Going to war only for “moral” ends seems a poor justification for me. Shouldn’t there also be some actual national interest involved ? Without that, it becomes very hard to define an endpoint and exit strategy. And is arguably why Blair’s wars of “liberal intervention” (none of which I supported) all ended in chaos and failure. As the author notes, almost none of the countries he intervened in are now safe to visit. Result !
All the chaos and destruction and huge waste of lives and money from Blair’s wars are a very high price to pay for the single gain of seeing his reputation trashed.
Before we get into comments about Ukraine, my personal view about Ukraine is that there is a UK national interest at stake and that it is not purely about morality (thiough there is clearly a moral aspect for some of us).
Ordinarily I find myself in agreement with the mood on Unherd, however on this occasion I think I find myself going against the grain. It may very well be that Blair (and other Western leaders) had and still have a certain vanity and an instrumental view of foreign conflicts as taking them to, ‘seats at the top table.’
However whilst such a view may chime with both internet talkboard knock-about and the victimhood mentality entrenched in the Balkans I don’t at all see it as the full story.
Indeed events in Kosovo came very soon after events in Bosnia. It is not exactly difficult to see why Western leaders would not want a repeat of Bosnia and how they would see the prospect of a further conflict in the region as far from theoretical. Conflict spread easily from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Kosovo. It’s not vanity to want to avoid the flows of refugees, the cost and the dislocation of a further conflict.
But ultimately what I think this article does not really address is old fashioned politics – power and interests. What was the Western and NATO interest in Kosovo and ex-Yugoslavia more broadly? To put it down to vanity is too easy. The interest was a show of NATO power per se. For good or for ill intergovernmental NATO had become the prime security organ and if it did not act in Kosovo then NATO (and de facto US) primacy would have been undermined. It was a very political intervention and, as NATO has found out in Ukraine it set some very dubious precedents about the targeting of civilian infrastructure. What Yugoslavia did show was how unready the EU was to take a role, even in a European conflict. In Kosovo KFOR was absolutely not a classic ‘peacekeeping’ role and the UN resolution made no mention of NATO.
But what we have seen flow from Kosovo into Ukraine is the maintenance of NATO as the prime mover in security affairs. The reaction of Sweden and Finland was to join NATO rather than cross their fingers and hope that neutrality would work. To the extent that power and interest in Kosovo were about keeping NATO as the main player in Western security then it was a great success.
From a narrowly focussed perspective on Blair, it is hard now with 15 years of hindsight to imagine how his time leading the UK could have been much worse. But to reduce Kosovo to a vanity exercise seems to me to be very wrong-headed.
Going to war only for “moral” ends seems a poor justification for me. Shouldn’t there also be some actual national interest involved ? Without that, it becomes very hard to define an endpoint and exit strategy. And is arguably why Blair’s wars of “liberal intervention” (none of which I supported) all ended in chaos and failure. As the author notes, almost none of the countries he intervened in are now safe to visit. Result !
All the chaos and destruction and huge waste of lives and money from Blair’s wars are a very high price to pay for the single gain of seeing his reputation trashed.
Before we get into comments about Ukraine, my personal view about Ukraine is that there is a UK national interest at stake and that it is not purely about morality (thiough there is clearly a moral aspect for some of us).
Ordinarily I find myself in agreement with the mood on Unherd, however on this occasion I think I find myself going against the grain. It may very well be that Blair (and other Western leaders) had and still have a certain vanity and an instrumental view of foreign conflicts as taking them to, ‘seats at the top table.’
However whilst such a view may chime with both internet talkboard knock-about and the victimhood mentality entrenched in the Balkans I don’t at all see it as the full story.
Indeed events in Kosovo came very soon after events in Bosnia. It is not exactly difficult to see why Western leaders would not want a repeat of Bosnia and how they would see the prospect of a further conflict in the region as far from theoretical. Conflict spread easily from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Kosovo. It’s not vanity to want to avoid the flows of refugees, the cost and the dislocation of a further conflict.
But ultimately what I think this article does not really address is old fashioned politics – power and interests. What was the Western and NATO interest in Kosovo and ex-Yugoslavia more broadly? To put it down to vanity is too easy. The interest was a show of NATO power per se. For good or for ill intergovernmental NATO had become the prime security organ and if it did not act in Kosovo then NATO (and de facto US) primacy would have been undermined. It was a very political intervention and, as NATO has found out in Ukraine it set some very dubious precedents about the targeting of civilian infrastructure. What Yugoslavia did show was how unready the EU was to take a role, even in a European conflict. In Kosovo KFOR was absolutely not a classic ‘peacekeeping’ role and the UN resolution made no mention of NATO.
