyond its borders. As a State and a people, Russia and some Russians seem to crave that. Putin feeds on that - it's not paranoia but a method of national self-confidence or trying to find that self-confidence. Nations and peoples express their will and self-belief in different ways.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Putin has an increasingly acute, purely personal problem, highlighted by yesterday's announcement about Zuma: once you have amassed your hundreds of billions, how do you safely get off the still-revolving roundabout and live out your days in peace? It isn't easy, especially when you have (presumably) created (and bequeathed to your successor) the mightiest killing-Russian-billionaires-abroad team the world has yet seen, and created a thousand precedents for imprisoning them for years on bogus charges if they choose to stay at home.

    Zuma raises some interesting questions - I don't know how robust things are in South Africa, but it is from the outside pretty pathetic that the man has been dogged by corruption allegations for his entire presidency, but only once his party was done with him did it seem like things started to unravel for him, and only once he was out will it truly come back to hit him. It does raise the question of whether if the next guy is also corrupt the same pattern would take place.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    stodge said:


    Whether comparable to the humiliation of France in 1940, the fall of Russia has been dramatic since 1988 as the fall of Britain was in its own way emphasised by Suez which prompted the then-Conservative Government to turn toward Europe and embark on a period of foreign and economic policy which has now ended.

    Clearly it hasn’t since our current official policy is a “deep and special partnership” with Europe. That comment reads like wishful thinking because you want to imbue your vote with some meaning instead of facing up to the futility of it. As you say, people express their will and self-belief in different ways...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741


    Clearly it hasn’t since our current official policy is a “deep and special partnership” with Europe. That comment reads like wishful thinking because you want to imbue your vote with some meaning instead of facing up to the futility of it. As you say, people express their will and self-belief in different ways...

    Thank you for your usual infantile half-baked pedantic bitter analysis.

    It wasn't "wishful thinking" - it was fact. We chose on 23/6/16 to change the emphasis of our outlook away from a Euro-centric to a more global oriented world view. That doesn't mean turning our back on Europe or becoming hostile to Europe but accepting there's a world beyond Europe and engaging from that.

    Don't worry, I'll leave you to stew in your own bile if that works for you.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Wow. On my holiday to China last year the tour guide operatives and the like all seemed like genuine fans of the current system, with minor complaints, but they were pretty happy to talk about how truly terrible things had been not that many decades before, in say, the 70s and 80s. How curious they saw things differently, unless it is official policy in China to admit how terrible things were then I suppose.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    More proof the Tory party has been taken over by hard right extremists and it is deselection that is their tactic of choice.

    http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/

    Are Tory factions as organised as many Labour ones appear to me? I genuinely have no idea. Is a right wing version of momentum running amok in organised fashion?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    stodge said:


    Clearly it hasn’t since our current official policy is a “deep and special partnership” with Europe. That comment reads like wishful thinking because you want to imbue your vote with some meaning instead of facing up to the futility of it. As you say, people express their will and self-belief in different ways...

    Thank you for your usual infantile half-baked pedantic bitter analysis.

    It wasn't "wishful thinking" - it was fact. We chose on 23/6/16 to change the emphasis of our outlook away from a Euro-centric to a more global oriented world view. That doesn't mean turning our back on Europe or becoming hostile to Europe but accepting there's a world beyond Europe and engaging from that.

    Don't worry, I'll leave you to stew in your own bile if that works for you.


    Well, for some people it was a deliberate choice to move towards a global orientated world view. However, for many others it was something different, ie an expression of nationalism. Brexit means many different things to different people, and it is a big problem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    nielh said:

    stodge said:


    Clearly it hasn’t since our current official policy is a “deep and special partnership” with Europe. That comment reads like wishful thinking because you want to imbue your vote with some meaning instead of facing up to the futility of it. As you say, people express their will and self-belief in different ways...

    Thank you for your usual infantile half-baked pedantic bitter analysis.

    It wasn't "wishful thinking" - it was fact. We chose on 23/6/16 to change the emphasis of our outlook away from a Euro-centric to a more global oriented world view. That doesn't mean turning our back on Europe or becoming hostile to Europe but accepting there's a world beyond Europe and engaging from that.

    Don't worry, I'll leave you to stew in your own bile if that works for you.


    Well, for some people it was a deliberate choice to move towards a global orientated world view. However, for many others it was something different, ie an expression of nationalism. Brexit means many different things to different people, and it is a big problem.
    Don't worry, Vince Cable has solved it though - it was just racism.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    According to Sky Russian TV is warning outspoken critics of Putin NOT to move to UK.

    Not even pretending are they.

    Yet Corbyn and Milne carry on as they do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Cracking game of rugby.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    kle4 said:

    More proof the Tory party has been taken over by hard right extremists and it is deselection that is their tactic of choice.

    http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/

    Are Tory factions as organised as many Labour ones appear to me? I genuinely have no idea. Is a right wing version of momentum running amok in organised fashion?
    I've known of several recent deselections in the conservative party. Not convinced that has anything to do with ideology, a lot of it seems to be local internal politics within the party.

