The people you mention are indeed indoctrinated to believe they are the chosen ones who were born to lord it over the masses. They can't do it without many members of the masses supporting them. They are expert manipulators of the politically ignorant mind

Yes, my point is that this model is now broken. The Tory’s have succeeded in gaslighting the population since the establishment of the 1922 committee. It’s poignant that this will come to an end exactly 100yrs later.

I’m working on the assumption that the Tory party are finished as a political force.

Could Boris be the British Berlusconi? In the country of Britaly.

Cambridge University is woke by comparison with Oxford.
It’s simply the Chanels established by the political elites. Through which the chosen ones pass on their path to power.

The most important development will be the end of the tradition of people from the privileged upper middle classes being groomed for a life in politics. Eton and Oxford are responsible for perpetuating this.
It looks as though this might now be happening.

looks as though the Tory’s are descending into chaos. They are confident that they will coalesce behind a new PM within a week. While their party is splitting into at least 5 factions. Time to get the popcorn out.

The Tory’s have done the right thing. It is imperative that they self destruct and retreat into electoral oblivion. So that we can rebuild our country. If they were to win the next general election it would be a dark day for the U.K. The populism and economic failures we are experiencing would be baked in, endorsed and the populism would take a more aggressive, destructive form.

As I see it, it wasn’t that expansion which caused the issue in the U.K. It was the total open door policy without any organised provision of housing, services infrastructure to accommodate the newcomers.

This resulted in exploitation by gang masters, community tensions and immigrants retreating into sink towns. All good breeding ground for populists.

At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.

I would point out another dimension to the Brexit debate. That it was also about an existential crisis within the Conservative party. The majority of the British people had no concerns with EU membership before they had their ears turned by disingenuous politicians.

The accession of Eastern European nations in the EU in 2004 did result in a large influx of EU workers into the U.K. It was poorly managed and provided fuel for populists, who had emerged from the Tory party. This is when it became a live issue.

Democracy is not yet dead in the U.K.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1529462147985588225?s=20&t=kw1TbxkbuUN8NXy8Ejk_GA

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St.

Mind blown.

That’s not the half of it. I was brought up on Tom and Jerry, Banana Splits, Whacky Races, etc etc.

Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

I sympathise with your proposition as a means to avoid destruction of the species. I suggest it is complicated when it comes to geopolitics and it is going well when there is a period of stability(Cold War for example). What is more important in reference to Russia is the moving away by Europe from buying Russian oil and gas. If Russia had taken Ukraine and the oil and gas revenue had continued to pour in then Putin’s strategy would be reinforced and he would then push on into other Eastern European states.

In geopolitical terms powerful, wealthy countries are fine when they are stable and cooperative with other powerful countries. When a powerful country becomes unstable and expansionist it triggers the risk of world war. Now in the 21st Century it’s time for humanity to go beyond this kind of instability and focus our resources in more important issues such as climate change and ecosystem collapse.

I would suggest though that as the climate crisis hits, geopolitics will evolve into powerful countries helping each other out as crises become more serious for each of them. A good example is the current ecological crisis hitting India. They are currently experiencing an extreme heat wave, which has destroyed a lot of this years crops. Resulting in a ban on exports of grain, a couple of days ago. The worlds second largest grain producer. This at a time when the worlds 3rd largest grain producer, Ukraine can’t export a lot of its harvest. India has the largest population, having recently outstripped China. Will likely experience famine over the next few years. This may only be a harbinger for far worse ecological crisis over the next decade.

The Finns and Swedes can join NATO or any other organization they like to. I think the real problem, or tragedy, actually, is that so many people (on both sides) are getting killed for the sake of politicians.

Yes, this is why some kind of long term impasse is required. Such as a return to the Cold War.

It appears that Russia(Putin’s regime) hasn’t moved on from the Cold War like the rest of us(following the fall of the USSR). She will drag us back into it now, at great personal cost.

No, it would be to conduct foreign policy taking into account the whim of one's adversary... you know, like strategists actually do in the real world,

Precisely and that is what Finland has done. It was literally on Putin’s whim that Russian troops entered Ukraine. Finland watched this move and then applied to join NATO.

Can’t you see it yet? The location of the new Iron curtain is being decided.

You said "Putin's threat". Lavrov is not Putin. And you're not saying which of "Lavrov's comments" you're referring to.

