UK Politics: The Beast From The East

[Spockydog]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

What she's done is fine as far as it goes, but it needs to go further. 

What would you do? 

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

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. 

Once upon a time here in America, no one thought the NIT would lose its spot as the most prestigious college basketball tournament. The transition to that being the NCAA happened extremely quickly. All it takes is a few of the major teams (countries in this case) to flip over, and for the revenue structure (or bribes) to be more favorable. Everything else follows extremely quickly if that happens.

It doesn't seem likely in this case because of the UK's strained relationship with the rest of Europe; but if this was Germany and they tried it, I could easily see it happening.

[ljkeane]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

Once upon a time here in America, no one thought the NIT would lose its spot as the most prestigious college basketball tournament. The transition to that being the NCAA happened extremely quickly. All it takes is a few of the major teams (countries in this case) to flip over, and for the revenue structure (or bribes) to be more favorable. Everything else follows extremely quickly if that happens.

It doesn't seem likely in this case because of the UK's strained relationship with the rest of Europe; but if this was Germany and they tried it, I could easily see it happening.

I don't think you guys are really getting the cultural attachment to the World Cup. People would lose their shit if teams opted out of the World Cup to go to a 'NATO Cup'. I genuinely think most European governments would lose elections on the back of doing it.

[Spockydog]

3 hours 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. 

A boycott would be the best way to punish Putin, though. And would give FIFA something to think about next time they're about to award a World Cup to a bunch of criminals and despots. 

[Spockydog]

28 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I don't think you guys are really getting the cultural attachment to the World Cup. People would lose their shit if teams opted out of the World Cup to go to a 'NATO Cup'. I genuinely think most European governments would lose elections on the back of doing it.

You couldn't organise a NATO Cup, the idea is ridiculous. But you could have a boycott. And judging by the outrage surrounding this incident, a boycott is more than warranted. All it would take would be the leaders of the outraged nations explaining to their people why Russia must be punished, then pulling their teams out. If the outrage was real, that's what would happen. But it's not, so it won't. 

Also, there's the whole capitalism thing... 

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Hereward said:

Pretty weak stuff from May, unfortunately.

Yup. Her talk of hitting Russian financials (the thing that actually matters) is so full of conditionals that it's clearly meant to lead to nothing actually happening. The whole point is to look tough while doing nothing.

[Which Tyler]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yup. Her talk of hitting Russian financials (the thing that actually matters) is so full of conditionals that it's clearly meant to lead to nothing actually happening. The whole point is to look tough while doing nothing.

Story of May's career

[Werthead]

May's response was surprisingly weaksauce. There were many other financial options on the table which could have been deployed, but this seems wholly inadequate. It's possible she is trying to talk other EU and NATO countries into taking some kind of joint action, and there is a UN Security Council meeting, but with Russia's veto of course that will accomplish nothing.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

It could be that she is building up to more actions but does not want to act too early if it will then compromise any international response.

It could also be that she wants to be able to have more options when Russia retaliates and continues to deny involvement.

 

Or far more likely she is week and there is nothing much she has the will to do.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

Showing stronger opposition to Russia than Donald Trump isn't a particularly high bar to clear, and May has managed that even if it is still a distinctly underwhelming response.

[The Anti-Targ]

Well gosh, so much moral outrage over Syria using chlorine gas on it's own people that there were serious calls for major military strikes. But when Russia carries out a nerve agent attack in a foreign country people think boycotting the Football World Cup is a bridge too far and Britain's relationship to the rest of Europe over Brexit is reason to give the continent pause. And the USA will do nothing of course.

Is it because of the low body count?

Meanwhile, we don't seem to be letting a chemical weapon attack in Britain give us second thoughts about initiating FTA talks with Russia. Terrible, terrible thing Russia has done, but, y'know we can't let that affect the economy.

I guess that fact that nothing substantial actually happened / will happen in either case speaks to the general corruption and impotence of international politics.

[Spockydog]

5 hours ago, Hereward said:

Pretty weak stuff from May, unfortunately.

What were you expecting, a naval task force? 

[Liffguard]

18 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What were you expecting, a naval task force? 

Forfeiture of assets held by Russian oligarchs in the UK and proposals to our European allies to increase economic sanctions. Not expecting, but hoping. Also, hopefully the intelligence agencies can find out exactly who carried out the attack and put out a European arrest warrant. Not much chance of ever bringing the individuals involved to trial, but at least make it as difficult as possible for them to ever leave Russia again.

[williamjm]

29 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What were you expecting, a naval task force? 

I'm sure Putin would be terrified by the prospect of us sending our aircraft-less aircraft carrier against them.

