I don't know whether it is possible to isolate just this clip but barely a few minutes after my post above the BBC R4 Today prog. (at 08.10 GMT) ran a two way discussion which brilliantly illustrated my point:
The government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians as part of any possible package of sanctions against Moscow, according to an official document. The BBC’s Nick Robinson reports, before we hear from Liam Halligan, economics commentator at the Telegraph and Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management.
Bill Browder is the businessman whose lawyer in Moscow tried to blow the whistle on State wrong doing, was arrested by the people he was calling out, tortured and eventually died after 300+ days of captivity, and who eventually was "put on trial" after he had already died. Browder argued for targeted sanctions exactly as I do, and believes exactly as I do in why they would be effective. Liam Halligan is a pusillanimous **** who thinks everything is OK if British people make big money from it.
I don't know whether it is possible to isolate just this clip but barely a few minutes after my post above the BBC R4 Today prog. (at 08.10 GMT) ran a two way discussion which brilliantly illustrated my point:
The government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians as part of any possible package of sanctions against Moscow, according to an official document. The BBC’s Nick Robinson reports, before we hear from Liam Halligan, economics commentator at the Telegraph and Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management.
Bill Browder is the businessman whose lawyer in Moscow tried to blow the whistle on State wrong doing, was arrested by the people he was calling out, tortured and eventually died after 300+ days of captivity, and who eventually was "put on trial" after he had already died. Browder argued for targeted sanctions exactly as I do, and believes exactly as I do in why they would be effective. Liam Halligan is a pusillanimous **** who thinks everything is OK if British people make big money from it.
Prague - Your comments are absolutely spot on, yet of course the British will do absolutely nothing about it at all.
It is exactly the same with the Chinese and the various oil rich Arab dictatorships whose citizens also have massive financial interests in the UK.
I was at lunch last week with someone very senior in a Chinese tech firm and we were discussing what the West would do about cracking down on China's blatant abuse of IPR.
He laughed so hard he nearly choked on his Dim Sum, "How can they do anything to us? The other week your finance guy (George Osbourne) was begging us to invest in the UK, you have no power over us."
However, what the Chinese have been doing is small beer compared to Putin's latest stunt in the Ukraine - and yet still his Russian mates will swan around London like they own it - which many of them do.
The funniest thing is that if Cameron did move against Roman you can bet your bottom dollar that toadying arseholes like Martin Samuel would be rushing into print to defend him against such a grave injustice.
Amidst all the rediculous hypocritical posturing of so many western leaders and political commentators over the last few days it was refreshing to come across these well balanced opinions on the issue.
The UK neither has the stomach nor the muscle to be able to enforce any kind of action, whether it be military, political, diplomatic or economic. No UK public officials will be at the Sochi Paralympics - more of a blow to the Paralympic athletes than the Russians.
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
The UK neither has the stomach nor the muscle to be able to enforce any kind of action, whether it be military, political, diplomatic or economic. No UK public officials will be at the Sochi Paralympics - more of a blow to the Paralympic athletes than the Russians.
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
You do realise that, depending on which measure of GDP you use, Russia is either marginally ahead of, or actually behind, the UK? Russia has nuclear weapons. So do we. Russia has a bigger population but they are dying prematurely and not being replaced fast enough. We have schools universities and other institutions which attract people (including oligarchs) from around the world. Despite the best attempts of our foreign ministries and policies, Britain remains a country and a people admired around the world. Where would that be true of Russia? probably Belarus. They have oil and gas which currently we need (mainly because pissed away the legacy of ours), but all of that balance could change in ten years because of shale, regardless of whether we ourselves extract it. What else does Russia produce, that you want to buy? A Lada? A bottle of Stoli?
Russia is not the superpower you make out. But Vladimir Putin will doubtless be very pleased that his belligerent posturing has created that impression.
The UK neither has the stomach nor the muscle to be able to enforce any kind of action, whether it be military, political, diplomatic or economic. No UK public officials will be at the Sochi Paralympics - more of a blow to the Paralympic athletes than the Russians.
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
You do realise that, depending on which measure of GDP you use, Russia is either marginally ahead of, or actually behind, the UK? Russia has nuclear weapons. So do we. Russia has a bigger population but they are dying prematurely and not being replaced fast enough. We have schools universities and other institutions which attract people (including oligarchs) from around the world. Despite the best attempts of our foreign ministries and policies, Britain remains a country and a people admired around the world. Where would that be true of Russia? probably Belarus. They have oil and gas which currently we need (mainly because pissed away the legacy of ours), but all of that balance could change in ten years because of shale, regardless of whether we ourselves extract it. What else does Russia produce, that you want to buy? A Lada? A bottle of Stoli?