Putin appears to be and wants to depict himself as taking advice on this from Lavrov. Lavrov is using weasel words with veiled threats. There was also a mention of WW3 in another comment.

As I say sufficient cause for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Because this would be part of a defensive strategy and the threats I refer to are real threats which this strategy addresses. Whether, or not they are real threats, is irrelevant now. The threshold of risk has obviously been reached.

One could say that this is Putin’s strategy, to galvanise, expand and strengthen NATO.

The question is whether an expanding NATO will act as deterrent or provocation for the aforementioned autocrat.

That would be to conduct foreign policy by the whim of one’s adversary.

And Lavrov’s comments?

Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?

Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s move to defend against threats doesn’t necessarily include its threat to itself.

Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.

I was talking about Putin, you know the autocrat with his finger on the button. Oh and also there is the rhetoric from Lavrov on the issue of nuclear war. As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO.

So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?

Yes, it is a defensive alliance. What it is defending against is all possible risks, not actual current risks.
In reality there will be intelligence which onlookers are not aware of as to what these risks are

I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.

There’s always political expediency going on in a country. That is not the precursor to this development.

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO.

The question was why Finland wants to join NATO

The answer was implied in my response;
“Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.”
If Finland were in NATO this would be less likely to happen in Finland.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat

I don’t accept this premise (although, I would agree if you were referring to a full military invasion of Finland by Russia). It’s true, I doubt at the moment that Finland is under threat from a Russian invasion in the current circumstances. But that is not necessarily why they want to join NATO.


Regarding the infiltrators, it cannot be proved either way what role they have played in “the special military operation”

I’m not going down your rabbit hole.

Eh? What does 'send infiltrators' mean, and how does joining NATO defend against it?

Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.

Russia won’t invade Finland, it will send in infiltrators. Haven’t you realised yet that Russia knows that the planet is warming making their northern coasts viable for exploitation and development. While many tropical regions will become inhospitable. This will turn Russias focus towards the Barents Sea. Finland had better watch out.

And sure, one should fear countries and organizations that have nukes, especially if they tend to be aggressive, as Russia and the US/Europe have shown.

I’m not sure fear is the right word here. Protect from might be more appropriate.

The lines are being redrawn between Europe and Russia and a new Cold War/Iron curtain built. It is the only way to stop the proxy wars. Which are to destabilising.

That was already happening before the oil shock. Doesn't that situation look unstable to you?

Not in terms of hyper inflation. These trends will stabilise and the economies in question are quite healthy.

Good article, part of the inevitable covid shock. An economic Tsunami caused by a supply crisis. Those countries with a more libertarian/free market exploitation model are more exposed to corporate dominance.

Yes and we see Putin pronouncing the truth in Red square today. Somehow it brought Nazis to mind.

The oil shock is expected to continue and worsen.

Yes, but I don’t see a route to hyper inflation in NATO countries.

In Putin’s head;

“ I want to bring Ukraine under my control, I know I’ll send in infiltrators to agitate, destabilise the political situation and then I can mount a special operation to liberate the Ukrainians from their descent into political turmoil.”

The trouble is when it happens in more than one place, it becomes repetitive.

I meant high inflation.

Agreed, like the high inflation in Russia in the late 1990’s to bring it back on topic. When this happened in Russia whoever owned large assets which used to be owned by the state remained wealthy by acquiring those assets and everyone else became extremely poor.

It's not that trivially simple. Big capital can get unequivocally fucked over too by changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which is why they're so active in trying to control it. If someone wants to start a thread I'll contribute but let's not go too far off topic here.

Yes that’s probably why capital tries to influence policy. Also economic shock is problematic. I’ll leave it there.

Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that?

I’m afraid Streetlight is right on this one. There’s one rule about capital and big money. It doesn’t matter what’s happening if it’s up, or down, inflation, interest rates, etc etc. It’s always good news and more profit. It’s those who don’t have capital, or know how to use it who lose out.

We call it: "the Special Military Operation in the North".

Ahh, that’s alright then. Let’s just go back to the history written by the victors then. Nothing to see hear.

Cromwell only did half the job, he gave us the House of Commons, but in short order that house became packed with the aristocracy and the common folk had no vote, or representation.

The Harrying of the North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilisation.

What? the French imported the aristocracy to Britain and then took the guillotine to their own. You should have brought it across the channel while you were at it.

