UK Politics: The Beast From The East

[Shryke]

16 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The ability of Britain to hurt Russian interests is significant. The sanctions we have in place on Russia now are annoying enough to Putin and the oligarch circle and the UK, EU and USA can go a lot further. We can't put the squeeze on like we could with North Korea - it's unlikely that China would join in with a heavy sanctions regime - but we can damage Russia's economy far more than we have so far.

Some EU countries are keener for better relations with Russia, but there seems to be an appetite in some others for a much more robust response to Putin to dissuade him from any further adventures in eastern Europe. The problem is if this kind of action may act as a spur to that action in the first place. Certainly the Baltic States are probably not happy about the ratcheting up of the tensions, even with tens of thousands of NATO troops on their soil.

I think the Baltics are not all that adverse to some ratcheting up of tensions on the NATO side in that Putin and the Ukrainian situation are already looming over them and they'd really like some assurances here.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

What are you talking about?  My first post on this topic was in support of Corbyn for pointing out just how deep the Tories are swimming in Russian cash. 

Then Mormont pointed out how dumb it is for Corbyn to want dialogue with the Russians, barely a week after the UK basically running out of gas. 

Until we're no longer dependent on those vodka-swilling loons for large parts of our national energy consumption, Putin can do basically whatever the fuck he likes. Much like those Saudi cocksuckers we are also in thrall to. 

No, you clarified what you meant right at the top of page 2:

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I'm sorry, but nothing in that post amounts to anything that will damage Putin in any way whatsoever.

This is what you said in response to that list. I'm pointing out that you are completely utterly wrong on this point and demonstrating a lack of understanding of Russian interests. Then you tried to deflect from that when it was pointed out.

[Spockydog]

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

This is what you said in response to that list. I'm pointing out that you are completely utterly wrong on this point and demonstrating a lack of understanding of Russian interests.

Oh, really. Let's go through that list, shall we.

What could the UK do?

• Expel senior diplomats, perhaps even the Russian ambassador, and known Russian intelligence agents.  Zero sum - the Russians will just reciprocate, so why bother?
• Take some sort of action to bar wealthy Russian oligarchs from accessing their mansions and other luxuries in London, as suggested by Tory MP and House of Commons foreign affairs committee chair Tom Tugendhat. If the Tories hadn't already taken millions from the Russians, they might consider doing something like that. But they have, so they won't.
• A boycott of the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year by officials and dignitaries - a symbolic move that UK allies are unlikely to emulate. I'm sure the tournament will literally die on its arse due to the absence of Prince William and Gazza.
• Taking Russian broadcasters such as RT (formerly Russia Today) off the air. And this is supposed to be a bad thing? Literally nobody in the UK watches it, apart from morons, Nazis, and Alex Salmond.
• Pass a British version of the 2012 US Magnitsky act, which punishes Russians involved in corruption and human rights violations with asset freezes and travel bans. See above re Tories and Russian millions. Will never happen under this government.

As for the EU, forget it. Perhaps if our elected leaders, along with 52% of the UK electorate, hadn't been telling Europe to go fuck itself for the past couple of years, then we might reasonably to expect strong and robust support in one form or another.

And as for NATO, May has already said she's not looking to invoke Article 5. Probably because she knows that with Trump in the WH, it would be a total waste of time.

 

[Maltaran]

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

• Expel senior diplomats, perhaps even the Russian ambassador, and known Russian intelligence agents.  Zero sum - the Russians will just reciprocate, so why bother?

 

 

It's the traditional thing to do, and it at least lets them say that Something Has Been Done.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

As for the EU, forget it. Perhaps if our elected leaders, along with 52% of the UK electorate, hadn't been telling Europe to go fuck itself for the past couple of years, then we might reasonably to expect strong and robust support in one form or another.

 

Countries like the Baltic States, Finland, Germany and Poland are rather concerned about some of the shit Russia is pulling on their borders, and are certainly willing to take steps that may curb or limit Russian activities (France and Sweden, at least, seem to be willing to support such measures as well). People tend to forget the degree to which Russia is screwing itself over by devoting so much of its economy - which is smaller than Italy's - to its military and the nukes it can't really afford any more, and it won't take much pressure to the Russian economy to really start hurting them.

The idea that the EU would tolerate Russian antagonism to "get one over" on Britain because of Brexit is bizarre. There's areas where you can play politics and this is not one of them.

[Spockydog]

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The idea that the EU would tolerate Russian antagonism to "get one over" on Britain because of Brexit is bizarre. There's areas where you can play politics and this is not one of them.

I'd say their toleration would be motivated more by gas than any desire to get one over on Britain.

Anyway, Theresa's deadline expires in 37 minutes. Let's see what happens, shall we?

[williamjm]

13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The obvious thought that comes to mind is how this differs from Western nations targeting individuals within the borders of other countries by way of drone strikes?

I must have missed the edition of the UK Politics thread where we all said that drone strikes were great and in no way morally suspect.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

23 Russian diplomats to be expelled.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

May is showing a spine. They’re also pulling all of their diplomatic representation from the World Cup. It would be interesting to see if the UK and all NATO countries pulled their teams from the World Cup and held their own tournament.  

[mormont]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

May is showing a spine. They’re also pulling all of their diplomatic representation from the World Cup. It would be interesting to see if the UK and all NATO countries pulled their teams from the World Cup and held their own tournament.  