Russia is not the superpower you make out. But Vladimir Putin will doubtless be very pleased that his belligerent posturing has created that impression.
Agree with most of your post prague but Russia does supply Europe with 30% of its gas. Its debatable who would be affected most by Putin turning off the supply. Russia would lose a massive part of its income and the loss of gas supplys to Europe would send us back into recession. As Putin said today at his press conference, sanctions against Russia would have a damaging affect on both sides.
The UK neither has the stomach nor the muscle to be able to enforce any kind of action, whether it be military, political, diplomatic or economic. No UK public officials will be at the Sochi Paralympics - more of a blow to the Paralympic athletes than the Russians.
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
You do realise that, depending on which measure of GDP you use, Russia is either marginally ahead of, or actually behind, the UK? Russia has nuclear weapons. So do we. Russia has a bigger population but they are dying prematurely and not being replaced fast enough. We have schools universities and other institutions which attract people (including oligarchs) from around the world. Despite the best attempts of our foreign ministries and policies, Britain remains a country and a people admired around the world. Where would that be true of Russia? probably Belarus. They have oil and gas which currently we need (mainly because pissed away the legacy of ours), but all of that balance could change in ten years because of shale, regardless of whether we ourselves extract it. What else does Russia produce, that you want to buy? A Lada? A bottle of Stoli?
Russia is not the superpower you make out. But Vladimir Putin will doubtless be very pleased that his belligerent posturing has created that impression.
Agree with most of your post prague but Russia does supply Europe with 30% of its gas. Its debatable who would be affected most by Putin turning off the supply. Russia would lose a massive part of its income and the loss of gas supplys to Europe would send us back into recession. As Putin said today at his press conference, sanctions against Russia would have a damaging affect on both sides.
Sure, I understand that. I would like to see 'smart sanctions'. After all how can Putin publicly complain if Abramovic's tax affairs are investigated? The Russians have already launched bogus tax investigations into British comapnies and NGO's
The UK neither has the stomach nor the muscle to be able to enforce any kind of action, whether it be military, political, diplomatic or economic. No UK public officials will be at the Sochi Paralympics - more of a blow to the Paralympic athletes than the Russians.
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
You do realise that, depending on which measure of GDP you use, Russia is either marginally ahead of, or actually behind, the UK? Russia has nuclear weapons. So do we. Russia has a bigger population but they are dying prematurely and not being replaced fast enough. We have schools universities and other institutions which attract people (including oligarchs) from around the world. Despite the best attempts of our foreign ministries and policies, Britain remains a country and a people admired around the world. Where would that be true of Russia? probably Belarus. They have oil and gas which currently we need (mainly because pissed away the legacy of ours), but all of that balance could change in ten years because of shale, regardless of whether we ourselves extract it. What else does Russia produce, that you want to buy? A Lada? A bottle of Stoli?
Russia is not the superpower you make out. But Vladimir Putin will doubtless be very pleased that his belligerent posturing has created that impression.
Agree with most of your post prague but Russia does supply Europe with 30% of its gas. Its debatable who would be affected most by Putin turning off the supply. Russia would lose a massive part of its income and the loss of gas supplys to Europe would send us back into recession. As Putin said today at his press conference, sanctions against Russia would have a damaging affect on both sides.
Sure, I understand that. I would like to see 'smart sanctions'. After all how can Putin publicly complain if Abramovic's tax affairs are investigated? The Russians have already launched bogus tax investigations into British comapnies and NGO's
Not sure what affect (if any) smart sanctions would have on Putin. I have to agree with Hew Strachen's comments on 'The word at one' today, he said we should not have been surprised by Russia's reaction to the events in Ukraine. The only surprise is that we were unprepared for such an event.
You know much about that part of the world Prague and do you think we (the West) have encouraged the revolution/overthrow that may not have the support of the majority of the population. I did read a report during the rioting that some EEC countries were paying rioters.
Our governments support to groups trying to overthrow regimes it dislikes, has usually ended - at best badly - at worst disastrously, Libya and Syria. William Hague's dash to Kiev to recognise the government could prove to be mistake in the long term.
Does Putin really need to turn off the gas ? Any financially effective sanctions imposed on Russia by posturing euro countries could be turned around almost instantly if Putin just increased the price of gas to compensate. We know that. He knows that and therefore all we will get is as Red_in_SE8 stated above is ridiculous hypocritical posturing.