But what we have seen flow from Kosovo into Ukraine is the maintenance of NATO as the prime mover in security affairs. The reaction of Sweden and Finland was to join NATO rather than cross their fingers and hope that neutrality would work. To the extent that power and interest in Kosovo were about keeping NATO as the main player in Western security then it was a great success.
From a narrowly focussed perspective on Blair, it is hard now with 15 years of hindsight to imagine how his time leading the UK could have been much worse. But to reduce Kosovo to a vanity exercise seems to me to be very wrong-headed.
polidori redux
1 year ago
God save us from Blair and his morals.
M Lux
1 year ago
What I find particularly interesting about the US/UK interventions in Yugoslavia is how they were honing their media playbook even back then. Create a narrative that “streamlines” (i.e. erases) the messy bits of a given conflict (“we’re always the good guys!”), turn the dial of moral righteousness up to 11 (“they’re so evil!”) and you’ve got yourself a recipe for fabricating consent/support.
This gets repeated so often, you’d think people would’ve caught on (or at least gotten tired of it), but alas, here we are again.
Interesting too that there’s always plenty of money for these hobby wars. Jimmy Dore has pointed out that you could solve homelessness in the USA with just 20% of whet the Biden regime has spent in Ukraine.
Interesting too that there’s always plenty of money for these hobby wars. Jimmy Dore has pointed out that you could solve homelessness in the USA with just 20% of whet the Biden regime has spent in Ukraine.
M Lux
1 year ago
What I find particularly interesting about the US/UK interventions in Yugoslavia is how they were honing their media playbook even back then. Create a narrative that “streamlines” (i.e. erases) the messy bits of a given conflict (“we’re always the good guys!”), turn the dial of moral righteousness up to 11 (“they’re so evil!”) and you’ve got yourself a recipe for fabricating consent/support.
This gets repeated so often, you’d think people would’ve caught on (or at least gotten tired of it), but alas, here we are again.
Martin Layfield
1 year ago
I’m glad you mentioned the bombing of the Chinese embassy by NATO. NATO was lucky China was way behind economically and militarily back then. If such an incident occurred today, World War Three may break out.
Also I’d never known about how much sex trafficking had been going on to gratify the peacekeepers. I was aware how prevalent Kosovans/Albanians were in organised crime in the UK but this was new to me so thanks for highlighting.
Martin Layfield
1 year ago
I’m glad you mentioned the bombing of the Chinese embassy by NATO. NATO was lucky China was way behind economically and militarily back then. If such an incident occurred today, World War Three may break out.
Also I’d never known about how much sex trafficking had been going on to gratify the peacekeepers. I was aware how prevalent Kosovans/Albanians were in organised crime in the UK but this was new to me so thanks for highlighting.
Ludwig van Earwig
1 year ago
Tonibler strikes again. He has quite a charge sheet, doesn’t he.
Maybe Unherd can do a weekly digest on every one? Even the GFA is looking more like an accommodation for the lucrative employment of ageing warmongers, seeking a more comfortable old age.
John Hulme, Mairead Corrigan, Betty Williams and Ciaran McKeown – always remembered.
Maybe Unherd can do a weekly digest on every one? Even the GFA is looking more like an accommodation for the lucrative employment of ageing warmongers, seeking a more comfortable old age.
John Hulme, Mairead Corrigan, Betty Williams and Ciaran McKeown – always remembered.
Last edited 1 year ago by Dustin Needle
Ludwig van Earwig
1 year ago
Tonibler strikes again. He has quite a charge sheet, doesn’t he.
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Blair honestly inspires me to vomit – he should be in jail for genocide and other war crimes, and for treason against the people of the UK.
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Blair honestly inspires me to vomit – he should be in jail for genocide and other war crimes, and for treason against the people of the UK.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
In 1946 both Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel and Generaloberst Alfred Jodl were HANGED for ‘initiating and waging wars of AGGRESSION’.
Both the wretched Tony Blair and his lickspittle colleague and ardent co- conspirator Bush Jnr SHOULD have suffered the same fate.
In 1946 both Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel and Generaloberst Alfred Jodl were HANGED for ‘initiating and waging wars of AGGRESSION’.