I think most politicians, and people with power and influence in general, see themselves above the law. Your "Norman" system doesn't really seem any worse than others.

Agreed, although in Britain there was an acute case of the people who were treating the people in a brutal way were foreigners who invaded and they literally were above the law for hundreds of years. You see Boris Johnson literally believes he is morally above the law, the law is for the plebs. Eton college drums this mentality into their students, it’s morally corrupt.

All or most systems have some form of social and economic hierarchy, including supposedly "egalitarian" ones like Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, in Britain though the architects of the hierarchy were these invaders. I see in the U.K. the unprivileged classes as traumatised following a thousand years of abuse. This trauma manifests in the hooliganism, base ignorance and populist politics. I doubt that if the Normans had lost in 1066 we would be like this.

Yes, Churchill probably considered himself "upper-class"

That is irrelevant to the argument. Many of our ruling class were corrupt, decadent, self destructive. In a sense victims of the system they were born into.

I have no argument with you about how and who built the empire. They worked in and were a product of the system I described.

America largely took over from Britain and continued the Anglo-Saxon or "Norman" imperialism by financial, economic, and military means. Organizations like NATO and the EU are manifestations of US imperialism a.k.a. Atlanticism or Transatlanticism.

Again, no argument here. Although I would put the emphasis on some positive and constructive aspects of this. Rather like what made Roman imperialism successful, Transatlanticism worked with those who they influenced, often made them more prosperous.

You see “The West” offers something good, provided you comply with some basic obligations, you have piece, prosperity and personal liberty. This is why it is known as the free world. I know it’s not perfect and is going through a rocky period at this time.

But what is the alternative?

... are we ... are we the peace mongers?

Why of course, Putin is trying to re establish peace in the region. Talk that he’s desperately trying to build a legacy before he becomes to ill to continue in power. A legacy which includes the sacred city of Kiev, is just that, talk.

Well, hang on a second. Your argument seemed to be that the descendants of the Normans are "still totally in control of the population", and "did the global empire building you refer to".

Ahh! this is the sentence I wrote which gave you that impression;

“Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to.”

I was describing the people who initiated the empire building (in the 17th century) in Britain.

The fact that there was some interbreeding, or the occasional outsider was welcomed into the fold doesn’t alter the course of history here. So there isn’t a pure bloodline. Also if you quote passages and articles from academic history, you are repeating the history which was written by the victors. The truth of the history is just beneath the surface, but ignored by these scholars.

For example, you describe Churchill’s flirtation with some notional Anglo Saxon roots. Take a look at his family home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blenheim_Palace

He was deeply rooted in that class system created by the Normans.

In reality the Normans carved up the country following the invasion in 1066 and shared it out between them. Then followed 300 or 400 years of brutal rule with an Iron fist. By the 15th century this way of life had become normal. The class system was long established, no one remembered the Britain before the Normans. The “upper classes” (code for our Ruling overlords) then became sanitised into the landed gentry. It’s true that the middle classes and industrialists etc subsequently built the empire etc, but the institutions and the class system was already long established, which they worked within.

There is a history of the upper classes being above the law. Law breaking, infidelities where always hushed up. The establishment was subservient and turned a blind eye. This is a hang over from the days of Norman rule in which the rulers literally where above the law.

Take a look at our glorious leader, Boris Johnson, the son of immigrants, but schooled at Eton and Oxford. Institutions established by the upper classes for their offspring. He sees himself above the law.

I referenced the caste system as an example of the rigidity of the class system.

Of course, there were some individuals of Norman extraction among the imperialists, but even they were hardly your "pure-bread Normans". The Norman element would have been increasingly diluted over the centuries.

You miss the point, the point is class and privilege, not blood lines (I said institutions) The structure of the British class system was virtually as rigid as the caste system, going right back to the year 1066.

Where do you think this class system (and therefore British imperialism) originated?

Maybe it's a longer-term plan of Putin's after all to connect the Donbas and Transnistria, enrolling them in Russia.

Yes, it would isolate Ukraine from the Black Sea. Leaving Ukraine to transport their grain and fertiliser exports through the EU via rail. It would probably destroy their main market for grain in Africa. It would certainly push up the prices in both commodities.

It could cause Ukraine to join the EU and NATO as a response. Resulting in a new iron curtain between Russia and Europe. This would be bad news for the prosperity of Russia. Putin will be dead soon (he doesn’t look at all well), before the Russian people realise what he has done.