The Russians are Coming, the Russians are...oh, they're here...

The report into the claim the Russans interfered in the Referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014, on the EU Referendum of 2016, and subsequent General Elections in the UK, has concluded that the most outstanding fact, is that the British Government neglected its duty to scrutinize Russian activities. It is rather like that catchphrase, 'Am I bovvered?' to which the answer seems to have been 'no'.

In addtion, the Goverment has decided not to pursue these investigations any further, notably into the EU Referendum. But just as they say one thing, and then something contradictory on Covid 19, so the Government appears to acknowedge the Russians are a threat, and that they don't intend to do much about it -but who knows what the Intelligence Servies think and know, when their evidence to authors of the Report amounted to six pages?

The Russians are here, that is the point. They have a presence -legal- in Social Media. They have a presene -legal- through their investments in property, in commerce- legal-, and in the provision of fine dining for members of the House of Lords -legal-. As for 'I say, anyone for tennis?' as far back as 2014 it was reported-

"A game of tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson has been sold off by the Conservative party for £160,000 to the banker wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ory-fundraiser

Here is the problem, as itemised by Martina Hyde (she ought to have included the attack on the UK using nuclear-weapons materials, resulting in the death of Alexander Litvinenko)-

"Russia brings down passenger planes and lies about it; it uses nerve agent to poison UK citizens in our historic market towns, then sends the would-be assassins on TV to give deadpan interviews about spire heights. The Russian state’s troll farms and high-level hacks are well documented, as is the Russian state’s hack and leak on the US Democratic party. London, meanwhile, is awash with sensationally questionable Russian money and people who service it, including those in the House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tate-whitewash

How did this all come about? It dates back to the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and she declared the UK 'open for business'. Lifting controls on the circulation of capital, the ownership of property and the right to invest in UK firms and infrasructure, many 'foreign capialists' flooded London with cash. For 'Conservative' Anne Phillips, this resulted in the Arab money that transformed previously moribund Edgware Road into 'Londonistan' -a succession of groceries, Middle Eastern eateries (most owned by the same Lebanese businessman), and the cafes frequented by wannabee or actual 'Jihadis' (as Phillips might claim), while Mayfair and Chelsea went Russian.

The Chinese came later, but splashed the cash to the enduring gratiude of estate agents and 'businessmen' too lazy or indifferent to invest in their own country, so now (let[s not mention Huawei) China owns-
-25% of North Sea oil production
-Chinese steel company Jngye now owns British Steel
-Hong Kong based MTR owns 30% of South Western Railway and a % of Crossrail
-owns 30% of Hinckley Point C nuclear power station (which refurbished will provide 7% of UK energy).

So much for free trade, given that few other states, such as the US allow foreign direct investment to own at the levels the UK allows -now the UK is being asked to give the US 100% access to UK markets in exchange for what, in the US -5% access?

The fundametal problem is that we don't know if this 'clean money' or if the UK has just become a giant laundry for money stolen from the people of Russia/Ukraine/China/Azerbaijan -name the rest as you please.
And its not as if the majority of the British people see any benefit from this 'trade'.

But the money is all that matters, which is why the Russians get away with it, like Putin's Appentice in the Oval Office, deepening divisions in the US at home, weakening the USA's influence abroad, for who else benefits? And who, remkind me again, is Felix Sater?

For a relatively minor economic power with a lot of land and nuclear weapons, Russia exerts an extraordinary influence on world affairs -but only Russia is better off as a result of its intrepid trips.

A lot of speculation in the media about Russia's military,100,000 strong we are told, massing on the border with Ukraine, and not just for the 'war games' they held there over the weekend. NATO went to Moscow for talks with the Russian Foreign Ministry, though both sides seem to talk down an actual war. Putin views Ukraine as a 'Domestic' issue in the same way that China views Taiwan, and it is no secret that Russia does not want neighbouring States such as Ukraine and Belarus in NATO, though at one time early on in his first phase as Russian President, Putin did consider taking Russia into NATO.

The news has pointed out that with oil over $43 a barrell, Russia can afford to fight a short war, but would find extra sanctions difficult in the long term. Russia has decreased its dependency on foreign direct investment and has built up its Gold reserves, but the real questions are what a full invasion of Ukraine would achieve, and how an 'integrated' Ukraine would be managed if the majority of the population are opposed to it.

So there are still unanswered questions, and maybe Putin is just arsing about to see how 'we' react.

Anyone think there will be a war? Or some Russian moves on Ukraine?

I have no idea what is going to happen in Ukraine, but it going to be fascinating to see the contortions on the Republican side given Trump's history of sycophancy towards Putin. Obviously, it's all Biden's fault, but they can't seem to agree on whether it's because he's been too weak or because he's provoking Putin by backing Ukraine.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...putin?ref=home
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=uxbndlbing

You have to wonder about the mentality of someone like Tucker Carlson who appears to have more sympathy for a ruthless, bullying autocrat than for the smaller and more democratic country he is threatening. Not surprising though, given he's a big fan of autocrats as long as they are white nationalists. There's no doubt that this guy thinks race should take precedence over economics.
https://www.vox.com/22904444/tucker-...entary-special

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I have no idea what is going to happen in Ukraine, but it going to be fascinating to see the contortions on the Republican side given Trump's history of sycophancy towards Putin. Obviously, it's all Biden's fault, but they can't seem to agree on whether it's because he's been too weak or because he's provoking Putin by backing Ukraine.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...putin?ref=home
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=uxbndlbing

You have to wonder about the mentality of someone like Tucker Carlson who appears to have more sympathy for a ruthless, bullying autocrat than for the smaller and more democratic country he is threatening. Not surprising though, given he's a big fan of autocrats as long as they are white nationalists. There's no doubt that this guy thinks race should take precedence over economics.
https://www.vox.com/22904444/tucker-...entary-special

---

You know what Reagan or Bush Sr. would have done? They'd have pulled Ukraine into NATO in defiance of Putin, and put so many Air Force bases there that Russia would be begging us to stay out of Crimea. Trump might have done something similar, but more on base impulse than wise counsel. But now maybe you're starting to see the problem of having a laughably weak President. Suddenly it's a problem for Europe too. To quote Stavros, funny ol' world innit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Obviously, it's all Biden's fault, but they can't seem to agree on whether it's because he's been too weak or because he's provoking Putin by backing Ukraine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

We have a President spoiling for war with Russia to bring his approval rating up to nominal

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

You know what Reagan or Bush Sr. would have done? They'd have pulled Ukraine into NATO in defiance of Putin, and put so many Air Force bases there that Russia would be begging us to stay out of Crimea. Trump might have done something similar, but more on base impulse than wise counsel. But now maybe you're starting to see the problem of having a laughably weak President. Suddenly it's a problem for Europe too. To quote Stavros, funny ol' world innit?

---

And sometimes they can't even agree within the same mind. Or is this Attachment 1362905

I see that Putin's poodle is claiming this would not be happening if he was still President. No doubt that's right because he would have given Putin what he wants.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oy-troops.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

And sometimes they can't even agree within the same mind. Or is this Attachment 1362905

I see that Putin's poodle is claiming this would not be happening if he was still President. No doubt that's right because he would have given Putin what he wants.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oy-troops.html

---

Your brain is fried, Flighty, you've been locked down too long. Obviously the aggressive move would be the way to AVOID war - make it impossible for Putin to invade Ukraine without declaring war on the entirety of Western civilization. Maybe in your school days you remember something called the Cuban Missile Crisis? Appeasement is the path to war. Resolute action and clear boundaries render all threats untenable.