Both the wretched Tony Blair and his lickspittle colleague and ardent co- conspirator Bush Jnr SHOULD have suffered the same fate.
Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
R Wright
1 year ago
I am surprised there’s no mention of Blair’s other foreign escapades here like the invasion of Sierra Leone in 2000, the biggest UK deployment since the Falklands War.
R Wright
1 year ago
I am surprised there’s no mention of Blair’s other foreign escapades here like the invasion of Sierra Leone in 2000, the biggest UK deployment since the Falklands War.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
”And, in the context of Ukraine, it’s hard not to see Blair in Pristina as the model for Boris Johnson, or indeed Keir Starmer, in Kyiv. (How envious they must be to see all those Toniblers.)”
Perfect!
Boris seeing himself proudly walking the Kyiv streets as Ukrainian woman in traditional dress throw flowers to him, wile behind them ranks of Ukrainian men stand uniformed and at attention, saluting him, with their polished AK 47s held across their chests…… (and knowing Princess nutnut is watching the scene on BBC, glowing with pride, back home with the little ones)
I think you have found the actual reason Boris has created this WWIII from a regional conflict which was none of his business.
No, but he scuppered a potential peace deal which now looks completely out of reach. Why, one wonders? To keep the MIC in business, to have another go at ‘regime change’? Sadly, our leaders learn nothing from history.
No, but he scuppered a potential peace deal which now looks completely out of reach. Why, one wonders? To keep the MIC in business, to have another go at ‘regime change’? Sadly, our leaders learn nothing from history.
Boris told Putin to invade a sovereign nation did he? He must have had more influence than I realised
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
”And, in the context of Ukraine, it’s hard not to see Blair in Pristina as the model for Boris Johnson, or indeed Keir Starmer, in Kyiv. (How envious they must be to see all those Toniblers.)”
Perfect!
Boris seeing himself proudly walking the Kyiv streets as Ukrainian woman in traditional dress throw flowers to him, wile behind them ranks of Ukrainian men stand uniformed and at attention, saluting him, with their polished AK 47s held across their chests…… (and knowing Princess nutnut is watching the scene on BBC, glowing with pride, back home with the little ones)
I think you have found the actual reason Boris has created this WWIII from a regional conflict which was none of his business.
Dustin Needle
1 year ago
I regret to inform the editor of Unherd that the regular contribution from the Blair Foundation for open reporting is being witheld pending staff re-education and reparations.
Dustin Needle
1 year ago
I regret to inform the editor of Unherd that the regular contribution from the Blair Foundation for open reporting is being witheld pending staff re-education and reparations.
Madeleine Jones
1 year ago
Last week, I read a book about approaches to war by Orthodox Chrisitans. It was a dry, academic collection of writings but it raised interesting questions about the varying attitudes of war among the Latin West and war-torn Byzantine Empire / Eastern Orthodox countries. The latter never formalised their theologies of war like Aquinas did at Rome. Just War Theory is unique for the Latin West, the civilisation which justified the Crusades (for understandable reasons). Of course, the Reformation happened and the Anglo world took on a Protestant bent – but enjoyed a geographical primacy many mainland European and Middle Eastern countries simply don’t have. When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’
My point: Blair’s moral posturing, as well as Johnson’s stance on Ukraine, are firmly in line with Anglo approaches to diplomacy and war. Heck, who can forget Churchill’s speech about never surrendering and fighting on the beaches? Or Roosevelt’s “The Arena” analogy, where boxers and warriors are praised over mere critics? None of this is necessarily bad. It’s admirable – we want to stand up to bullies. But these bulldozzing attitudes rarely help in the Balkans, the Middle East or Eurasia.
The Anglosphere does have a tradition of rationalism, hard work, diplomacy and using evidence. Perhaps our leaders should strike the ideal balance between those and the Churchillian characteristics we all know – and (mostly) appreciate. I really don’t want to be negative about the Anglosphere – rather, I wish to illustrate a hopeful direction so tragedies like Iraq never occur again.
“When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’”
The BBC did not exist in WW1 do you mean WW2?
Orthodox Christian Perspectives on War. University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. The authors vary depending on section. It is an academic text, so $$$ but check your local / state library or alumni for digital access.
Orthodox Christian Perspectives on War. University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. The authors vary depending on section. It is an academic text, so $$$ but check your local / state library or alumni for digital access.
