So when Russian army has done atrocities, then accuse of those being racists who point these out?

Talking about "Russian endemic cruelty" is wrong as if it was some genetic issue for Russians, however there is no overcoming the fact that Russia hasn't had a democracy as we have in the West and it's a police state, not a justice state. There are plenty of Russians that have moved to the West to show that Russians are quite the same to us. Yet what is typical for the West is that atrocities like My Lai or Abu Ghraib do create an outrage, whereas in Russia those Russians pointing these things out, they are killed and organizations banned, as was with the Memorial -organization (which for some unknown reason @Isaac quoted).



The fact is that the Russian armed forces is a direct descendant of the Soviet Army and hardly has had much actual reform. And Putin's dictatorship has shown it really doesn't care about issues like the laws of war. The only thing that actually will decrease this is the nature of the war being a conventional one with front lines as the whole country isn't the battlefield for the ground forces.

(From the Chechen War)


The fact is that many Russians are totally similar to us and would want Russia to be a democracy and a justice state, however once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. People are one thing, the system and how the government operates is another. Hence it was quite easy to anticipate that similar actions that happened Chechnya or Syria would also happen in Ukraine.

Hence Isaac's pathetic racism card is one of these attempts to draw the focus away from this war and what Putin is doing in Ukraine and to get to what he is really enthusiastic about: to blame the West.

The logic seems clear enough, yes? Putin values the warships being intact (untouchable) more than he values those people getting food. To me, that doesn't seem approachable as such, though he should be (regularly). What's next? Hold food hostage for Kyiv (London, Tampa Bay)? — jorndoe

One of the way how navies fight is to create a blockade against the enemy country. And naturally that is against all shipping to and from the country. Russian navy can perform this from out of the reach of Ukrainian missiles and drones. Yet the Sevastapol naval base is in reach of Ukrainian weapons.

What has any of that got to do with the discussion about the realism of ethnic groups? — Isaac

Mr Strawman inventing his own topics of the discussion, it seems.

I don't understand how any of that is a response to the point I was making. — Isaac

So you don't understand what you quote in your own messages?

https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/articles/nobel-peace-prize-for-2022 — Isaac

Putin started his career extremely likely with a false flag operation killing ordinary Russians, perpetrated what could be said to be a genocidal war in Chechnya, has been against any grass roots organizations like the Memorial. And then has started this mindless war that surely will kill a lot of people more.

And for Russia to lose the unfortunate fact is that Russian soldiers are going to die. But it's not Russian civilians. Ukraine isn't making retaliatory strikes against civilian targets in Russia as Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Just as I seven months ago said on this thread here:

The fact that calling the war a war is forbidden tells this totally clear. There are more political prisoners in Russia than there were in the Soviet Union in the 1970's according to some observers. The exact number is obviously unknown.

Just a year ago:

The number of political prisoners in Russia today is nearly five times higher than it was five years ago, according to the latest report from the Memorial Human Rights Center. Activists began maintaining a list of Russian political prisoners in the late 2000s, and for a long time it was made up of a few dozen names. But this tally has increased sharply since 2015. Today, the country has 420 political prisoners and is poised to catch up to the numbers seen during the twilight years of the USSR.

And now, btw, the Memorial Human Rights Center, the oldest human rights group in Russia, which now is being foreclosed. It's primary function was to record the crimes against humanity during Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Those Russians got what was coming for them in the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. Great that the World hasn't forgotten.

Finland and Poland could potentially end up hosting nuclear weapons.
Seems sort of unlikely that it will happen (to me at least); Finland would then become a Russian neighbor (border-sharing) with nuclear arms, of which there aren't a whole lot contrary to what Putin suggested. — jorndoe

I haven't seen this article, but I guess it's more of the journalists (Lauri Nurmi) imagination than anything else: if nobody hasn't talked about them and hence no official entity has forbid them, guess that means that Finland could "potentially" have them. Finland isn't even considering having permanent NATO bases. Just where they are isn't so important... as long as they are on the continent.