Putin will get what he wants. He's playing chess, Biden's playing patty-cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I have no idea what is going to happen in Ukraine, but it going to be fascinating to see the contortions on the Republican side given Trump's history of sycophancy towards Putin. Obviously, it's all Biden's fault, but they can't seem to agree on whether it's because he's been too weak or because he's provoking Putin by backing Ukraine.


You have to wonder about the mentality of someone like Tucker Carlson who appears to have more sympathy for a ruthless, bullying autocrat than for the smaller and more democratic country he is threatening. Not surprising though, given he's a big fan of autocrats as long as they are white nationalists. There's no doubt that this guy thinks race should take precedence over economics.

---

Someone on the radio argued that Putin is not much of a chess player, and says he is more like a poker player. The point being Putin has short term strategic aims but no long terms ones, and thus plays a hand and often seeks to deceive his opponents.

I think there is a broader issue here, which is why Putin thinks Russia is threatened by the US and Western Europe or NATO if you prefer. Does he think there is an invasion plan -as if the record of Napoleon and Hitler has not put that into the dustbin of hisory? During the Cold War, the scenario presented to NATO allies was of an aggressive USSR prepared to march out of East Germany and Czechoslovakia with no deep thinking as to how the USSR was going to both achieve this and maintain its rule. The idea that local Communist Parties would spring into action betrayed an ignorance of their support in key countries, such as Italy and France, so I never understood the argument having any coherence, other than providing the Military with a Strategic Plan that required Government spending on arms.

The irony is, and Putin knows this, that the 'invasion' happened on Yeltsn's watch, and took the form of global corporations investing in Russia's dilapidated infrastructure. By 1991, the oil and gas industry was barely at the level the UK and US had been in 1970, with untold riches under the earth, the Russians had no option but to accept the billions that Exxon, Shell and BP could pour into the country. The Oligarchs who bought existing Russian companies at the time had zero interest in the industry, but purchased these assets on the basis someone else would develop/overhaul them and reap even more money than they made from lending each other cash on the basis of some future return. And this is a key fact: Putin welcomed the investment.

The problem emerged after the industry had been dragged into the 21st century and Putin saw vast profits being repatriated to the US and Europe. Moreover, the changes that had been taking place in Russian society made his political position insecure, hence his relentless pursuit of opposition politicians. Like many leaders who have been in office too long, he became reluctant to give up his power, was probably integrated into organized crime -predating the collapse of the USSR- and felt the need to 'break out' of Russia in the same way Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler felt Germany had been compressed into Europe but had lost out elsewhere in the world.

Crucial to this turn too, was Putin's belief he had been deceived by NATO through the overthrow of Qadhafi in Libya and was determined not to let the West do the same to Asad in Syria. He felt Russia had been made to look llike the weak link in global security, and threw in his lot with one of the most vicious regimes in the world, but in doing so extended Russia's reach into the Middle East, where it remains an expensive project with no apparent outcome so far other than the permanent subsidy of Asad's criminal government.

So to some extent, the NATO allies provoked Russia, and Russia has responded. I am not sure NATO needs to take Ukraine into its fold, it can hardly be expected to pay its share given the state of its economy. Finland has not joined NATO and enjoys the reputation for being the nicest state in Europe if also one of the coldest, in Winter. For all his bravado, I think Putin is in the weakest position, because while the oil price remains high enough to fund his adventures, it can't last, and the Russian economy has suffered from sanctions, and Putin would not want to become dependent on China at any level.

So the prospect of a war seems fraught with too many costs and unknown outcomes. That said, I think Putin enjoys seeing NATO dancing to his tune.

As for Carlson, he is one of those Americans who has given up on the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, and believes only strong leadership in the US can defeat the left, the 'radical' left, the Marxists and whoever else keeps him awake at night. Or it just bullshit, he knows it is bullshit, but loves, like Putin, to see his critics dancing to his tuneless rants, the only sound he enjoys being the jingle of coins in Murdoch's pocket, where Carlson seems to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Obviously the aggressive move would be the way to AVOID war - make it impossible for Putin to invade Ukraine without declaring war on the entirety of Western civilization. Maybe in your school days you remember something called the Cuban Missile Crisis? Appeasement is the path to war. Resolute action and clear boundaries render all threats untenable.

---

I'm sure you didn't learn this at school, but the reason the Cuban missile crisis was resolved was that Kennedy secretly agreed on a quid pro quo with Krushchev where the US would withdraw it's missiles from Turkey in return for the Russians pulling their missiles out of Cuba. It was the previous US deployment of these missiles that prompted the Russians to send missiles to Cuba. So arguably it was resolved by appeasement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...crisis/309190/

Perhaps you didn't read the link I posted, but your man Trump does not seem to agree with your viewpoint.
"Former President Donald Trump said the US should not be involved in the Ukraine-Russian crisis, calling it a 'European problem' after Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to hold talks with Germany, France and Ukraine while Joe Biden said he would deploy troops to the area 'in the near term' without backing from NATO.

Speaking with conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Saturday, Trump said the US should keep out of Europe but doubted Germany could help broker a peace agreement due to its gas dependence with Russia through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Someone on the radio argued that Putin is not much of a chess player, and says he is more like a poker player. The point being Putin has short term strategic aims but no long terms ones, and thus plays a hand and often seeks to deceive his opponents.

---

Surely his objective is to recreate the Soviet sphere of domination, and thereby go down in history as a great man? It also helps divert attention from domestic problems that are weighing on his popularity. Rather than a fragile economy hampering his ambitions, I think it actually increases the incentive to take more risks.

Maybe it's not a realistic goal, but the reason history is full of examples of over-optimistic expansion plans is that people don't learn the lesson. There seems to be something in the psychology of autocrats that they can't be satisfied with dominating only their own country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm sure you didn't learn this at school, but the reason the Cuban missile crisis was resolved was that Kennedy secretly agreed on a quid pro quo with Krushchev where the US would withdraw it's missiles from Turkey in return for the Russians pulling their missiles out of Cuba. It was the previous US deployment of these missiles that prompted the Russians to send missiles to Cuba. So arguably it was resolved by appeasement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...crisis/309190/

Perhaps you didn't read the link I posted, but your man Trump does not seem to agree with your viewpoint.
"Former President Donald Trump said the US should not be involved in the Ukraine-Russian crisis, calling it a 'European problem' after Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to hold talks with Germany, France and Ukraine while Joe Biden said he would deploy troops to the area 'in the near term' without backing from NATO.

Speaking with conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Saturday, Trump said the US should keep out of Europe but doubted Germany could help broker a peace agreement due to its gas dependence with Russia through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal."

---

I didn't read that, but it's interesting. On the other hand who knows what Trump would do. Right now he's out there on his own with no advisors just hamming it up. I don't really have a preference here, it's just a game of brinksmanship between Putin and Biden, which Biden will lose. Far as Ukraine itself goes, they're a raw materials country, iron and steel and such, and we don't need anything from them, nor do we have any cultural ties there. I mean hell, much as I hate to admit it, Trump may be right. On the other hand, if I were in Eastern Europe, I'd probably have very strong opinions about whether we should allow Putin to waltz right in there.