[Spockydog]

11 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I'm sure Putin would be terrified by the prospect of us sending our aircraft-less aircraft carrier against them.

With any luck Jacob Rees Mogg can conjur some Jonathan Strange & Mister Norrell-type shit out of his top hat, transport us all back to the turn of the nineteenth century, then promptly and triumphantly sic Nelson and Wellington on Putin's weird, botoxed, Bride of Wildenstein-looking ass.

 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

I'm sure Putin would be terrified by the prospect of us sending our aircraft-less aircraft carrier against them.

I think the aircraft have actually been delivered (or are about to be), but they won't be deployed until next year.

I don't think anyone is seriously expecting any kind of military action out of this. Russia's military doctrine is to build up a formidable conventional force to deter anyone from thinking of invading Russia and which can also be used selectively to bolster Russia's sphere of influence around its borders by targeted, decisive interventions, such as we have seen in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. The Russians cannot afford to get into any kind of drawn-out conflict of attrition: the Russian economy is too weak to allow Russia to rapidly make good any kind of large amount of rapid armour or aircraft losses, unlike NATO. Russia's most dangerous contingency plan is an invasion of the Baltic States, as that would involve a direct conflict with NATO forces and would require Russia to seize the Baltics very rapidly (as in, within days) without getting bogged down in a long-term conflict, but that kind of action is only likely to result from a more decisive NATO intervention in Ukraine or elsewhere. This incident is too small-scale to trigger such a reaction.

This current situation will likely seem some tit-for-tat reprisals of expelled diplomats and then tensions will start easing in the next few months assuming Russia doesn't take any other provocative action. If either or both the victims of the poisoning die, that may also act as a cause for stronger measures. But military action is not on the table because any military action could escalate to a nuclear confrontation.

[Spockydog]

The following is a tweet thread from Owen Jones, on the hysteria surrounding Jeremy Corbyn's reaction to the Russian mess.
 

Quote

 

Theresa May on Monday: The chemical weapons attack could have been done by Russia, or it could have been done by somebody else

Jeremy Corbyn today: says the same thing (actually quotes Theresa May's Monday speech word for word) DISGRACE TRAITOR HOW DARE YOU!!!!

It's the same time, every time. Iraq, Helmand Province, Libya. Anything other than total subordination to the government line invites accusations of being a stooge for Saddam/Taliban/Gaddafi, of treachery, of cowardice. All dissent has to be bullied out of existence.

The same politicians and commentators who voted for, and built the case for, the biggest foreign policy calamities of our time are statesmen, are the sensible, hard-headed realists. Those who were (tragically) vindicated are traitors and cowards.

It was Labour which demanded a Magnitsky Act to take on Russian dirty money, and a Conservative Party awash with Russian-linked cash which resisted. Today the Tories have capitulated. Good. But that isn't going to be the headline.

Russia is ruled by a thuggish gangster state, full of the venal and corrupt who, yes, in Corbyn's words "became stupendously rich by looting their country". Decisive action has to be taken against those oligarchs treating London like a playground. That's a key test for the Tories

But I am sick to death of the determined silencing of any dissent by a political elite and commentariat which *every* *single* *time* demands unity and silence at times of a foreign-related crisis, often with demonstrably catastrophic consequences.

Oh: and I remember during the election going on TV to debate pundits who claimed Corbyn's response to the horrific Manchester atrocities would lead to Labour's annihilation. Always remember: there is often a chasm between media and political groupthink and public opinion

 

Word.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

The following is a tweet thread from Owen Jones, on the hysteria surrounding Jeremy Corbyn's reaction to the Russian mess.
 

Word.

A lot of Labour MPs seem pretty unhappy with the response from Corbyn and his spokesman, Seamus Milne.

[Spockydog]

21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A lot of Labour MPs seem pretty unhappy with the response from Corbyn and his spokesman, Seamus Milne.

Yeah, right. So unhappy that a Google news search for 'Seamus Milne' returns just one story. 

Quote

The row intensified when Corbyn’s spin-doctor Seamus Milne then suggested the British intelligence services weren’t very reliable. Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: 

“There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

“So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”

Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent.

He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.”

The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics.

“So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of.

“Clearly this issue has to be followed on the basis of the evidence.”

This level of treachery is simply outrageous! To the Tower with him!

[Spockydog]

You know, thinking about it, if the Russians actually did this, it has to go down as the dumbest act of criminality since Tyrion Lannister handed his incredibly rare Valyrian steel dagger to a stinky, low-level assassin and sent him off to murder Brandon Stark.