In my view this is a way to start working on the unity of the Finnish people for NATO: make the case into a hot potatoe and divide the people. Enjoying an 80% support is too much for some. Let's remember just what these nukes are about: the very old free fall tactical nukes that usually go with F-16. Not only would Finnish aircraft have to be upgraded for this mission (as you cannot just put B61 nuke on to a rack of any aircraft).

Ironically, Dugin's star went into decline in 2014, during Maidan revolution in Ukraine. He was fired from his position as head of a department in Moscow State University and banned from TV after he called for killing of Ukrainians. — SophistiCat

Is he banned from Russian television?

I'm not so sure how much Dugin's star has faded as his speeches is quite well taken now as there is a war between Russia and Ukraine. And let's not forget that his daughter (presumable killed by the Ukrainian intelligence services trying to kill him) is now a martyr for the Russian side in this war. Obviously not the smartest moves that Ukrainians have done as Dugin is a civilian. But I guess an easier target than lawful targets as military commanders.

It is true that Russia is not undergoing the culture wars in which ultranationalists of other nations participate. Putin has been adept at telling them what they want to hear. But getting the thumbs up from the Russian Orthodox Church that his is a just war is important. Things would be different if they even declined to comment. But they continue to bring balloons and pom-poms to the funeral. — Paine

Just how Orthodox Russia is quite questionable as the atheism of the Soviet Union did have an effect. I am for conservative values, but when those conservative actors align with a dictatorship, I am against it. In fact nothing can be detrimental in the long run as the Russian church openly supporting a dictator, that now seems to have made quite horrific blunders.

On more reason to go back to the nuclear threat. Putin has nothing else left to threat the West with. — neomac

Which then begs the question: how credible is the West in it's promise to attack conventionally Russia? Is that believable enough to Russia and Putin?

Winter is indeed coming. But perhaps it's not going to be as bad as they say (and Putin desperately hopes):

It seems clear, however, as Michael Millerman notes, that Putin's speech is fully embracing this Dugan world vision. — boethius

Alexandr Dugin is really a "Putin whisperer" in the way he has promoted this semi-fictional historical view of Russia and it's role in the World. That Putin's speeches are many times long historical presentations just reek of Dugin's attitude. It might be confusing for a Westerner to follow some Putin's speech that start's from talking about the Rus and the Middle Ages, then goes on to the Russian Revolution and the Great Patriotic War. We in the West might skip that as just "nonsensical jargon", but it truly reveals the imperialist heart of Russia that both Putin and Dugin admire. This is an ideology of an Empire and thus genuine imperialism. Talk about a man on a mission. The references to culture wars, to Russia being very Christian and so on are just to try to lure the far right in the West.

Come to Russia...

A 'Western thing' more than in authoritarian regimes like Russian, Chinese, Iranian which are antagonizing the West. — neomac

But for some people here the only issue is to criticize the West and about the situation in Russia, China or Iran, they don't simply care.

Anyway, I'm wondering how many (varying) avenues for diplomacy are possible. — jorndoe

If "diplomacy" means a cease fire on the lines now, that would be most beneficial to Russia's war aims. Putin could justifiably say his war has been victorious and once he has refurbished his war material in a few years, he could start the war again and finish the nazis once and for all.

If "diplomacy" means Russia withdrawing from the territories that it has occupied, that isn't going to happen as they are now part of Holy Mother Russia.

Either one side has to be defeated on the battlefield or the war isn't going nowhere (for a long time) and then "diplomacy" can take hold.

That's irrelevant. All that is relevant here is whether this principle is true:

1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)

Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is. — Bartricks

Hilariously illogical.

These kind of brainf thought constructs tell something about when actually the "me-myself-and-I" attitude is mixed with over protected lives we live now. The idea of our world now being so cruel... as if it wasn't more cruel before.