Sovereignty is a funny thing. Some people's sovereignty seems to matter to the international community, others not so much. The key factor always seems to relate to whether or not they produce oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Surely his objective is to recreate the Soviet sphere of domination, and thereby go down in history as a great man? It also helps divert attention from domestic problems that are weighing on his popularity. Rather than a fragile economy hampering his ambitions, I think it actually increases the incentive to take more risks.

Maybe it's not a realistic goal, but the reason history is full of examples of over-optimistic expansion plans is that people don't learn the lesson. There seems to be something in the psychology of autocrats that they can't be satisfied with dominating only their own country.

---

Indeed, the Eurasian Economic Union has been in development since 2015, and while Ukraine was not initially part of it, I think we must assume Putin wants Ukraine inside rather than out. And unless Ukraine thinks it can 'stand alone' or grow closer to the European Union, I assume it faces a dilemma in terms of its own economic development. But if this is the case, it begs the question -why use military force? If there is an economic/trading logic to being part of the Eurasian Economic Union, it would not need guns and bombs to achieve. But maybe Ukraine doesn't see itself as a 'Eurasian' country?

"The Eurasian Economic Union is an institution formalized in January 2015 for the purpose of regional economic integration; it includes five countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan, and may include Mongolia and Tajikistan in the future. With a GDP of $1.59 trillion in 2015, an industrial production of $1.3 trillion in 2014, and population of almost 200 million as of 2016, the EEAU could represent a geopolitical success that supports both Putin's ambitious political agenda and the Union's economic prospects. Although the efforts of this Union are ongoing and long-term success is not certain, the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union can be considered a hybrid half-economics and half-political “Janus Bifrons” that serves as a powerful illustration of what Putin envisions for the post-Soviet space. Despite promising steps so far, more should be done toward the achievement of economic development and balanced opportunity for all Eurasian countries. Russia's longstanding role within the Union, as well as its power and political motivations, are all considerations that must be accounted for."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...79366517300258

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

You know what Reagan or Bush Sr. would have done? They'd have pulled Ukraine into NATO in defiance of Putin, and put so many Air Force bases there that Russia would be begging us to stay out of Crimea. Trump might have done something similar, but more on base impulse than wise counsel. But now maybe you're starting to see the problem of having a laughably weak President. Suddenly it's a problem for Europe too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I didn't read that, but it's interesting. On the other hand who knows what Trump would do. Right now he's out there on his own with no advisors just hamming it up. I don't really have a preference here, it's just a game of brinksmanship between Putin and Biden, which Biden will lose. Far as Ukraine itself goes, they're a raw materials country, iron and steel and such, and we don't need anything from them, nor do we have any cultural ties there. I mean hell, much as I hate to admit it, Trump may be right.

---

That reminds me of this article
https://theconversation.com/american...-stands-130370
"Participants were asked whether they supported the current policy, which was that the U.S. would take no additional military action against Iran. While 70% of Democrats agreed, only 37% of Republicans concurred.

Those surveyed were then told that the policy of refraining from additional military action was Donald Trump’s decision. Support for the policy of restraint fell among Democrats to 58%, but jumped to 81% among Republicans once they learned it was what Trump wanted."

Funny ol' world innit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

That reminds me of this article
https://theconversation.com/american...-stands-130370
"Participants were asked whether they supported the current policy, which was that the U.S. would take no additional military action against Iran. While 70% of Democrats agreed, only 37% of Republicans concurred.

Those surveyed were then told that the policy of refraining from additional military action was Donald Trump’s decision. Support for the policy of restraint fell among Democrats to 58%, but jumped to 81% among Republicans once they learned it was what Trump wanted."

Funny ol' world innit

---

Well Flighty, unlike you, I'm not going to act as if I know what the best foreign policy is. You seem to be trying to convince me that I've contradicted myself somehow, when all I'm doing is speculating about how other world leaders would handle this situation. As I'm sure you'll agree, there is 100% no telling what Trump would do. At this point he's simply going to contradict everything Joe Biden does, if he were President he might do something completely different, ALTHOUGH, his "America First" policy trope would agree with keeping hands off Ukraine.

The problem isn't what Trump would do or what leaders from the past would do, it's what Biden is actually doing right now. The guy is totally clueless, is he going to intervene, is he going to allow a certain level of incursion (you surely remember that famous gaffe), and if he does intervene is it going to be economically or militarily? I'll tell you right now, he doesn't know. Because he doesn't have a plan, he has made zero decisions, which is fine if you want to allow the situation to degenerate into a clusterfuck. Does he give a shit what happens to Ukraine or not? And if so or if not, what action is he going to take or not going to take? That's the exact opposite of leadership, what he's doing right now. Literally the entire planet is waiting for him to simply make up his fucking mind. What a fucking loser.

Attachment 1363181

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

At this point my sole interest is in griping about everything Joe Biden does. I don't care if I know nothing about the issue and have no coherent viewpoint. I'm boring and limited, so what else do you expect?

---

Noted, and I'll try not to forget again. It looks like nobody else is interested in responding to you, so I guess that's it from you.
Attachment 1363297

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Noted, and I'll try not to forget again. It looks like nobody else is interested in responding to you, so I guess that's it from you.
Attachment 1363297

---

Yeah that's twice you used the "canceled" joke, Flighty, which is reminiscent of the rest of the garbage you regurgitate straight off CNN. I'll be leaving for Germany in a couple days, so you probably are rid of me, I don't intend to spend my hard-earned leisure time arguing with you lot of foreign instigators. But don't go acting as if I've been shut down by your liberal enlightenment here, Flighty, or I'll come back to haunt you. I haven't heard much that makes even a little sense from any liberal on this board, which reflects the problem with the larger liberal community - being 100% full of shit.

Attachment 1363383

Although I allowed this thead to morph from Russia's 'dirty money' in the UK into the current situation threatening peace in the Ukraine, I think the original issue is now back on the front page, given the warning to Russia's Oligarchs by 'Luxury' Liz Truss, our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-

"On Monday, Liz Truss warned Russia’s oligarchs that there will be “nowhere to hide” their dirty money in London."

Rather than waste time contrasting the ineffective 'Right is Might' tactic posd against a supposedly 'Liberal' 'let's talk' one when dealing with the Russians (and neither Republicans nor Democrats in the US can claim their tactics have changed the world), we end up following the money.

From the quote above I recommend this examination, with the fun fact that on my way to work in the City of London all those years ago, I passed the Moscow Narodny Bank on the north side of London Bridge, and that with my first wages, I opened an account with the Midland Bank.
https://unherd.com/2022/02/how-brita...ns-playground/

As for Boris, a man who demonstrably loves to spend other people's money, how serious is he going to be if it denies him all-expenses paid holidays in other people's villas, dinners in other peope's luxury homes, and links to the really big money that swivels his eyeballs into dollar signs?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/24...garch-problem/

If I link the above with the OP, then the issue at stake will be the sanctions that the US, the EU, the UK and their allies impose on Tsar Putin. The problem is that according to the opposition leader of Belarus, Putin has been building cash reserves of $600 billion, so my guess is that his response to the question -What are you going to do if I formally annexe Luhanks and Donetsk into Russia -sanctions?' would be, 'So what?'.

There is a theory in international relations that stretches back to those other days of Empire -the British one in particular- when two apostles of capitalism argued that states that trade with each other don't war with each other. It took a cenury for this justification for Globalization to materialize, but as in the 19th century the political ambitions of the Germans undermined Cobden and Bright's 'Capitalism as Peace', so the benefits of Globalization in the late 20th century appear to have been traded away, so to speak, for the poitical ambitions of Tsar Putin, and those two other Emperors of the blind -Xi in China, and Modi in India.