    In general, it is a good idea for there to be a turnover of councillors, so new ideas come in. Lots of councillors see it as a club, which is not what it should be.



  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,393
    nielh said:

    kle4 said:

    More proof the Tory party has been taken over by hard right extremists and it is deselection that is their tactic of choice.

    http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/

    Are Tory factions as organised as many Labour ones appear to me? I genuinely have no idea. Is a right wing version of momentum running amok in organised fashion?
    I've known of several recent deselections in the conservative party. Not convinced that has anything to do with ideology, a lot of it seems to be local internal politics within the party.

    In general, it is a good idea for there to be a turnover of councillors, so new ideas come in. Lots of councillors see it as a club, which is not what it should be.



    I think all parties need to be prepared to get rid of the dead wood. Too many sitting councillors think they have a god-given right to their seat with no other party members being given a shout. This isn't anything to do with internal factionalism, just putting up the best people to fight for the seat and then represent the residents if elected.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited March 2018
    Great finish to the Italy v Scotland match. If the other two are as entertaining it’s going to be a great day of rugby!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Russia was remarkably altruistic in pressing the case for Brexit, which all our resident Leavers assure us had nothing to do with the Russians' sudden brazenness in Britain:

    http://89up.org/russia-report
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    nielh said:

    kle4 said:

    More proof the Tory party has been taken over by hard right extremists and it is deselection that is their tactic of choice.

    http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/

    Are Tory factions as organised as many Labour ones appear to me? I genuinely have no idea. Is a right wing version of momentum running amok in organised fashion?
    I've known of several recent deselections in the conservative party. Not convinced that has anything to do with ideology, a lot of it seems to be local internal politics within the party.

    In general, it is a good idea for there to be a turnover of councillors, so new ideas come in. Lots of councillors see it as a club, which is not what it should be.



    I think all parties need to be prepared to get rid of the dead wood. Too many sitting councillors think they have a god-given right to their seat with no other party members being given a shout. This isn't anything to do with internal factionalism, just putting up the best people to fight for the seat and then represent the residents if elected.
    A lot of capable people are put off because of a preponderance of sitting councillors.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    Russia was remarkably altruistic in pressing the case for Brexit, which all our resident Leavers assure us had nothing to do with the Russians' sudden brazenness in Britain:

    http://89up.org/russia-report

    Yeah, but then you can download all those embarrassing "stronger in" posters of world leaders endorsing remain.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Russia was remarkably altruistic in pressing the case for Brexit, which all our resident Leavers assure us had nothing to do with the Russians' sudden brazenness in Britain:

    http://89up.org/russia-report

    £4mn? That only makes up for half of the cost of the government's pamphlet. ;)
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    nielh said:

    kle4 said:

    More proof the Tory party has been taken over by hard right extremists and it is deselection that is their tactic of choice.

    http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16086508.Long_serving_Tory_councillors____devastated____by_de_selection/

    Are Tory factions as organised as many Labour ones appear to me? I genuinely have no idea. Is a right wing version of momentum running amok in organised fashion?
    I've known of several recent deselections in the conservative party. Not convinced that has anything to do with ideology, a lot of it seems to be local internal politics within the party.

    In general, it is a good idea for there to be a turnover of councillors, so new ideas come in. Lots of councillors see it as a club, which is not what it should be.

    I think all parties need to be prepared to get rid of the dead wood. Too many sitting councillors think they have a god-given right to their seat with no other party members being given a shout. This isn't anything to do with internal factionalism, just putting up the best people to fight for the seat and then represent the residents if elected.
    We need PR for local and central govt, not just for EU, Scotland & Wales elections. Islington council is reportedly a near one-party state (Labour, of course) and they're trying to get rid of the one remaining opposition councillor (Green).

    Yet Corbyn said he believes in FPTP. Is this why?!

    20 years ago, Labour at national level briefly wanted PR. It had experienced a one-party state the other way round and didn't like it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Russia was remarkably altruistic in pressing the case for Brexit, which all our resident Leavers assure us had nothing to do with the Russians' sudden brazenness in Britain:

    http://89up.org/russia-report

    https://twitter.com/RussiaUN/status/974359643257524229
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Putin has an increasingly acute, purely personal problem, highlighted by yesterday's announcement about Zuma: once you have amassed your hundreds of billions, how do you safely get off the still-revolving roundabout and live out your days in peace? It isn't easy, especially when you have (presumably) created (and bequeathed to your successor) the mightiest killing-Russian-billionaires-abroad team the world has yet seen, and created a thousand precedents for imprisoning them for years on bogus charges if they choose to stay at home.

    Zuma raises some interesting questions - I don't know how robust things are in South Africa, but it is from the outside pretty pathetic that the man has been dogged by corruption allegations for his entire presidency, but only once his party was done with him did it seem like things started to unravel for him, and only once he was out will it truly come back to hit him. It does raise the question of whether if the next guy is also corrupt the same pattern would take place.
    I was startled this morning to hear that they are just now charging Zuma for corruption related to a case in which his accountant was convicted in *2005* of soliciting bribes on Zuma’s behalf
This discussion has been closed.