The key difference is that the number of nukes and people behind them is much higher by the collapse of Russia than anyone else. It's by a large magnitude different. And a collapse of modern Russia would be different from the Soviet collapse seen as Russia would be fractured into more states than before and each state would set its own agendas rather than deal with a larger main state as was the case after the Soviet collapse. — Christoffer

Actually, the Soviet collapse was far more dangerous as:

a) there were A LOT MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS then than now in Russian arsenal

b) several countries, from Ukraine to Kazakhstan got nukes. Their capability, not Russia's, was the serious question during that time.

c) Unlike in the situation of Soviet Union, the Russia autonomies wouldn't become immediately independent. The last thing Moscow would do would be leaving it's nukes unattended in a secessionist part of the country.

d) as there is already a history of this, people can anticipate these issues far more better.

And lastly, Russia actually is in far better shape than the Soviet Union was when it collapsed. There aren't any bread lines in Moscow. Then there were, even in Moscow and Leningrad. I've seen them myself and how horrified Muscovites were when even bread was in shortage. (I visited the place when in the last year before it dissolved.)

The thing to remember is that if a state fails and collapses, most of the people with technical knowledge of nuclear weapons would also be subjects for terrorists to recruit into their organizations. If successful, they won't need state support. — Christoffer

Yeah, not actually.

We already saw this didn't happen in the case of the Soviet Union collapsing. Or with the sad case of the Iraqi scientists building Saddam's bomb.

Those people will be on the kill list of many intelligence services.

And that's why knowledge of nuclear technology, which is now basically ancient tech, hasn't proliferated: if anyone is so stupid to try to sell services to terrorists, that's a guarantee you will get on the CIA/Mossad hit list. And actually, those people (with the tech knowledge) know this.

And this is why inflation will be made to run as long as possible. It's one way to decrease the debt burden.

The last act of this long running play will be a financial crisis. And then politicians will always successfully blame anything and everything else but the real culprits of this tragedy.

The hard part is that nobody knows when this act happens. Will it happen next year or in 2030.

Blnd faith is what makes the world go round — Merkwurdichliebe

Belief in King Dollar is strong. Doesn't erode in a week.

For example, if China gets offended, it can threaten to disallow/discontinue access by the offending Western nation's privately-owned big businesses to China’s huge consumer base, the world's singularly largest. — FrankGSterleJr

And if the West gets offended by Chinese actions, it can do the same to China which it did for Russia. And China is even more dependent of exports to the West and on resources that are imported across the sea lanes. Still.

With the war in Ukraine, have seen already that when it come to international politics, trade relations are of secondary importance in a deep crisis.

role of China's exports compared to India and the US:

The annexations also make an armistice line an unlikely option because Ukraine would view that as a de facto relinquishing of territory. Russia's destruction of civilian infrastructure deepens the motivation to keep the structure of sanctions after any kind of cease fire. — Paine

If you don't have an armstice, you can have a frozen conflict then. Basically that both sides lick their wounds and refurbish their materiel for an possible offensive, which then doesn't happen. Even if in this scenario people don't die and missiles don't fly (or fly very rarely), it will be extremely costly for both sides.

Here becomes the nuke option, even if unlikely, an option. The sinister option "Escalate to De-escalate".

Let's say that the Russians retreat from Kherson and make the Dniepr basically the front line and destroy all bridges. This means a river crossing has to be made, which pose a singular point of entry. There are just so many amphibious vehicles and the supply has to go over a bridge or ferry, so such entry points are needed. Now these points of entry could be destroyed and made extremely difficult to pass by using tactical nuclear weapons.

Of course this is unlikely and the obvious escalation would be to simply make an underground nuclear test. As those tests have been done nearly all the time during the Cold War, NATO wouldn't have to respond.

Or even on a lower level, have annual excersizes, were you launch some missiles capable of carrying nukes (as seems to be intended now).

Which agreement or disagreement from the past can serve as a template for progress in the situation? That is not a rhetorical question. On the other hand, nothing discussed here has yet to approach it. — Paine

Many wars show how this war could end...badly for Russia.