Putin is sore because so many non-Russians made staggering sums of money from their investment in what, in 1990, was a technologically backward, financially chaotic, politically repressed and economically underdeveloped country. Indeed, Putin himself when he took over from Yeltsin welcomed this investment, for the simple reason that he helped himself to a lot of it, becoming according to some people, the richest man in the world, richer even than Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the sort of man who can pay $1,000 for a kahwa and it doesn't bother him.

At some point, probably in the wake of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein but developing in nuclei before that, an idea occurred to him -Russia First! (Hmm that sounds familiar...).
The Munich Conference in 2007 is now taken to be the moment when Putin indicated Russia was not going to honour the various agreements that had been signed, either by Gorbachev in the declining days of the USSR, or by Yeltsin and indeed, himself. A useful overview of this can be found here-
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-2007-00009918

What puzzles me is that while Putin can use the 'Defend Russia!' argument for domestic consumption, he may never feel the impact of sanctions, but the Russian people will. Moreover, what is the point of annexing territory if the people there don't benefit? I am not sure if the residents of the Crimea are happier now to be in Russia than the Ukraine, but the Russians have not invsted much in Transnistria or South Ossetia or Abkhazia (the latter two in Georgia) which they annexed, so the irony is that where Trade was seen as the motor of a beneficial relationship rather than politics, it appear that it is the Politics which is in Command, as Mao once put it, and nothing else matters.

China, we can assume, will support Putin because his annexations of the Ukraine which he says is really Russia anyway, is no different from Xi claiiming Taiwan is merely an island off the coast of China, rather like the Isle of Wight is to the UK. Modi in India may jump the wrong way too, as his priority in India has been to do all he can to obliterate the Muslim presence there short of the mass extermination of Muslims, though quite a few get bumped off in rural areas by Hindu Nationaists for whom there is no distinction between India and the Hindu, with equally negative consequences for India's Christians.

So maybe the apostles of Trade -and later, in the US, Global Interdependence (Keohane and Nye) were right, and Nations that Trade with Each Other Don't War With Each Other. But if Trade is either relegated to a secondary position, or used itself as a weapon of war, as Trump tried to do, then the era of peace is over, and we are at war again, even if it is not a shooting war and we don't say goodbye to sons and daughters at the airport, the train station or the Docks.

And what is it all for? Money? Pride? Territory? As Israel has had to learn, there is no triumph, no benefit in annexing territory for the state if those living in it don't benefit and loathe the state that has taken over. So we don't yet know how this will evolve, how far Putin will go to extend Russian power, but we do know sanctions will follow, and that the only people who will suffer most from those sanctions will be the very same people 'we' don't want to hurt.

Here is another thought. When following the Russian money trail, which runs through Switzerland and the City of London, one inevitably ends up in Trump's pockets. It may have begun in the 1980s, it certainly was cemented with Trump's relationship with Felix Sater, while both Trump Jr and Skittles have both confirmed the crucial role played in their wealth by the Russians, as the latter stated -
“We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...nt-golf-course

More here-
https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...18-2?r=US&IR=T

We know that the Trump campaign held over 100 meetings with Russians close to or supporters of Putin in 2016, that the Trump campaign knew that the US was under attack from the Russians, but instead of informing the FBI and the CIA of these known facts, chose to support the Russian attack on the US, Trump himself begging the Russians twice in one day to attack his country proving beyond doubt that he not only broke US election law, but that he was and remains a traitor to the USA.

Question now is, what did Trump and Putin discuss in their private meetings, the records of which have never been made public. Moreover, even if there is a US transcript, Trump may have -illegally- destroyed it to cover up his knowledge of Putin's intentions, and indeed, because it confirms that breaking the global supply chain of commodities in order to 'repatriate' production and jobs from Asia to the US, is part of the economic nationalism on which both Putin and Trump agree. Trump also thinks he can destroy or hoard as many Presidential documents as he wants to, having absolutely no interest in maintaing the rule of law in the US. In this instance, rather like Putin in Russia, one can almost hear Trump say out loud I am the Law.

Trump may well be having a good laugh at Biden's predicament, knowing in advance it was going to happen, that he supported it, and that to protect the flow of Russian money into his pockets, he has chosen to go with the money rather than his country, and that concept, the one that makes Trump go red with rage, freedom. After all, he was himself prepared to bribe and bully the Ukraine for his own political ends. Looks like those ends just met in the Middle.

Don, meet Vlad. And here's ten bucks for your taxi fare.

Right on cue, here come the judge-

"Mr Trump said in an interview on Tuesday that he admired "tough cookie" Mr Putin, describing his latest move as "genius".
"Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine as independent. That's wonderful. How smart is that? This is genius," he told The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.
"I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He's got a lot of great charm and a lot of pride. He loves his country."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-tru...231334390.html

Charm? Of all things people have said about Putin, Charm never made it before.

So, Don, you 'know him very well'...care to exand on that?

"Moments after Russia announced a military operation in Ukraine, former US president Donald Trump once again praised president Vladimir Putin’s move as “smart” at an event in Florida and subsequently appeared on Fox News to blame the invasion on a “rigged election”.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-unde...062006966.html

- Would it not be more relevant to say that Putin has regarded Brexit weakening, and dividing Europe against itself? It is not as if Boris Johnson has imposed tough sanctions on Russia. The Swift banking arrangements are in place, the Russians who fund the Conservative Party are not at risk because they are on the UK Electors Register -how did they get there? Er....jingle-jangle...

-So Putin says the leaders of the Russian backed 'autonomous' regions of Luhansk and Donetsk appealed for Russian help to stop Ukraine attacking them. It might not be 'Genocide', but is it strange that Ukraine attack these two fragmets of the Ukraine that was seized with military violence that has not stopped since it started in 2014?

-I can see the miitary logic of occuping an extended area west of Donetsk and Luhansk, but does Russia intend a full annexation of Ukraine or use its military might to force a change of regime in Ukraine, with Zelensky replaced by a compliant servant of Putin?

-Could Putin conceivaby ask Donald Trump to move from Florida to Kyiv and be his Man of the Moment? The job comes tax-free, which should be music to Don's ears.

A useful if limited overview of the Rusian economy, which doesn't mention Russia's other mineral resources such as Palladium and Platinum which feed European and American industry (see second link). In the long term, decreasing the role fossil fuels have in our economies will to some extent undermine this important source of Russian wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...kely-sanctions

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/preci...203055180.html

Another thoughtful article on sanctions and the Russian economy (you may need to sign in to read it)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-ukraine-putin

If Putin's objectives run into Ukrainian resistance, this may only lead Putin to increase his assault, using Thermobaric missiles, which some consider to be just a notch below nuclear-(if it asks you to register just refresh the page)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2023880.html

The loss of life that results from any military conflict is seriously concerning but there is an additional layer of concern. I heard someone put it this way: Russia is a nuclear superpower but they aren't a superpower in terms of conventional military power (state of the art weaponry, training, and tactics). When they realize that they can't easily take Kyiv or break the will of the Ukrainians they will have to turn to more desperate measures to achieve their objectives. This means carpet-bombings of civilian areas and thermobaric missiles as you point out. In short, a worsening array of war crimes.