“When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’”
The BBC did not exist in WW1 do you mean WW2?
Last week, I read a book about approaches to war by Orthodox Chrisitans. It was a dry, academic collection of writings but it raised interesting questions about the varying attitudes of war among the Latin West and war-torn Byzantine Empire / Eastern Orthodox countries. The latter never formalised their theologies of war like Aquinas did at Rome. Just War Theory is unique for the Latin West, the civilisation which justified the Crusades (for understandable reasons). Of course, the Reformation happened and the Anglo world took on a Protestant bent – but enjoyed a geographical primacy many mainland European and Middle Eastern countries simply don’t have. When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’
My point: Blair’s moral posturing, as well as Johnson’s stance on Ukraine, are firmly in line with Anglo approaches to diplomacy and war. Heck, who can forget Churchill’s speech about never surrendering and fighting on the beaches? Or Roosevelt’s “The Arena” analogy, where boxers and warriors are praised over mere critics? None of this is necessarily bad. It’s admirable – we want to stand up to bullies. But these bulldozzing attitudes rarely help in the Balkans, the Middle East or Eurasia.
The Anglosphere does have a tradition of rationalism, hard work, diplomacy and using evidence. Perhaps our leaders should strike the ideal balance between those and the Churchillian characteristics we all know – and (mostly) appreciate. I really don’t want to be negative about the Anglosphere – rather, I wish to illustrate a hopeful direction so tragedies like Iraq never occur again.
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
Oh what tangled web we weave / when first we practice to deceive!
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
Oh what tangled web we weave / when first we practice to deceive!
nigel roberts
1 year ago
Virtue signaling with other people’s lives.
nigel roberts
1 year ago
Virtue signaling with other people’s lives.
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Before the bombing of Serbia, the UN had been discredited by its failure to defend Bosnian Muslims from rape and murder. With no sign that it would defend the Kosovans any better, the UN was widely seen as irrelevant to the debate on the morality of bombing Serbia to save Kosovan lives. This and the fear of losing funding probably prompted the UN to get its act together and consequently UN arms inspectors played so prominent a role in Iraq in 2003.
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Before the bombing of Serbia, the UN had been discredited by its failure to defend Bosnian Muslims from rape and murder. With no sign that it would defend the Kosovans any better, the UN was widely seen as irrelevant to the debate on the morality of bombing Serbia to save Kosovan lives. This and the fear of losing funding probably prompted the UN to get its act together and consequently UN arms inspectors played so prominent a role in Iraq in 2003.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
The danger of ambitious men like Blair (or women like Hillary Clinton) is that their ambition cannot be sated. The more power and adulation they get the more they crave. That’s why political power needs to be dispersed, not concentrated. When was the last time Switzerland pauperised itself with a pointless war in the Middle East?
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
The danger of ambitious men like Blair (or women like Hillary Clinton) is that their ambition cannot be sated. The more power and adulation they get the more they crave. That’s why political power needs to be dispersed, not concentrated. When was the last time Switzerland pauperised itself with a pointless war in the Middle East?
Matty D
1 year ago
The logic of the author’s argument is that the non-intervention by the collective West in the Rwanda genocide in 1994 was the right approach. The outcome? 500-600 thousand people were murdered. Anyone writing snide pieces like this (or posting supportive comments below) needs to address this point. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
The logic of the author’s argument is that the non-intervention by the collective West in the Rwanda genocide in 1994 was the right approach. The outcome? 500-600 thousand people were murdered. Anyone writing snide pieces like this (or posting supportive comments below) needs to address this point. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
God save us from Blair and his morals.
Amen to that!
Going to war only for “moral” ends seems a poor justification for me. Shouldn’t there also be some actual national interest involved ? Without that, it becomes very hard to define an endpoint and exit strategy. And is arguably why Blair’s wars of “liberal intervention” (none of which I supported) all ended in chaos and failure. As the author notes, almost none of the countries he intervened in are now safe to visit. Result !
All the chaos and destruction and huge waste of lives and money from Blair’s wars are a very high price to pay for the single gain of seeing his reputation trashed.
Before we get into comments about Ukraine, my personal view about Ukraine is that there is a UK national interest at stake and that it is not purely about morality (thiough there is clearly a moral aspect for some of us).