A failure to make peace:

- The Korea war. Only an armstice exists. DMZ drawn where the fighting brought it to be.

- The Minsk memorandums, the present war prior to February 24th 2022.

Minsk I:

Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatists agreed a 12-point ceasefire deal in the Belarusian capital in September 2014.

Minsk II:

This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement's signing, it never ended completely, and the agreement's provisions were never fully implemented.[7] The Normandy Format parties agreed that the Minsk II remains the basis for any future resolution to the conflict.

And now of course, these are totally meaningless as the puppet-states have been, as anticipated, annexed into Russia just like Crimea.


A peace after a humiliating loss for Russia:

- The Crimean war with the peace treaty signed in Paris.

Peace negotiations at the Congress of Paris resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 30 March 1856. In compliance with Article III, Russia restored to the Ottoman Empire the city and the citadel of Kars and "all other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troop were in possession". Russia returned the Southern Bessarabia to Moldavia. By Article IV, Britain, France, Sardinia and Ottoman Empire restored to Russia "the towns and ports of Sevastopol, Balaklava, Kamish, Eupatoria, Kerch, Jenikale, Kinburn as well as all other territories occupied by the allied troops". In conformity with Articles XI and XIII, the Tsar and the Sultan agreed not to establish any naval or military arsenal on the Black Sea coast. The Black Sea clauses weakened Russia, which no longer posed a naval threat to the Ottomans. The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia were nominally returned to the Ottoman Empire, and the Austrian Empire was forced to abandon its annexation and to end its occupation of them, but they in practice became independent. The Treaty of Paris admitted the Ottoman Empire to the Concert of Europe, and the great powers pledged to respect its independence and territorial integrity.

A peace after a humiliating loss for Russia number 2:

- The Russo-Japanese war and the Portsmouth peace treaty.

An immediate ceasefire, recognition of Japan's claims to Korea, and the evacuation of Russian forces from Manchuria. Russia also ceded its leases in southern Manchuria (containing Port Arthur and Talien) to Japan and turned over the South Manchuria Railway and its mining concessions to Japan. Russia was allowed to retain the Chinese Eastern Railway in northern Manchuria.

Plus Japan got the southern part of the Sakhalin Island, but Russia didn't have to pay reparations for Japan.

Side-effects of the war ...

2 intensifying border wars show Putin is losing sway in his neighborhood while Russia struggles in Ukraine (businessinsider; Oct 24, 2022) ... via yahoo, msn — jorndoe

This just shows what this war can be seen as a war that didn't happen then, but has happened now due to the breakup of the Soviet Empire. This is on the one hand extremely puzzling as this happens decades after the breakup of the Soviet Union. But as Putin has seen the breakup as this freak accident and has had these ambitions to make Russia great again, it was unavoidable I guess. But as Russia needs to pull out it's forces to be sent to the war in Ukraine, it's grasp is collapsing in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

So basically what Putin is doing is truly destroying not only his army in Ukraine, but also destroying Russia's regional power status it has enjoyed in the former Soviet republics (that have not joined NATO). Now the hollowness of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) can be seen as two member states are having border skirmishes with each other and one member, Armenia, is facing hostilities with Azerbaijan and Russia is not doing anything (or cannot do anything) about it. When members of a defensive alliance have hostilities between each other, then the organization is only a shell without any meaning.

(And this actually is forgotten about NATO: one of it's objectives is to keep it's members out of war between each other. In the case of Greece and Turkey, it has been rather successful.)

If Putin is actually going down the nuclear path, then Moscow will get all eyes-on, attention. I don't imagine they think that'd be a good move for Russia, or anyone at all. Anyone know specs of the Russian dirty / tactical nuclear bombs? (radius, time until area is safe, materials, yield, emp, delivery systems) — jorndoe

This is alarming. It really is like preparing the narrative groundwork for using nukes.

After all, you could argue that making the Ukrainian territories Russian "made it possible" officially to use conscripts in Ukraine. Yet this also makes it possible to use nukes as the doctrine goes.