I'm not convinced that Putin is any kind of mastermind or tactician but he is ruthless and desperate and looking and sounding increasingly unhinged. Chechnyan leader Kadyrov is said to be sending in more than 10,000 Chechnyan soldiers to assist Putin. We'll see what each day brings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I heard someone put it this way: Russia is a nuclear superpower but they aren't a superpower in terms of conventional military power (state of the art weaponry, training, and tactics). When they realize that they can't easily take Kyiv or break the will of the Ukrainians they will have to turn to more desperate measures to achieve their objectives. This means carpet-bombings of civilian areas and thermobaric missiles as you point out. In short, a worsening array of war crimes.

---

Good points, because what puzzles some commentators in the press, is not just the apparent failure of Putin to secure a quick victory in Ukraine, even with the help of Belarus, but that if he does succeed in his objectives, the assumption is that the Ukraine will become 'ungoverable' without a permanent military presence and that this involves great costs financially as well as politically, not least because he does not appear to be winning the propaganda war back in Russia. But if he does not stamp Russian power on Ukraine without force, including the lethal force you refer to, how will he be able to hold onto it?

One interesting aside, is the extent to which your fellow Americans are blaming Biden for this crisis, citing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and Biden's appearance as a 'weak' President and thus a 'weak America'. One notes that the same President who refused to support Zelensky and in effect, attempted to bribe him by withholding military assistance to Ukraine, now says he supports him, but other than brag about his own non-achievements, he hasn't told the US what in fact he would do to end this crisis. And this from a man who says he knows Putin 'very, very well'.

But if you live in the UK, whatever role Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan might have played, it is the European perspective that matters most.

Looking west, Putin will have seen a Germany less certain of itself now Angela Merkel has retired, we may even speculate he waited for her to leave before acting because, as one might say, he 'knows her very well' and might have calculated she would be tougher on Russia than Scholtz. He would also have seen an EU divided against itself in regard to its internal disputes with Poland and Hungary, though Orban in Hungary has not only not supported him but advocated a strong EU response. Whether or not he waited unti

And he will have seen an EU weakened by Brexit, with the UK declining into an isolated, weak and divided country irrelevant to his European ambitions. In addition, perhaps even crucially, he twice attacked the UK with chemical weapons, and the response was a manageable bunch of sanctions none of which deterred him from annexing the Crimea and two eastern Provinces of Ukraine, murdering or attempting to murder his opposition in Russia.

Thus, to your Republican whining about Biden, I offer you the worthless garbage that Boris Johnson said in the House of Commons last Wednesday, just days after bragging about the UK's record on Covid without mentioning the catastrophic deaths of the elderly in care homes, for which so far nobody has been held accountable; the higher fatality rate from Covid per capita compared to our European neighbours, for which there has been no accountability; and the staggering sums of money that Covid cost, something like £4-5 Billion paid out to 'firms' that no longer exist, if they ever did, whose names we are now told we may never know. Rather like Trump telling CPAC one day he will reveal what he and Putin talked about in Helsinki, as if it the US was in such a dire condition 'it can't handle the truth' rght now. Two men, both of them cowards. Is it any wonder Putin felt emboldened to act now?

So if you blame Biden, I can blame Boris.

But is it not, in the end, Putin convinced he can get away with anything without any serious repercussions that has led him into the Ukraine, and that it is his Hubris that may have started the beginning of the end of his tenure in the Presidency in Russia? Instead of being remembered in history as a 'Great Russian', he risks becoming just another loser. The sooner the better.

The Russian are losing badly and taking huge catastrophic losses

Beware lots of Russian Dead bodies, burned bodies , mutilated Bodies from antitank missiles ect..

https://thisvid.space/NoseWintry

Attachment 1367056Attachment 1367059Attachment 1367058Attachment 1367061Attachment 1367057Attachment 1367060

So far the Russians are facing a level of resistance they did not expect, but they are not losing. Their war has only just begun. Given how they laid waste to Chechnya, their record in Syria, what hope is there for any restraint in Ukraine. Not least when the Russians describe the country having been taken over by 'Nationalists' and 'Nazis' -? The latter term being particularly insulting when Zelensky is Jewish, and the attack on Kyiv yesterday was on a TV mast overooking Babi Yar -coincidence?

Yevtusheko wrote a stunnng poem on it, Shostakovich set it to music in his 13th Symphony, and here is the historical record-

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article...ainian-history

Yevtushenko's poem-

https://www-tc.pbs.org/auschwitz/lea...reading1.4.pdf

David Edgerton, author of a provocative (in a postive sense) book -The Rise and Fall of the British Nation (2018 ), has written an article that argues convincgly that 'Sanctions' are another form of war. I don't think there is much controversial about that.

I also think it is important to think more deeply about sanctions, because sometimes they work, but at other times they do not, and as he points out, the current sanctions on Russia do not affect their sales of oil and wheat, though that might be due to the even more negative impact such sanctions would have on the price of oil and food, as well as disruptions to an already 'challenged' global supply chain.

For example, when the British Government imposed sanctions on Iran in 1951 as punishment for the nationalization of the country's oil and gas industry, the impact was devastating -but that is because the sanctions were so effective Iran could not sell its oil on world markets, smaller than today and controlled at the time by the 'Seven Sisters' of which Anglo-Iranian (later, BP) was one- and because the country had no other source of income comparable to its petroleum, for which some blame can be made to nationalist leader Musadeq.
Sanctions against South Africa did not prevent it from importing oil from the Gulf, just as sanctions against Sadddam Hussein actually enabled him to make money from illegal sales, whlle the sanctions against Venezuela or Cuba have merely led to them form economic relations outside the 'capitalist west', admittedly at great cost, and with little regard by the leaders for the fate of their citizens.

Thus Russia can to some extent survive if China steps in, and right now that is the major issue, one that Edgerton does not consider, indeed, how China acts could be crucial to Putin's survival, as some commentators suggest China be asked to mediate in 'peace talks' designed to stop the war, and find a 'face-saving' formula that Russia can accept. Pakistan's trade deal with Russia is hardly going to change the world, let alone South Asia.

Sadly, Edgerton's intellect does not impress me on one point, and it is odd for an economic historian to make -

"Russia too has been sanctioned since 2014. But sanctions have probably not been the worst causes of economic collapse. Russia, after 1989, lost perhaps half its GDP per capita, which did not return to Soviet levels until around 2005. This economic catastrophe created Putinism."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-war-sanctions

This is rubbish. When Yeltsin took over from Gorbachev in 1991 the Russian economy was on its knees after decades of economic mismanagement. The three independent oil companies that moved in to take stakes in the Russian industry -Exxon, Shell and BP- were invited in, and were desperately needed because the Russian industry had not been modernized, it was still using equipment that was built in the 1930s. Yes, in return for their capital investment in the upstream and downstream resources, these three companies made fabulousn profits -but the lion's share went to their Russian partners, so that when Putin took over from Yeltsin in January 2000, he was keen to ensure this partnership continued, creaming off how much from the profits we don't know. At some point, I think around 2009-10 Putin decided enough was enough and with the Russian industry robust enough, forced the three Anglo-Dutch-American companies to halve their stakes, but here is the key point that undermines Edgerton's -

The Russian owners of the oil and gas industry, and indeed the other industries, made enough profit to completely overhaul Russian infrastucture and society. By 2005 there were no excuses for the failure of these men to invest in their own country, but what did they do? They shipped much of their wealth out of the country into real estate or football clubs in Europe or the US, or parked billions in offshore accounts.