Ordinarily I find myself in agreement with the mood on Unherd, however on this occasion I think I find myself going against the grain. It may very well be that Blair (and other Western leaders) had and still have a certain vanity and an instrumental view of foreign conflicts as taking them to, ‘seats at the top table.’
However whilst such a view may chime with both internet talkboard knock-about and the victimhood mentality entrenched in the Balkans I don’t at all see it as the full story.
Indeed events in Kosovo came very soon after events in Bosnia. It is not exactly difficult to see why Western leaders would not want a repeat of Bosnia and how they would see the prospect of a further conflict in the region as far from theoretical. Conflict spread easily from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Kosovo. It’s not vanity to want to avoid the flows of refugees, the cost and the dislocation of a further conflict.
But ultimately what I think this article does not really address is old fashioned politics – power and interests. What was the Western and NATO interest in Kosovo and ex-Yugoslavia more broadly? To put it down to vanity is too easy. The interest was a show of NATO power per se. For good or for ill intergovernmental NATO had become the prime security organ and if it did not act in Kosovo then NATO (and de facto US) primacy would have been undermined. It was a very political intervention and, as NATO has found out in Ukraine it set some very dubious precedents about the targeting of civilian infrastructure. What Yugoslavia did show was how unready the EU was to take a role, even in a European conflict. In Kosovo KFOR was absolutely not a classic ‘peacekeeping’ role and the UN resolution made no mention of NATO.
But what we have seen flow from Kosovo into Ukraine is the maintenance of NATO as the prime mover in security affairs. The reaction of Sweden and Finland was to join NATO rather than cross their fingers and hope that neutrality would work. To the extent that power and interest in Kosovo were about keeping NATO as the main player in Western security then it was a great success.
From a narrowly focussed perspective on Blair, it is hard now with 15 years of hindsight to imagine how his time leading the UK could have been much worse. But to reduce Kosovo to a vanity exercise seems to me to be very wrong-headed.
Amen to that!
Going to war only for “moral” ends seems a poor justification for me. Shouldn’t there also be some actual national interest involved ? Without that, it becomes very hard to define an endpoint and exit strategy. And is arguably why Blair’s wars of “liberal intervention” (none of which I supported) all ended in chaos and failure. As the author notes, almost none of the countries he intervened in are now safe to visit. Result !
All the chaos and destruction and huge waste of lives and money from Blair’s wars are a very high price to pay for the single gain of seeing his reputation trashed.
Before we get into comments about Ukraine, my personal view about Ukraine is that there is a UK national interest at stake and that it is not purely about morality (thiough there is clearly a moral aspect for some of us).
Ordinarily I find myself in agreement with the mood on Unherd, however on this occasion I think I find myself going against the grain. It may very well be that Blair (and other Western leaders) had and still have a certain vanity and an instrumental view of foreign conflicts as taking them to, ‘seats at the top table.’
However whilst such a view may chime with both internet talkboard knock-about and the victimhood mentality entrenched in the Balkans I don’t at all see it as the full story.
Indeed events in Kosovo came very soon after events in Bosnia. It is not exactly difficult to see why Western leaders would not want a repeat of Bosnia and how they would see the prospect of a further conflict in the region as far from theoretical. Conflict spread easily from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Kosovo. It’s not vanity to want to avoid the flows of refugees, the cost and the dislocation of a further conflict.
But ultimately what I think this article does not really address is old fashioned politics – power and interests. What was the Western and NATO interest in Kosovo and ex-Yugoslavia more broadly? To put it down to vanity is too easy. The interest was a show of NATO power per se. For good or for ill intergovernmental NATO had become the prime security organ and if it did not act in Kosovo then NATO (and de facto US) primacy would have been undermined. It was a very political intervention and, as NATO has found out in Ukraine it set some very dubious precedents about the targeting of civilian infrastructure. What Yugoslavia did show was how unready the EU was to take a role, even in a European conflict. In Kosovo KFOR was absolutely not a classic ‘peacekeeping’ role and the UN resolution made no mention of NATO.
But what we have seen flow from Kosovo into Ukraine is the maintenance of NATO as the prime mover in security affairs. The reaction of Sweden and Finland was to join NATO rather than cross their fingers and hope that neutrality would work. To the extent that power and interest in Kosovo were about keeping NATO as the main player in Western security then it was a great success.
From a narrowly focussed perspective on Blair, it is hard now with 15 years of hindsight to imagine how his time leading the UK could have been much worse. But to reduce Kosovo to a vanity exercise seems to me to be very wrong-headed.