The Tory political tradition via Eton and Oxford is a hangover from the British imperialism of the 19th century. Hopefully it is now broken. — Punshhh

With Rishi it isn't, at least when it comes to Oxford. But the private preparatory school, Stroud, likely is nearly as exclusive as Eton.



Plus when you have appease the markets, what better to have than an analyst from Goldman Sachs as the new Prime Minister? :grin:

At least Sunak did understand that the economic policies of Truss were risky in this situation.

That is a good observation.

It just took me by complete surprise that someone who argues passionately against the actions of Trump would place a copy of a book written by an author who proposes a moral/ethical code of conduct that would exonerate Trump if he were judged by it. — creativesoul

:roll:

I assume that Trump can evoke hatred or disappointment even among libertarians and people on the right.

Trump was simply a very lousy President, yet a brilliant populist for one segment of the population.

Here's an surprisingly good take on the tactical nuclear weapons -question:



Discusses also their potential use in Ukraine war.

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden. — Olivier5

I don't think that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them. I think Al Qaeda wanted for the US to come after them.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan. — Olivier5

And you hit the nail here. 3 000 killed and images of people leaping into their death isn't something that a politician can respond with an police investigation, especially if you have the armed forces of a Superpower. It's a slam dunk response to stay in power in a democracy. Only a Houdini of a politician could have gone this way and be successful.

Yet as we know (from Iraq and the War on Terror), the neocons wanted to use and did use this opportunity in their delirious idea that the US ought to try to gain hold of the Middle East before China grows too much (or something).

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought.

Again interesting topic, but for a different thread... like the late War on Terror thread.

How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home? — frank

The question is, do you use the DOJ/FBI/CIA or do you invade and occupy a country? In fact, even the Reagan/Clinton answer of punitive strikes into the country...and then leave the country alone seemed to have out of the question.

@frank, the truth is that the Domino Theory, the reason for the US to fight in Vietnam, was far more logical and clear headed (and in the end wrong) than the scaremongering reasons we got for the War on Terror. Which goes on even this day.

You think it's a great idea to invade a large country because of the actions of few individuals that weren't from that country, had no links to the officials of that country and that the majority (if anyone) hadn't even visited, but then had the financier of the attacks living in? Yes, the Afghan government dared to ask proof just why would they give OBL to the US. Such thing was non-negotiable.

The only reason was that the first Twin Towers bombing failed and hence it could be dealt as a police matter (as terrorist attacks usually dealt with). But the second one was a great success and hence the US politicians had to bomb somewhere. The American people craved for revenge and a police investigation would have seemed as if the politicians would not care. Hence war was the best solution for politicians.

Think about it for a while.

If you look at both the terrorist attacks that have happened or have been prevented, NO have had a link to Afghanistan. The Islamic State was what Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into, and Al Qaeda in Iraq was not in control of the tiny cabal that Osama bin Laden had. It was a franchised movement. And the terrorists were usually estranged people likely with mental problems that could pick up from the net all the IS regalia needed to make them part of the IS.

But this is a topic for a different thread...

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak. — frank

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us.

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan. It's been by tightening the laughable pre-9/11 security and basic police & intelligence work. Not fighting an insurgency in one of the poorest countries in the World.

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt.

It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003. — Olivier5

I think it was not. Afghanistan had as much to do with the 9/11 as basically Sudan. Both countries had given refuge for Osama bin Laden. And just where was Osama bin Laden then found?

The perpetrators of the first Twin Tower bombing were found in Pakistan. By the FBI. It was a police matter. And the perpetrators were sentenced to jail. In the US.

As usually terrorists should be confronted by: the police and the legal system.

But of course, when you have something like the US armed forces and a popular need for revenge, those cruise missiles and armed forces feels so good.

So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response.

The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea. — Olivier5

Well, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? Has now Afghanistan turned into a terrorist safe haven? That was the main reason given to have US and Western troops in Afghanistan. I think there's far more than just Iraq to be criticized.