What created 'Putinism' was Putin, and it is hypocrtical of him to complain about the staggering wealth of the Oligarchs when he is the richest of them all.

Think about it -everyone around Putin was making money, and then Ukraine in 2014 had enough of the corruption and mismanagement of their country, and the 'Maidan Revolution' changed the game. It was not sanctions that created Putin, but Putin who created santions. It was Ukraine's adoption of democracy that threatened Putin, as well as the attempt to squeeze the balls of the Oligarchs all of whom needed to even craved Putin's blessing to operate in Russia. The result was the annexation of the Crimea, the chopping off in eastern Ukraine of 'Donetsk' and 'Luhansk' which Russian apologists will tell you were regions where 'ethnic Russians' were being discriminated against, even tortured and killed by the 'regime' in Kyiv, the same one which Donald Trump attempted to bribe for his own personal reasons.

And would Donald Trump ever have become President without Russia, or Putin, or both?

This is why this is called a war of 'Putin's Choice'. If there were genuine problems with Ukrainians and Russians in the east, was war and violence the only solution? No, this is Putin with all the money in the world, deciding the time has come to become a God, like Caesar Augustus, not satisfied with mortal rewards, just as Peter the Great built his city and left Russia and the world one of its most beautiful, which the Nazis could not destroy, but which Putin has dragged into the dirt.

It seems to me the reason that there's fighting right now is because there is no diplomatic option if things are the way they appear. I don't believe Russia was merely concerned about NATO having borders with Russia or any kind of encroachment on its sovereignty. But Putin does not recognize Ukraine as sovereign, does not respect its territorial integrity, and would not stop if he is allowed to annex Ukraine which he should not be allowed to do. He believes he is entitled to annex any former Soviet country.

I am of course frightened of the possibility of nuclear war, which any rational person should be, but a cynical person can use the threat of an apocalyptic war to get one concession at a time and expand its territory. The world cannot repel a nuclear country without some risk of doom. And it cannot simply allow a nuclear country to annex one country after another. It's worse that this country is Russia and it offers nothing to the world except creeping totalitarianism which it is imposing within its own borders. There's nothing there but misery for its own citizens and any country it occupies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I am of course frightened of the possibility of nuclear war, which any rational person should be, but a cynical person can use the threat of an apocalyptic war to get one concession at a time and expand its territory. The world cannot repel a nuclear country without some risk of doom. And it cannot simply allow a nuclear country to annex one country after another.

---

I wonder if there are strategic minds in Washington DC who are actively looking at an engagement, on the basis that it is precisely what Putin believes, or gambles on not happening. The view may be emboldened by the apparent failure of the Russian military to execute a 'lightning strike' leading to a relatively painless and inexpensive takeovee of Ukraine, given that most of the damage so far has been inflicted by long range artillery and aerial bombardment. For most of his tenure in Moscow, Putin has tested the resolve of the European and Americans to see how far he can go before they react, and though the sanctions now are far more extensive and damaging than he probably expected, he remains sure that this is as far as the 'west' will go. The problems for the 'west' is that the longer it goes on, the more desperate Putin may become, both in terms of the savagery of his attack on the Ukraine, and the potential for the conflict to spill ove into, say, Finland or Poland or a neighbouring state.

So, is it militarily possible for the US/NATO to strike Russian targets on the basis Putin will not be prepared and that if it comes to it, the reality of using strategic or even tactical nuclear weapons would be too much for Putin to bear? He seems to have boxed himself into a 'no way out' mentality which is why it is hard to see what a diplomatic solution would look like, given that I don't think either Zelensky or the US would accept a compromise where the war ends, but with more segments of Ukraine 'independent' under Russian control.

Would you support the US extending its support for Ukraine into an 'active mission' there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Would you support the US extending its support for Ukraine into an 'active mission' there?

---

I think not. I don't think Putin is suicidal but I don't want to test it either. I'm not all that confident about what should be done. I do think Putin has decided to play this dangerous game and can't be allowed to do whatever he wants but I still worry about escalation and think an active mission into Ukraine by the US might do that.

Maybe we get lucky and the sanctions combined with Ukraine's tougher than expected resistance have Putin looking for an off ramp.

But if war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means, are sanctions not the continuation of war by othe means? In other words, the US/NATO is at war wth Russia, just not using military ordnance.

I have read the argument that negotiations which lead to Ukraine declaring itself neutral will satisfy Russia, but I don't think so. I think in Putin's mind, 'neutralizing' Ukraine means destroying it, that is, levelling its buildings, smashing its infrastructure to pieces, killing and injuring its men, women and children, rendering it incapable of being anything other than a giant graveyard. Why should he care about the place? It will still be on the map when it is all over.

Moreover, as I have argued before, creating a refugee crisis is a positive result for Russia if it sows division in eastern Europe, and by extension the European Union, which Russia successfuly destabilized with its influence on the Brexit Referendum, through the agency of Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, Andy Wigmore and Cambridge Analytica.

Farage seems to have trouble remembering when he praised Putin, as he now thinks the end is nigh for his Russian idol. This has also become a problem for Americans like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, whose political judgments have exposed what nauseating hypocrites these men are, whereas Marjoie Taylor Greene did not stray into Nick Fuentes' New Wave Fascist rally where they chanted 'Putin! Putin!' by accident. She chose that particuar pigsty, because Putin is the fearless champion of the 'anti-woke' world in which she wants Americans to live. Presumably supporting the laws in Florida and Texas that ban abortions even when the pregnancy was the result of rape and incest. In what morally pure America does incest get a free pass, where Rapists have Rights that Pregnant American citizens do not?

I have wondered if the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with all its baggage of Nationalism, its 'anti-woke' crusade, has taken this spectrum of 'alt-right' zealots to a place they did not expect to go, just as January 6th exposed to the US the practical reality of extending Trump's ani-Government agenda, and his relentless promotion of himself as the definition of 'America'. On the one hand, now, suddenly some people are standing back and saying 'that's not us', but the logic of Trump's campaign is little different from the campaign of Nick Fuentes to 'purify' America, to 'cleanse' it of its 'radical leftists', its Muslims, its Immigrants. On the other hand, I don't see any chastened reversals in Texas or Florida, where Putin's agenda is no different from the one promoted by His Holiness the Abbott, or by the ridiculous Ron not-so Sanctis Santis.

Russia may fail, Ukraine may become a graveyard state, like Chechnya, but the 'war' goes on in the US. How many times, and in how many places are these people going to smash and destroy what has been built up over generations, out of the resentment of losers and lunatics like Trump, Boris Johnson and Vladimir Putin? So many miles to go before we can sleep, without fear.

The Russian Government has set out its four conditions of peace with Ukraine. These are-

-Ceasing all military action
-A change to the constitution to enshrine neutrality
-Acknowledgement of Crimea as Russian territory
-Recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...nato-invasion/

Of these four, neutrality could be acceptable, but is loaded with problems, the most obvious being that Ukraine might declare itself a neutral country, but even if it secured a guarantee from Russia that it would respect this neutrality, the record shows that Putin is unreliable.
It would be a 'giveaway', just as it is absurd to think Ukraine would simply wish away portions of its territory because they had a majority Russian speaking or 'Ethnic Russian' population, which is common across Ukraine and the Baltic region, and because it would be a reward for Russian aggression. Moreover, what would Ukraine ask for itself in these negotiations, with the likelihood that their proposals for peace would be unacceptable to Russia?