God save us from Blair and his morals.
What I find particularly interesting about the US/UK interventions in Yugoslavia is how they were honing their media playbook even back then. Create a narrative that “streamlines” (i.e. erases) the messy bits of a given conflict (“we’re always the good guys!”), turn the dial of moral righteousness up to 11 (“they’re so evil!”) and you’ve got yourself a recipe for fabricating consent/support.
This gets repeated so often, you’d think people would’ve caught on (or at least gotten tired of it), but alas, here we are again.
Interesting too that there’s always plenty of money for these hobby wars. Jimmy Dore has pointed out that you could solve homelessness in the USA with just 20% of whet the Biden regime has spent in Ukraine.
Interesting too that there’s always plenty of money for these hobby wars. Jimmy Dore has pointed out that you could solve homelessness in the USA with just 20% of whet the Biden regime has spent in Ukraine.
What I find particularly interesting about the US/UK interventions in Yugoslavia is how they were honing their media playbook even back then. Create a narrative that “streamlines” (i.e. erases) the messy bits of a given conflict (“we’re always the good guys!”), turn the dial of moral righteousness up to 11 (“they’re so evil!”) and you’ve got yourself a recipe for fabricating consent/support.
This gets repeated so often, you’d think people would’ve caught on (or at least gotten tired of it), but alas, here we are again.
I’m glad you mentioned the bombing of the Chinese embassy by NATO. NATO was lucky China was way behind economically and militarily back then. If such an incident occurred today, World War Three may break out.
Also I’d never known about how much sex trafficking had been going on to gratify the peacekeepers. I was aware how prevalent Kosovans/Albanians were in organised crime in the UK but this was new to me so thanks for highlighting.
I’m glad you mentioned the bombing of the Chinese embassy by NATO. NATO was lucky China was way behind economically and militarily back then. If such an incident occurred today, World War Three may break out.
Also I’d never known about how much sex trafficking had been going on to gratify the peacekeepers. I was aware how prevalent Kosovans/Albanians were in organised crime in the UK but this was new to me so thanks for highlighting.
Tonibler strikes again. He has quite a charge sheet, doesn’t he.
Britains reigning war crime champion.
Maybe Unherd can do a weekly digest on every one? Even the GFA is looking more like an accommodation for the lucrative employment of ageing warmongers, seeking a more comfortable old age.
John Hulme, Mairead Corrigan, Betty Williams and Ciaran McKeown – always remembered.
Britains reigning war crime champion.
Maybe Unherd can do a weekly digest on every one? Even the GFA is looking more like an accommodation for the lucrative employment of ageing warmongers, seeking a more comfortable old age.
John Hulme, Mairead Corrigan, Betty Williams and Ciaran McKeown – always remembered.
Tonibler strikes again. He has quite a charge sheet, doesn’t he.
Blair honestly inspires me to vomit – he should be in jail for genocide and other war crimes, and for treason against the people of the UK.
Blair honestly inspires me to vomit – he should be in jail for genocide and other war crimes, and for treason against the people of the UK.
In 1946 both Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel and Generaloberst Alfred Jodl were HANGED for ‘initiating and waging wars of AGGRESSION’.
Both the wretched Tony Blair and his lickspittle colleague and ardent co- conspirator Bush Jnr SHOULD have suffered the same fate.
Don’t you mean Jodl?
Yes! ….Off to ‘Specsavers’!
Yes! ….Off to ‘Specsavers’!
Wilhelmina? Was he trans?
Thanks!
That damned ‘predicted’ text Gremlin is obviously TRANS!
I shall have to be more careful.
Thanks!
That damned ‘predicted’ text Gremlin is obviously TRANS!
I shall have to be more careful.
Don’t you mean Jodl?
Wilhelmina? Was he trans?
In 1946 both Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel and Generaloberst Alfred Jodl were HANGED for ‘initiating and waging wars of AGGRESSION’.
Both the wretched Tony Blair and his lickspittle colleague and ardent co- conspirator Bush Jnr SHOULD have suffered the same fate.
I am surprised there’s no mention of Blair’s other foreign escapades here like the invasion of Sierra Leone in 2000, the biggest UK deployment since the Falklands War.
I am surprised there’s no mention of Blair’s other foreign escapades here like the invasion of Sierra Leone in 2000, the biggest UK deployment since the Falklands War.