Likely the Kosovo War was real game changer, not Iraq. That really spoiled the relations and created the first confrontation between NATO and Russian. It maybe one reason why Putin's siloviks won over the "Westernizers".



Yet to understand the war in Ukraine, one has to look at other issues than NATO - Russia confontration. The bromance between Putin and Bush during 9/11 was a temporary thing. Yet then Russia did wait and successfully got the US out of Central Asia.

With Putin at the helm, it seems genuinely difficult to build trusting relations with Russia. :meh: Many would otherwise stand in line to do so, is my guess, which also would be beneficial for Russia. — jorndoe

Putin has basically cut the relations. For example, the relations are so bad with Finland that the Finnish President doesn't see any reason to be in contact with the Russia leadership. There is nothing to talk about. Hence the relationship is something like in the 1920's. And this is the same President who hoped that bringing Trump and Putin together would be beneficial.

I think the West has had enough of "resets" and the only reset would happen after a regime change. Even if Putin would die tomorrow (or five years from now), that wouldn't change things. Some diplomatic interactions would be done and some rogue entrepreneurs would seek to improve the relations. But I don't think there's no appetite for example German strategy of Wandel durch Handel. I think that the way how Eastern Europe countries looked at Russia will prevail now for a long time.

A good documentary. Shows just how long it takes for the effects to be noticed.

I think that the malaise Brexit has done to the British economy won't be over in 2024-2025. Sticking along this sad time will have a deep impact on the popularity of Conservative Party. One has to remember that Thatcher (and later John Major) stayed in power because Britons remembered how bad it was in the 1970's with Labour governments. Only in 1997 enough time had passed, and then it was time for a "Third Way".

Winter of Discontent 1979, the waste collectors strike:

Ukraine and Russia could have had a splendid relationship like for example we Finns enjoy with Sweden, a country we belonged to earlier and whose language a minority of Finns speak. Russia and Ukraine could have enjoyed that kind of relationship, but then Russia would have had to be totally different.

But just like a man can have a nice relationship with a woman, violently raping her will ruin that. Yes, you can call it a tragedy, of course.

Putin has been really poison for the universal slavophile movement. Of course, in Russia being a slavophile has meant actually to be a russophile, a disguise for Russian imperialists. Russia sees itself as a Great power, which should subjugate smaller and weaker nations. Hence the relationship between an Imperialist and it's colonies cannot be built on equality as a warm friendly relationship.

So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well:



The error was in thinking that Russia wanted to be a part of Europe when it still craved for the Empire it had lost. Or to be more specific, those that got into power wanted to get back that Empire and those who wanted Russia to be part of the West were either fired or even killed. Hence in the Slavophile way, any integration to the West was seen as this sinister plan to make Russia weak (a conspiracy promoted even on this thread).

I admittedly expanded ssu's comment to a broader cultural thing.

Mariupol elementary schools must reportedly now call their home "Russia", and have introduced books in Russian. In Crimea, someone singing Oi u luzi chervona kalyna at a wedding were targeted.
The machine has been rolled out, apparently part of the agenda. — jorndoe

And the actions on the occupied territories just make it more obvious just how existential this fight is for Ukrainians. And when this isn't only limited to Ukraine, but goes on in Russia (starting with that you cannot call it a war, but a special military operation), the dictatorial rule that promotes Slavophile jingoism will likely be detrimental in the long run for the ideology. Especially if the war goes bad.

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. — Punshhh

Wokeness is pretty new. But there are similar small paths for example in France also. Yet I think for a democracy to work you do need people with different education and career paths. It's just funny to me, but I notice this education especially in the traditional Oxford education in their speeches and oratory: a British prime minister never speaks like a businessman, an engineer or someone from the military. (As they obviously aren't businessmen, engineers of from the military, but well trained in the art of giving speeches.)