First put your enemy in a weak position, then extract the highest price. But what of the legacy of bitterness and resentment that Russia has created in Ukraine? To live under harsh condtions imposed against the will of the people is not a recipe for peace. It merely delays to a future date the retribution many Ukrainians may want.

Verdict -a clear statement from Russia, but one that makes an honorable peace impossible.

I have been thinking about some of the similarities between Putin and other Dictators, and how they become insulated from reality, rely for their information on sycophants and hangers on who may have their own agenda, be protecting their jobs and income, but supply the Boss with glowing tributes and reports of success and popularity even where none exists. Saddam Hussein thus believed, or was led to believe the US would not oppose his annexation of Kuwait in 1990, and was thus shocked by the 'Coalition of the Willing' that he felt had turned against him, given that, with the exception of Syria, they had supported his war against Iran.

Here again, one notes that in 1990 Iraq had the fourth largest land army in the world, battle-hardened after 8 years of war, yet incapable of taking on the US and its allies to any effect, just as there are reports that for all its volume and fire-power, the Russian military is having multiple problems with equipment and communications, and with a young cohort of soldiers who don't really know what fighting is. And, again, as with 2003 in Iraq, there are claims the 100,000 strong force assembled by Putin is too small to win a war in a country the size of Ukraine.

Trump and Thatcher are also parallels -toward the end of her tenure, Thatcher's press secretary made sure she never saw the newsapers but edited cuttings which he chose if they supported her policies, though she seems to have been surprised at the hostility to the Poll Tax which so alienated her Cabinet colleagues, they turned against her. Donald Trump not only surrounded himself with 'Yes Men', so fierce is his temper even honest men and women were terrified of telling him the truth. Moreover, though he was a constant user of Twitter, he seems to have no interest in the World Wide Web and maybe has never even used it, thus insulating him from the extensive ridicule with which he is held across the US and the World, notwitstanding the 30-odd percent who adore him.

And, just as at the end, Qadhafi's closest aides deserted him, I wonder if the assumption Putin is impregnable, that he has his own private army (as was true of Saddam), that the Generals are committed to his agenda in the Ukraine, the time might come when in fact they turn against him, to save the Military as well as their own skins, and that we might wake up one day to find Putin has 'disappeared' and that a troika of men, mostly military are in command.

On the on hand, Russia does have friends, even if they are the dictatorships in Belarus, China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the latter two refusing to engage with the US, presumably keen to see the oil price rise or at least remain around $100 a barrel. Israel is stuck between them, led by a nasty Fascist who nevertheless seems reluctant to either condemn or support Putin's ambitions- but if this war drags on, and Putin uses chemical weapons and relentlessly pounds civilians as Russia did in Syria, and still does, can these half-hearted friends break with Moscow? Belarus looks the most solid ally, but could Lukashenko's support lead the opposition there to have another attempt at regime change from within?

If this ends badly for Russia, they could be back where they were when the USSR was dissolved in 1990-91, that everything that has been achieved over the last 30 odd years was all for nothing, the complete opposite of what Putin wants, with his grand vision of an Empire Restored to Glory. For this is a tragedy for Russia, as well as the Ukraine.

Dictators can insulate themselves from bad news but Russia also has sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) mechanisms for insulating its public from the truth. Russia Today runs an alternative reality narrative, Russia has imprisoned over 10,000 protesters of the war, and Russia has in the West affiliates who do its bidding with a not so subtle combination of whataboutism and moral relativism. Still it's not enough as most people know that Russia's pretext for war was bullshit and the whataboutism doesn't work when anyone is still free to oppose imperialistic actions by western countries.

Putin's war is inflicting horrendous damage on Ukraine but it doesn't seem plausible it can ever hold the country. Russia's economy is being destroyed, the ruble is practically worthless, and Russia is currently just carpet bombing civilian buildings. If Putin hasn't lost it completely and isn't suicidal then maybe there's a way out of tis before more damage is done and lives are lost.

One of the threads that the Russians are promoting is that they are engaged in the 'De-Nazfication' of Ukraine. Today, at the talks in Turkey, Sergei Lavrov claimed the maternity hospital bombed by the Russians had been taken over by the 'Azov Battalion' who movd out the patients, thus-

"It is not the first time we see pathetic outcries over so-called atrocities by Russia," Lavrov said. He said the hospital building was being used as a base by an "ultra-radical" Ukrainian battalion."
https://www.ibtimes.sg/russias-lavro...attalion-63298

""As for the maternity ward, it is not the first time that we see the shouting in relation to so called atrocities of the Russian military."He claimed that hospital had been taken over by the Azov battalion - a volunteer group fighting alongside the Ukrainian army - "a long time ago" and that all pregnant women had been taken out of the building."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...pital-12562163

The Azov Battalion was indeed an extemist group that was formed in 2014 as a response to Russia's annexation of the Donbas region (they also make a lighning appearance in Oliver Stone's fantasy film on Ukraine); it denies it is Neo-Nazi, many of its volunteers are of Russian origin, it has never exceeded more than 2,000 or so some of whom are foreign (at least two from the UK, members of National Action), and it was incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard in 2015. Did they occupy the Maternity Hospital and remove its patients? I don't know, but why would they if there were concerns, and there were, that the Russians are targeting civilian buildings such as hospitals? No need to defend these people when they are not that important.

The problem is that the Nazi narrative is part of the Russian/Soviet history of the Second World War, when those Ukrainians, and Russians who had never liked the Communists, took sides with the Germans, though some may have done for survival, and some out of ideological sympathy with Hitler's theories of race -because these were common throughout the Russian Empire before Hitler was even born. The Revolution of 1917 did not give birth to a generation of Marxist-Leninists, 'the people' in the 1940s were not so different from the People of 1900.

Thus Putin has a problem when he dreams of reviving the Empires of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and whicheve Tsar takes his fancy, because the violent anti-Semitism that reached its crescendo in the 1940s was a follow-up to the Pogroms of the 19th century that are an indelible stain on Russian history, with the last Tsar, Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra the most obnoxious anti-Semites even by Russia's low standards.

One also associates Russia with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the Black Hundreds who, when they lost to the Bolsheviks, moved to Germany, Munich in particular where their vicious anti-Jewish beliefs were instrumental in the development of Hitler's ideas and his party.

It is impossible to deny the influence the Jews of the Russian Empire had on Russian/Ukrainian culture and history, if you are not sure, you can hear it in the music of Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky and Shostakovich; the first committed Zionists to leave the Russian Empire and settle in Ottoman Palestine in the 1880s were from Kremenchuk in central Ukraine.
Over a million Jews are believed to have been murdered in what is now the Ukraine in the Second World War, so that today the Jewish population is relatively small but a visible presence in cities such as Kyiv and Odesa. But if the Neo-Nazis are so important to Putin as a cancer in Ukraine, it doesn't explain the aparrent absence of any significant anti-Jewish campaigning when Zelensky was running for the Presidency and getting over 70% of the vote. There is a useful historical overview here-
https://jewishunpacked.com/who-are-the-jews-of-ukraine/

It appears that Putin has created a narrative, and he is sticking to it. Needless to say, Russia is the Victim, and those opposed to Russia's independence and ambitions are 'drug addicts', 'Nazis', and whatever else can be plucked from the history of Russian Demons, the irony being that were this 1892, the Jews would be right up there. But don't tell Vlad that, or you will be impaled.