”And, in the context of Ukraine, it’s hard not to see Blair in Pristina as the model for Boris Johnson, or indeed Keir Starmer, in Kyiv. (How envious they must be to see all those Toniblers.)”
Perfect!
Boris seeing himself proudly walking the Kyiv streets as Ukrainian woman in traditional dress throw flowers to him, wile behind them ranks of Ukrainian men stand uniformed and at attention, saluting him, with their polished AK 47s held across their chests…… (and knowing Princess nutnut is watching the scene on BBC, glowing with pride, back home with the little ones)
I think you have found the actual reason Boris has created this WWIII from a regional conflict which was none of his business.
Boris told Putin to invade a sovereign nation did he? He must have had more influence than I realised
No, but he scuppered a potential peace deal which now looks completely out of reach. Why, one wonders? To keep the MIC in business, to have another go at ‘regime change’? Sadly, our leaders learn nothing from history.
No, but he scuppered a potential peace deal which now looks completely out of reach. Why, one wonders? To keep the MIC in business, to have another go at ‘regime change’? Sadly, our leaders learn nothing from history.
Boris told Putin to invade a sovereign nation did he? He must have had more influence than I realised
”And, in the context of Ukraine, it’s hard not to see Blair in Pristina as the model for Boris Johnson, or indeed Keir Starmer, in Kyiv. (How envious they must be to see all those Toniblers.)”
Perfect!
Boris seeing himself proudly walking the Kyiv streets as Ukrainian woman in traditional dress throw flowers to him, wile behind them ranks of Ukrainian men stand uniformed and at attention, saluting him, with their polished AK 47s held across their chests…… (and knowing Princess nutnut is watching the scene on BBC, glowing with pride, back home with the little ones)
I think you have found the actual reason Boris has created this WWIII from a regional conflict which was none of his business.
I regret to inform the editor of Unherd that the regular contribution from the Blair Foundation for open reporting is being witheld pending staff re-education and reparations.
I regret to inform the editor of Unherd that the regular contribution from the Blair Foundation for open reporting is being witheld pending staff re-education and reparations.
Last week, I read a book about approaches to war by Orthodox Chrisitans. It was a dry, academic collection of writings but it raised interesting questions about the varying attitudes of war among the Latin West and war-torn Byzantine Empire / Eastern Orthodox countries. The latter never formalised their theologies of war like Aquinas did at Rome. Just War Theory is unique for the Latin West, the civilisation which justified the Crusades (for understandable reasons). Of course, the Reformation happened and the Anglo world took on a Protestant bent – but enjoyed a geographical primacy many mainland European and Middle Eastern countries simply don’t have. When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’
My point: Blair’s moral posturing, as well as Johnson’s stance on Ukraine, are firmly in line with Anglo approaches to diplomacy and war. Heck, who can forget Churchill’s speech about never surrendering and fighting on the beaches? Or Roosevelt’s “The Arena” analogy, where boxers and warriors are praised over mere critics? None of this is necessarily bad. It’s admirable – we want to stand up to bullies. But these bulldozzing attitudes rarely help in the Balkans, the Middle East or Eurasia.
The Anglosphere does have a tradition of rationalism, hard work, diplomacy and using evidence. Perhaps our leaders should strike the ideal balance between those and the Churchillian characteristics we all know – and (mostly) appreciate. I really don’t want to be negative about the Anglosphere – rather, I wish to illustrate a hopeful direction so tragedies like Iraq never occur again.
“When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’”
The BBC did not exist in WW1 do you mean WW2?
Ah my mistake – It was WWI, It wasn’t the BBC – I think it was some broadcast.
Ah my mistake – It was WWI, It wasn’t the BBC – I think it was some broadcast.
Which book was it? Sounds interesting
Orthodox Christian Perspectives on War. University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. The authors vary depending on section. It is an academic text, so $$$ but check your local / state library or alumni for digital access.
Orthodox Christian Perspectives on War. University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. The authors vary depending on section. It is an academic text, so $$$ but check your local / state library or alumni for digital access.
“When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’”
The BBC did not exist in WW1 do you mean WW2?