But of course as the negative impact of Brexit will be felt as the global economy goes into recession and one cannot blame it on Covid, it's utterly stupid for the Conservative party to "rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic" and select new prime ministers. The negative effects of Brexit will go for long.

Either Boris should have sat it out and be as popular as Yeltsin was in Russia in the 1990's or then have a new election. Elections have to be had only in 2025, so likely three years feels so long that Conservative party can have a pipe dream that the economy has "a brief rough patch" and walz through it. Otherwise it could be better to be in the opposition and have the Labor now to be in charge when the train wreck happens.

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

Second longest Italian leader since Mussolini. And a friend of Putin.

God, imagine the Tories actually replace Truss with Boris, and then he's suspended for lying to Parliament and forced to face a by-election, probably prompting an immediate resignation. What a farce. — Michael

And here's the Boris Johnson thread waiting to be continued... :snicker:

I would assume some resentment on such elitism in the UK for the cradle of prime ministers to be so tiny. Oxford has about 3300 undergraduate places and 5500 graduate places every year (and about 25 000 students in all). And likely the politicians come from even a smaller group of students. That's out of a population of over 68 million.

The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.

Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form. — Christoffer

Very well put. :cheer: :100:

But it's meaningless for some trolls who don't see even a trace of imperialism in Russia's action. But enough of those.

What has Putin done and what are the consequences of his action taken on February 24th?

1) NATO has gone back to it's roots

Likely Trump is the last US President that argued for NATO to "reinvent" itself and face "new threats" and not focus on the defence treaty aspects of the Cold War era. This started to change in 2014, but now the large conventional war in Europe has shown that large armed forces do matter and no amount of "Revolution in Military Affairs" will change this, even if drones and pinpoint accuracy of artillery and missiles do matter. Germany's rearmament is a huge change.

2) Countries that wouldn't have applied for NATO membership have done this

Had not Russia attacked Ukraine the way it did in February, neither Sweden or Finland would be joining NATO. Sweden would be happy with it's centuries old non-alignment and Finland would be just talking domestically about an option to join NATO. And Putin's bluff was shown to be a bluff. That he belittled the fact that these two countries joined NATO just shows how hollow the argument of NATO enlargement is compared to the argument that Russia wanted Ukraine and Ukrainian territory.

3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity

An outside aggressor can unify a country. What is interesting is how similar Ukraine has it now as Finland had during the Winter War. Prior to the Soviet attack in 1939, Finland as a new independent country had a huge row about the role of the Swedish and Finnish languages in Finland and there was distrust after the Civil war which just had happened 21 years ago. After the war (or wars) the nation was unified the Swedish speaking Finns were considered Finns and there had been no fifth column from those that previously had fought on the Red side.

Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. Naturally the result of the war is still unknown, but likely this war will be the unifying moment for Ukraine.

4) If Putin loses, Russia's imperial aspirations will be in doubt

There's a time when a failing Great Power notices collectively that it isn't anymore a Great Power. For the UK (and also partly for France) this moment was the Suez crisis. The United States showed to the UK it's place and UK understood it couldn't do anything like this anymore. If Putin loses this war, there will be huge effects not only for Putin, but for Russia and how it sees itself. The classical imperialism and jingoism that Putin has so dearly advocated might likely suffer a huge collapse. The pinnacle of Putin's jingoism was the annexation of Crimea, the bloodless, quick and dashing military operation where the propaganda worked miracles: the sham elections went through and even today some in the West believe Ukraine is ruled by neonazis. Now you have a mobilization which has gotten more men to have fled the country than been taken into service. The first criticisms of how the war is going have already happened and the blame on everybody else than Putin has been made already quite public. Next is to question just why the military performs so poorly because of other reasons. And in the end the whole imperialism and jingoism can be questioned as Russia isn't living in the 19th Century. Something like it is a really tough sell if you don't deliver.

So what's then with your Prime Ministers all coming from Oxford University? Keir Starmer is btw also from there. (And Gordon Brown is the only exception!)

Don't the British have any other universities? What's wrong with Cambridge University?