You can't just hold your own World Cup, unless you're in the school playground and the prize is a Mars bar. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

You can't just hold your own World Cup, unless you're in the school playground and the prize is a Mars bar. 

I'd compete for that.

[Which Tyler]

Meanwhile, Facebook has finally banned Britain First

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43398417

 

Of course, there's the usual bullshit complaints about free speech, forgetting that Facebook isn't a government entity

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

You can't just hold your own World Cup, unless you're in the school playground and the prize is a Mars bar. 

Honestly why not? It wouldn’t be an alternative WC, per se, but you could call it something like The NATO Games, and lean on WC sponsors from NATO countries to dump the WC and support your games instead. Maybe you could get some non-NATO allies to do the same. It would be a horrific embarrassment for Russia.

[maarsen]

16 hours ago, Werthead said:

Countries like the Baltic States, Finland, Germany and Poland are rather concerned about some of the shit Russia is pulling on their borders, and are certainly willing to take steps that may curb or limit Russian activities (France and Sweden, at least, seem to be willing to support such measures as well). People tend to forget the degree to which Russia is screwing itself over by devoting so much of its economy - which is smaller than Italy's - to its military and the nukes it can't really afford any more, and it won't take much pressure to the Russian economy to really start hurting them.

The idea that the EU would tolerate Russian antagonism to "get one over" on Britain because of Brexit is bizarre. There's areas where you can play politics and this is not one of them.

Watching the neighbourhood bully pick a fight with someone who can actually inflict damage on them is a great spectator sport for those that are usually the bully's victims. 

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Honestly why not?

A whole list of reasons.

It would not be recognised by FIFA, in fact it would be set up specifically to undermine a FIFA tournament, so any participant FA could expect to be suspended or expelled from FIFA. There would be no financial support. TV firms wouldn't be willing to pay to televise it and might not be able to anyway. Same with sponsors. They're not going to burn their bridges with FIFA. Tournaments this size take an enormous amount of logistical organisation. Few countries are capable of hosting them to start with. None would be willing and able to host one just to tweak Russia's nose. You'd have a tournament with nobody playing, nobody watching on TV, no money and nowhere to play. 

[Hereward]

Pretty weak stuff from May, unfortunately.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

A whole list of reasons.

It would not be recognised by FIFA, in fact it would be set up specifically to undermine a FIFA tournament, so any participant FA could expect to be suspended or expelled from FIFA. There would be no financial support. TV firms wouldn't be willing to pay to televise it and might not be able to anyway. Same with sponsors. They're not going to burn their bridges with FIFA. Tournaments this size take an enormous amount of logistical organisation. Few countries are capable of hosting them to start with. None would be willing and able to host one just to tweak Russia's nose. You'd have a tournament with nobody playing, nobody watching on TV, no money and nowhere to play. 

I don’t think those things would as problematic as you’re making them out to be assuming you could get buy in from every NATO nation. First, FIFA needs to punished, if not destroyed. It’s just like the NCAA here in the U.S. It’s corrupt as hell and doesn’t serve a purpose that can’t easily be replaced, unless of course Blatter is still the president “of everybody.” That aside, assuming you don’t want to make any waves with FIFA, just pay them the difference in their lost revenue. I just Googled what they make off of the WC and it’s a drop in NATO’s budget. And if sponsors won’t dump the WC, again, just have NATO cover the costs. And I’m sure you could find new sponsors. And new TV networks to air the games if the current ones refuse (and I doubt they would). They are plenty of wealth individuals and entities that want in on soccer. Here’s a way to do so. As far as hosting it goes, just use the same model as you do for the Euro Cup. And as far as people watching goes, if you’re British, or Italian or German, would you rather watch a NATOless WC or a NATO tournament in which your country is playing in?

This is obviously an unrealistic hypothetical, but I do think you could pull it off if all parties involved  agreed to make it happen.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Pretty weak stuff from May, unfortunately.

Really? The coverage here is pretty positive for her. Maybe that’s just because our leader is so weak….

[mormont]

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think those things would as problematic as you’re making them out to be assuming you could get buy in from every NATO nation.

They absolutely would be. And there is zero chance of getting buy-in from even one NATO nation, so the point is moot.

Moving on to things that actually might be or are happening, agree with Hereward, so far it's disappointing. I feared as much though I hoped for more. What she's done is fine as far as it goes, but it needs to go further. 

[maarsen]

52 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think those things would as problematic as you’re making them out to be assuming you could get buy in from every NATO nation. First, FIFA needs to punished, if not destroyed. It’s just like the NCAA here in the U.S. It’s corrupt as hell and doesn’t serve a purpose that can’t easily be replaced, unless of course Blatter is still the president “of everybody.” That aside, assuming you don’t want to make any waves with FIFA, just pay them the difference in their lost revenue. I just Googled what they make off of the WC and it’s a drop in NATO’s budget. And if sponsors won’t dump the WC, again, just have NATO cover the costs. And I’m sure you could find new sponsors. And new TV networks to air the games if the current ones refuse (and I doubt they would). They are plenty of wealth individuals and entities that want in on soccer. Here’s a way to do so. As far as hosting it goes, just use the same model as you do for the Euro Cup. And as far as people watching goes, if you’re British, or Italian or German, would you rather watch a NATOless WC or a NATO tournament in which your country is playing in?

This is obviously an unrealistic hypothetical, but I do think you could pull it off if all parties involved  agreed to make it happen.

It isn't so much replacing lost revenues as offering competitive bribes.