I don't know much about Ukraine specifically . @rina knows a lot more, and maybe he will comment here again. However I know enough to be sure that there was genuine fury and disgust in Kiev and the West at Yanukovic. I really don't believe it was significantly stirred up by the West. I think it is a genuine worry that there are far right elements, because such people exist in numbers in Eastern Europe, especially in Russia! But I believe they have been over-emphasised. But it is a country which is heavily split. I am sure that Kiev and Lviv would vote strongly in favour of a pro European government, whereas in Donetsk and Kharkiv they might not. But they would all rally around a government that promised to clean up corruption and massive theft of state assets; it was that, rather than "EU membership" that was the rallying point.
The guy this morning on the Today programme said that sanctions can be likened to a cancer treatment. In the past the attempted cures nearly killed the patient but nowadays are more effective because they are targeted. If you target Abramovic and the like, you target Putin very personally, but you do not hurt ordinary Russian people, and Putin cannot bleat to his electorate because we are only doing to Abramovic what we would do to any British citizen we suspect of not paying tax.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
What a lot of people don't know is that Russia is actually very skint, much much poorer then when they invaded Georgia over south ossetia, they need Europe for revenue, they are heavily in debt themselves, Putin plan this time has some what backfired as there has been no civil unrest in Crimea (yet) and I've got to say, I admire the Ukrainian courage in Crimea, especially after today, the next few days are going to be very interesting indeed!
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Anyway, Putin has pledged that his soldiers will not open fire on any women and children. Not very convincing language claiming that he is only there to keep the peace...
Interesting talking about Chines Intellectual Property Right abuse Ormiston... Even their patent law is a direct copy of the European Patent convention the thing is though, china and Russia are completely reliant on the EU for trade. They'd be absolutely stuffed without it. Saying they have all the cards simply isn't the case. though I doubt the EU will get their act together and front up.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
I thought I knew that the Crimea was transferred to the administration of the Ukraine in 1958 it was in fact as someone else pointed out above 1954. I was looking at the reasons for this transfer as it seemed and seems so illogical, the Crimea being as it is, dear to the hearts of Russians. I knew that its transfer was affected by Nikita Khrushchev, what I didn’t know was that he was himself a Ukrainian and this act was a display of political power to the then incumbent but soon to be removed leader of the USSR Gregory Malenkov.
During the post war period Khrushchev was charged with repairing the agriculture of the Ukraine and as such fell out with party leaders over the removal of so much food that a famine followed in the region. Some put this gift of the Crimea down to reparation for the famine but, to me it looks more like making a political statement and perhaps cementing his political base by returning a province to his homeland.
William Hague arrived on the scene very quickly as did John Kerry and this has made an impact as their little tours seem to have strengthened the Ukrainian position and for the moment at least quelled Russian rhetoric. Don’t be fooled by the cooling off though, Russia has agreed to talks on the future of the region following a telephone conversation with fluent Russian speaker, Angela Merkel (who may well be the key to this and the future relationship between Russia and the West).
Russia could well make a limited manoeuvre into Eastern Ukraine (geographically South East) where the majority ethnic Russians live. I say this because the Russians will be looking to these talks to cement their position in Crimea and being able to withdraw from one area strengthens the position in another. Putin will also want to delay these talks until the vote on Crimean independence takes place as this will as also strengthen their hand.
As I have said the Russians want the Crimea back, they have it in their control and I am absolutely certain they will not be letting it go. Our position in the West should be to protect as much of the rest of the Ukraine as possible, that obviously plays into the Russians hands but when you don’t have a coherent Foreign policy this sort of thing is going to continue to happen. What we need is a man with a plan (or a Lady) preferably one that has at a modicum of understanding of geopolitics.
“Now I shall go far and far into the north, playing the great game.”
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
Thanks for that link. He makes a fair point. I understand, from living through the changes here, that it is dangerous to be too partisan.
I guess where I stand is that this has happened because we have not stood up to Putin enough since he came to power. We have pretended that Russia too is a functioning democracy. We have -in some cases - gleefully welcomed dirty Russian money to London. And most shamefully our Government has rejected entirely legitimate demands from the widow of the murdered Russian Alexander Litvinenko for a full public enquiry. We sort of made some noises and then backed down. Frankly, I see a causal link.