So there's your Shalom, without much Aleichem.

Just in case you didn't know what reckless fools and hypocrites we have in the UK Government-

"Sajid Javid, the health secretary and the minister giving interviews on behalf of the government this morning, said that if a “single Russian toecap” were to step on Nato territory, that would be considered an act of war."

But if the Russians poison people in London and Salisbury with fatal consequences, we will slap the Russian wrist, and leave it at that.

Because the Party is soaked in Russian cash, and you know what is said 'Follow the Money'. Warning: you may end up in Boris Johnson's arse, and even his (ex?-) Russian girlfriend Olga Kholodnaya didn't get that far.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brit...oney-oligarch/

Fiddler on the Hoof-
https://twitter.com/imincorrigible/s...593?lang=en-GB

When Putin says Ukraine must be 'De-Nazified' it appears he is using the concept to summon up the demons of the past, though it is not sure if the younger generation really understand the link. The sick irony in this is that, though it was not initially created by his Government, the Russian Imperial Movement [RIM] is now operating in Ukraine, having first gone into action in the annexation of Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. The point being that the German Nazi movement was heavily influenced by the Russians who fled the Revolution in the aftermath of 1917 and the failure of the 'White Armies' to defeat 'the Reds'.

Russia was one of the crucibles of the violent anti-Semitism that reached its climax in the Holocaust. The notorious 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was a Russian publication sanctioned by the Jew-hating Romanov Tsar and his wife, and the the three pillars of their dynastic rule over Russia were described as the Autocracy of the Tsar, the Orthodoxy of the Church, and the Nationalism of the people. These three were in effect re-habilitated by the Bolsheviks even before Lenin's death, thus giving to what became the USSR, the Autocracy of the Communist Party, the Orthodoxy of Marxism-Leninism, and the Nationalism of the people, most obviously expressed in Stalin's slogan for the 1941-45 conflict as 'The Great Patriotic War'.

Thus the RIM represents the resurrection of the project dear to Putin's heart, and it is no surprise that anti-Semitism is a constant feature of their narratives on the Ukraine. There are obvious differences in ideology with the Nazi's, but the national and international reach of the RIM is one potent factor in the violence in the Ukraine which may be easier to sustain than the conventional military, which as Petraeus has been pointing out is badly run, ill-equipped, and actually losing on the battlefield, reduced to having only missiles as their most effective weapon.

This suggests that along with the Wagner Group and mercenaries hired from Syria, a form of guerrilla warfare could drag on for some time in Ukraine, with peace negotiations likely to stall as guarantees are hard to confirm.

Israel thus finds it is both sympathetic to the Jewish oligarchs, many of whom have Israeli citizenship and property in the country, presumably to which they can or wish to retire, while the State has hedged its bets by not condemning the Russian war, perhaps because Naftali Bennett sees in Putin's claim that Ukraine is part of Russia, his view that Palestine is a fiction and that the 'West Bank' can only make sense as being part of Israel, while the violent tactics of the Russians in Ukraine are not so different from tnose of the Jewish Settlers in the Palestinian territories, supported by Bennett, who rip up orchards and olive groves, and attack Palestinians on a regular basis. The scale may be different, the aims are the same. And further proof, as if it were needed, that Naftali Bennett is just another Israeli Fascist unfit for public office.

But we are living through an era when Fascism is being revived, when Democracy is being held up to ridicule as an ineffective form of government, and in practical terms being undermined, not just in Russia, but in the UK and the USA.

Which is one reason why the stakes are so high in Putin's poker game.

Two articles on RIM here-
FSI | CISAC | MAPPINGMILITANTS CISAC - MMP: Russian Imperial Movement (stanford.edu)

The Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) and its Links to the Transnational White Supremacist Extremist Movement - ICCT

You have to wonder what Putin and Medvedev are using for brains when they talk such nonsense, and even worse, one has to assume they believe it too.

"Mr Medvedev said that relations between the West and Russia were now worse than even during the Cold War.
“The state of relations between the Russian Federation and the Western world, the Anglo-Saxon civilisation in the broad sense of the word, led by the United States of America, is worse than, probably, in 1960-1970, this is beyond any doubt,” he said."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kremlin-co...201647029.html

By coincidence last night, I watched part two of Robert Bartlett's splendid presentation of The Normans -that's the people from across the way who sent the Anglo-Saxons into the dustbin of history....I guess William the Conqueror is not the man of history he once was. Maybe one day people will look back at the history of Russia and compare Putin to Boris Godunov? Think about it! Or don't.

You can watch The Normans here if you have access to the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ans-2-conquest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But we are living through an era when Fascism is being revived, when Democracy is being held up to ridicule as an ineffective form of government, and in practical terms being undermined, not just in Russia, but in the UK and the USA.

---

There has been an increasingly common view that autocracies have an inherent advantage over democracies because they can act decisively without having to worry about legal/legislative constraints or public opinion. Putin's Ukraine debacle seems to be demonstrating that the lack of checks and balances on the dictator's whims is actually the weakness of autocracies, combined with the unwillingness of subordinates to tell the leader anything they don't want to hear.

I suspect the only competence of autocracies in the long run is repression. Competence requires accurate information to assess the implications of different courses of action and willingness to listen to different viewpoints. None of this is possible in a dictatorship, which is why they ultimately screw up and rely on increasing repression and external aggression. It might be said that the economic success of China is a counter-example, but I think the shift from collegiate leadership to one-man rule under Xi Jinping may ultimately prove to be their undoing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

There has been an increasingly common view that autocracies have an inherent advantage over democracies because they can act decisively without having to worry about legal/legislative constraints or public opinion. Putin's Ukraine debacle seems to be demonstrating that the lack of checks and balances on the dictator's whims is actually the weakness of autocracies, combined with the unwillingness of subordinates to tell the leader anything they don't want to hear.

I suspect the only competence of autocracies in the long run is repression. Competence requires accurate information to assess the implications of different courses of action and willingness to listen to different viewpoints. None of this is possible in a dictatorship, which is why they ultimately screw up and rely on increasing repression and external aggression. It might be said that the economic success of China is a counter-example, but I think the shift from collegiate leadership to one-man rule under Xi Jinping may ultimately prove to be their undoing.

---

You make valid points that I agree with, and would only ask if the Generals who one assumes assured Putin the invasion of Ukraine would be a quick victory, believed it themselves, whereas we have seen the shambles that the Russian armed forces are in the field. Were they aware of the sub-standard equipment they had, or were they so ill-informed that they did not know the ineffective armed forces of Ukraine in 2014 had been overhauled with new equipment and a more obviously motivated soldiery? You have to wonder why any Russian would start a war in winter, and now with the ice and snow melting, the roads will in some cases become rivers of mud. But as you say, the hubris that accompanies Dictatorship often form the basis of their collapse, if not yet in Russia.

One curious detail I discovered yesterday, is a 2013 agreement between Ukraine and China with the latter pledging to support Ukraine in the case of threat and or use of nuclear weapons, thus making it difficult for China to give Russia its complete support, while there is the longer term case of China having to subsidize Russia. Here is the key paragraph in the 2013 agreement-

"China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Ukraine, and under the conditions of Ukraine suffering an invasion using nuclear weapons or suffering the threat of such kind of invasion, to provide Ukraine with corresponding security guarantees."
In 2013, China pledged to defend Ukraine in the event of a nuclear attack - Mothership.SG - News from Singapore, Asia and around the world