Which book was it? Sounds interesting
Last week, I read a book about approaches to war by Orthodox Chrisitans. It was a dry, academic collection of writings but it raised interesting questions about the varying attitudes of war among the Latin West and war-torn Byzantine Empire / Eastern Orthodox countries. The latter never formalised their theologies of war like Aquinas did at Rome. Just War Theory is unique for the Latin West, the civilisation which justified the Crusades (for understandable reasons). Of course, the Reformation happened and the Anglo world took on a Protestant bent – but enjoyed a geographical primacy many mainland European and Middle Eastern countries simply don’t have. When WWI broke out, I believe a superior in the Anglican church rebuked Germany’s attempt at Just War Theory, giving a succint perspective over the BBC about the nuances in ‘just war theory.’
My point: Blair’s moral posturing, as well as Johnson’s stance on Ukraine, are firmly in line with Anglo approaches to diplomacy and war. Heck, who can forget Churchill’s speech about never surrendering and fighting on the beaches? Or Roosevelt’s “The Arena” analogy, where boxers and warriors are praised over mere critics? None of this is necessarily bad. It’s admirable – we want to stand up to bullies. But these bulldozzing attitudes rarely help in the Balkans, the Middle East or Eurasia.
The Anglosphere does have a tradition of rationalism, hard work, diplomacy and using evidence. Perhaps our leaders should strike the ideal balance between those and the Churchillian characteristics we all know – and (mostly) appreciate. I really don’t want to be negative about the Anglosphere – rather, I wish to illustrate a hopeful direction so tragedies like Iraq never occur again.
Oh what tangled web we weave / when first we practice to deceive!
Oh what tangled web we weave / when first we practice to deceive!
Virtue signaling with other people’s lives.
Virtue signaling with other people’s lives.
Before the bombing of Serbia, the UN had been discredited by its failure to defend Bosnian Muslims from rape and murder. With no sign that it would defend the Kosovans any better, the UN was widely seen as irrelevant to the debate on the morality of bombing Serbia to save Kosovan lives. This and the fear of losing funding probably prompted the UN to get its act together and consequently UN arms inspectors played so prominent a role in Iraq in 2003.
Before the bombing of Serbia, the UN had been discredited by its failure to defend Bosnian Muslims from rape and murder. With no sign that it would defend the Kosovans any better, the UN was widely seen as irrelevant to the debate on the morality of bombing Serbia to save Kosovan lives. This and the fear of losing funding probably prompted the UN to get its act together and consequently UN arms inspectors played so prominent a role in Iraq in 2003.
The danger of ambitious men like Blair (or women like Hillary Clinton) is that their ambition cannot be sated. The more power and adulation they get the more they crave. That’s why political power needs to be dispersed, not concentrated. When was the last time Switzerland pauperised itself with a pointless war in the Middle East?
The danger of ambitious men like Blair (or women like Hillary Clinton) is that their ambition cannot be sated. The more power and adulation they get the more they crave. That’s why political power needs to be dispersed, not concentrated. When was the last time Switzerland pauperised itself with a pointless war in the Middle East?
The logic of the author’s argument is that the non-intervention by the collective West in the Rwanda genocide in 1994 was the right approach. The outcome? 500-600 thousand people were murdered. Anyone writing snide pieces like this (or posting supportive comments below) needs to address this point. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
Rwanda is slap bang in the middle of Africa. Couldn’t the surrounding African countries intervene for the sake of humanity?
“Pigs might fly”.
“Pigs might fly”.
If we’d intervened you can bet there would be a conga line of Guardianistas protesting against the ‘neocolonialism’ of the west.
What do you suggest are the criteria for intervening?
The French and Belgians had their proxies fighting in Rwanda. The Belgians supported the Tutsis, the historical rulers in Rwanda, and the French supported the Hutu militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocide#:~:text=France%20actively%20supported%20the%20Hutu,four%20decades%20of%20anti%2DTutsi
Rwanda is slap bang in the middle of Africa. Couldn’t the surrounding African countries intervene for the sake of humanity?
If we’d intervened you can bet there would be a conga line of Guardianistas protesting against the ‘neocolonialism’ of the west.
What do you suggest are the criteria for intervening?
The French and Belgians had their proxies fighting in Rwanda. The Belgians supported the Tutsis, the historical rulers in Rwanda, and the French supported the Hutu militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocide#:~:text=France%20actively%20supported%20the%20Hutu,four%20decades%20of%20anti%2DTutsi
The logic of the author’s argument is that the non-intervention by the collective West in the Rwanda genocide in 1994 was the right approach. The outcome? 500-600 thousand people were murdered. Anyone writing snide pieces like this (or posting supportive comments below) needs to address this point. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.