I have now had a Twitter brush with Liam Halligan and his disciples. Twitter is not the easiest place to explain that if you've been brought up in a country which has kept you safe from invasion by Russia or anyone else, it does not help you understand how the average Czech or Pole feels. There is a Czech spa town called Karlovy Vary (once called Carlsbad). It has now been almost completely colonised by Russians. My wife (one of the students who got whacked about by riot police on November 17, 1989), asked what's to stop Putin invading Karlovy Vary to 'protect the interests of the majority Russian community'.
Of course you can say it's a bit extreme, and indeed claim that Putin has no interest in reclaiming such places, that Crimea is quite different. But I hope people will at least understand the Polish / Czech/Baltic perspective.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is my issue with the term right-wing to describe extremist views that don't really belong anywhere on the conventional left-right scale. The Tories are right-wing because they advocate smaller government and lower taxes. These people are apparently right-wing because they hate women and advocate nationalist violence. The idea that left means nice and right means nasty is something that gets my goat, especially when it is misused in the mainstream media. The murderous dictators of the 20th century were all largely left-wing in terms of their actual political views.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is my issue with the term right-wing to describe extremist views that don't really belong anywhere on the conventional left-right scale. The Tories are right-wing because they advocate smaller government and lower taxes. These people are apparently right-wing because they hate women and advocate nationalist violence. The idea that left means nice and right means nasty is something that gets my goat, especially when it is misused in the mainstream media. The murderous dictators of the 20th century were all largely left-wing in terms of their actual political views.
I understand your point, but I tend to see politics as a circle rather than a spectrum, where extreme left and right actually converge in terms of the society they want. They both hate a transparent, democratic society where the citizens -in all their diversity - hold politicians and those in authority to account. They attract people who need something to belong to. I used to feel at uni that many fellow students attached themselves to the far left parties for similar reasons to why I was already attached to CAFC. And I used to take the piss out of them. But I also learnt from them. I arrived a Telegraph reader and left a Guardian reader, and still am.
The trouble with Britain is that there is no tradition of a party of the centre. There is in mainland Europe. If you watch the Danish series Borgen, it's all about what it means to be a party of the centre.
But I also learnt from them. I arrived a Telegraph reader and left a Guardian reader, and still am.
Prague, you have got it round the wrong way, you are supposed to grow up when you are a student and cast aside the policies of the left not move towards them;-)
Comments
The government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians as part of any possible package of sanctions against Moscow, according to an official document. The BBC’s Nick Robinson reports, before we hear from Liam Halligan, economics commentator at the Telegraph and Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management.
Bill Browder is the businessman whose lawyer in Moscow tried to blow the whistle on State wrong doing, was arrested by the people he was calling out, tortured and eventually died after 300+ days of captivity, and who eventually was "put on trial" after he had already died. Browder argued for targeted sanctions exactly as I do, and believes exactly as I do in why they would be effective. Liam Halligan is a pusillanimous **** who thinks everything is OK if British people make big money from it.
It is exactly the same with the Chinese and the various oil rich Arab dictatorships whose citizens also have massive financial interests in the UK.
I was at lunch last week with someone very senior in a Chinese tech firm and we were discussing what the West would do about cracking down on China's blatant abuse of IPR.
He laughed so hard he nearly choked on his Dim Sum, "How can they do anything to us? The other week your finance guy (George Osbourne) was begging us to invest in the UK, you have no power over us."
However, what the Chinese have been doing is small beer compared to Putin's latest stunt in the Ukraine - and yet still his Russian mates will swan around London like they own it - which many of them do.
The funniest thing is that if Cameron did move against Roman you can bet your bottom dollar that toadying arseholes like Martin Samuel would be rushing into print to defend him against such a grave injustice.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/not-too-late-for-ukraine-nato-should-back-off
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26415508
Maybe it is time for the UK to realise it no longer rules the waves, nor can it stand up to the likes of Russia, China or countries in the Middle East. The only reason why the UK is significant at all is because it is a trade centre and a commerce centre, pretty much the same reason as Switzerland and Dubai and such have any influence whatsoever. When you're a trade centre, any leverage you have over a big source of income such as China or Russia is non-existant. It isn't a case of letting Russia do what it wants; we're powerless to do anything meaningful/useful about it.
Russia is not the superpower you make out. But Vladimir Putin will doubtless be very pleased that his belligerent posturing has created that impression.
I have to agree with Hew Strachen's comments on 'The word at one' today, he said we should not have been surprised by Russia's reaction to the events in Ukraine. The only surprise is that we were unprepared for such an event.
You know much about that part of the world Prague and do you think we (the West) have encouraged the revolution/overthrow that may not have the support of the majority of the population.
I did read a report during the rioting that some EEC countries were paying rioters.
Our governments support to groups trying to overthrow regimes it dislikes, has usually ended - at best badly - at worst disastrously, Libya and Syria.
William Hague's dash to Kiev to recognise the government could prove to be mistake in the long term.
I don't know much about Ukraine specifically . @rina knows a lot more, and maybe he will comment here again. However I know enough to be sure that there was genuine fury and disgust in Kiev and the West at Yanukovic. I really don't believe it was significantly stirred up by the West. I think it is a genuine worry that there are far right elements, because such people exist in numbers in Eastern Europe, especially in Russia! But I believe they have been over-emphasised. But it is a country which is heavily split. I am sure that Kiev and Lviv would vote strongly in favour of a pro European government, whereas in Donetsk and Kharkiv they might not. But they would all rally around a government that promised to clean up corruption and massive theft of state assets; it was that, rather than "EU membership" that was the rallying point.
The guy this morning on the Today programme said that sanctions can be likened to a cancer treatment. In the past the attempted cures nearly killed the patient but nowadays are more effective because they are targeted. If you target Abramovic and the like, you target Putin very personally, but you do not hurt ordinary Russian people, and Putin cannot bleat to his electorate because we are only doing to Abramovic what we would do to any British citizen we suspect of not paying tax.
Anyway, Putin has pledged that his soldiers will not open fire on any women and children. Not very convincing language claiming that he is only there to keep the peace...
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
(source)
You like that kind of politics?
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
During the post war period Khrushchev was charged with repairing the agriculture of the Ukraine and as such fell out with party leaders over the removal of so much food that a famine followed in the region. Some put this gift of the Crimea down to reparation for the famine but, to me it looks more like making a political statement and perhaps cementing his political base by returning a province to his homeland.
William Hague arrived on the scene very quickly as did John Kerry and this has made an impact as their little tours seem to have strengthened the Ukrainian position and for the moment at least quelled Russian rhetoric. Don’t be fooled by the cooling off though, Russia has agreed to talks on the future of the region following a telephone conversation with fluent Russian speaker, Angela Merkel (who may well be the key to this and the future relationship between Russia and the West).
Russia could well make a limited manoeuvre into Eastern Ukraine (geographically South East) where the majority ethnic Russians live. I say this because the Russians will be looking to these talks to cement their position in Crimea and being able to withdraw from one area strengthens the position in another. Putin will also want to delay these talks until the vote on Crimean independence takes place as this will as also strengthen their hand.
As I have said the Russians want the Crimea back, they have it in their control and I am absolutely certain they will not be letting it go. Our position in the West should be to protect as much of the rest of the Ukraine as possible, that obviously plays into the Russians hands but when you don’t have a coherent Foreign policy this sort of thing is going to continue to happen. What we need is a man with a plan (or a Lady) preferably one that has at a modicum of understanding of geopolitics.
“Now I shall go far and far into the north, playing the great game.”
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/big-nasty-putin-pulling-strings/7295
I guess where I stand is that this has happened because we have not stood up to Putin enough since he came to power. We have pretended that Russia too is a functioning democracy. We have -in some cases - gleefully welcomed dirty Russian money to London. And most shamefully our Government has rejected entirely legitimate demands from the widow of the murdered Russian Alexander Litvinenko for a full public enquiry. We sort of made some noises and then backed down. Frankly, I see a causal link.
I have now had a Twitter brush with Liam Halligan and his disciples. Twitter is not the easiest place to explain that if you've been brought up in a country which has kept you safe from invasion by Russia or anyone else, it does not help you understand how the average Czech or Pole feels. There is a Czech spa town called Karlovy Vary (once called Carlsbad). It has now been almost completely colonised by Russians. My wife (one of the students who got whacked about by riot police on November 17, 1989), asked what's to stop Putin invading Karlovy Vary to 'protect the interests of the majority Russian community'.
Of course you can say it's a bit extreme, and indeed claim that Putin has no interest in reclaiming such places, that Crimea is quite different. But I hope people will at least understand the Polish / Czech/Baltic perspective.
The trouble with Britain is that there is no tradition of a party of the centre. There is in mainland Europe. If you watch the Danish series Borgen, it's all about what it means to be a party of the centre.
Prague, you have got it round the wrong way, you are supposed to grow up when you are a student and cast aside the policies of the left not move towards them;-)