Main Edition
US
FR
Xi was taken by surprise (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
After Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last year, Beijing’s faithful lieges in Europe were quick to declare that China, perhaps even Xi Jinping himself, was “the key” to ending the war. The truth could not be more different: in the 13 months that followed, China’s role has been scarcely greater than Montenegro’s, where a number of wealthy Russians are sitting out the war, or Serbia’s, which remains Russia’s only true European ally.
Xi’s current trip to Moscow, then, is as much about saving face in Beijing as it is about bringing peace to Kyiv. If he can turn his visit into a successful mediation that stops the fighting — even if it is just a ceasefire — Xi would not only win a class-A diplomatic victory on the global stage, but also remedy China’s own war misfortunes.
The primary reason for Beijing’s initial claim to neutrality was that Xi was caught by surprise, despite the “no-limits” strategic partnership he had proclaimed with Putin just three weeks before the war started. Putin was not to blame for this; he certainly had no intention of deceiving Xi. Rather, it was Putin himself who was deceived — by his own FSB intelligence chiefs, who predicted that Kyiv would fall swiftly, leading to Ukraine’s total surrender. If this all seems foolish in retrospect, it was a foolishness Washington shared, where similar CIA intelligence prompted Biden’s offer to immediately evacuate Zelenskyy.
Yet for China, Russia’s failure to rapidly conquer Ukraine was only the start of a series of very unpleasant surprises. First came the overnight transformation of Nato: from an obsolete Cold War pact into a forcefully expanding alliance. Finland and Sweden dispatched weapons even before applying for membership, while Japan sent financial aid as though it were a member state. Beijing was suddenly forced to recalculate the overall US-China balance of global power, a transformation made even more urgent after the British, French, German and Italian governments promised to send warships to the South China Sea. Chinese propagandists who ridiculed such old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy could overlook the accompanying British and French nuclear attack submarines, but the Chinese navy could not.
The next unpleasant surprise came from the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK. Instead of hesitating while each country tried to safeguard its own export interests, they all immediately agreed to impose sweeping economic sanctions on Russia. It was instantly obvious in Beijing that while Russia would not be seriously harmed by the sanctions, because it is self-sufficient in both energy and food, China’s position was altogether more perilous: it is the world’s largest importer of animal feed and food, as well as of coal, oil and gas.
True, demand for the latter would collapse in the event of a war over Taiwan and the sanctions that would inevitably follow; seaborne exports would end, as would the energy demands of China’s vast export industries. But China’s 1.4 billion people must still eat, and to feed them the country imports some 130 million metric tons of animal feed and food, including 95 million metric tons of soya beans alone. Under G7 sanctions, this vast traffic of thousands of bulk carriers would grind to a halt. Ships bound for China would no longer be loaded in the Pacific ports of the US and Canada, both major sources of soya beans, maize and wheat, while the Atlantic ports of Argentina and Brazil, the other major sources of China’s food imports, are an ocean too far for the China trade. With any form of war underway, it would be all too easy to dissuade the passage of China-bound ships across the Atlantic, around Africa and through the Indian ocean to the Strait of Malacca.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEdward Luttwak is one of the brightest analysts who exists and is always looking at events from various angles most people miss.
The G7=roughly a GDP of 40 Trillion Dollars but there are other dormant members like Netherlands, Sweden, Taiwan, S.Korea or Australia to mention a few which share the same type of economic/political system. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Fazi who yesterday was in a rather depressed mood. He can read Luttwak’s article today and feel better.
No, he is an arch bluffer of the first degree and ever since his “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire” published in 1976.
Can you elaborate a bit further please ?
Luttwak has been writing, intermittently for UnHerd for the past three years, and it is mainly, but not exclusively, on this work that I base my judgement.
Sorry, I do not share your point of view, I read his articles for many years now. I found them very convincing based on countries I visited extensively for business or pleasure.
Then I am sorry but we shall have to differ.
I have a rather deep aversion to so called ‘Defence Analysts’, based on years of disappointment.
Perhaps I may give you an example and not to be vindictive, it is not about Luttwak.
For years the Soviets used to claim and their cousins still do, that the Battle of Prokhorovka fought on the 12th July,1943 was the greatest tank battle in history and a resounding Soviet success. Stories of gallant Soviet T-34 tanks ramming evil German ‘Tigers and Panthers’* abounded.
Sadly eminent British military historians abetted them by regurgitating Soviet propaganda almost undiluted. The late John Keegan and the late John Erickson agreeing that the Germans lost ‘more that 300 tanks, among them 70 Tigers’. Richard Overy went on to describe how Soviet T-34’s we’re ‘blasting Tigers and PANTHERS at the side and rear’
Modern research including contemporary aerial photography has now made the startling revelation that the Soviets lost 255 tanks to the German’s 5, one Tiger and four Panzer IV’s. Incidentally there were NO Panthers involved. Thus a stunning German victory and not an heroic Soviet defence..
When our best can be so easily fooled it does make
one wonder.
(* German Tanks.)
Rather strange then that the Russians subsequently went on the offensive.
Numbers of tanks destroyed don’t tell the story. It’s the RESULTS of the battle that are key.
And the main result of Zitadel was that the Germans failed to break the Soviet defences, and so inflict much greater losses on Stalin’s army via an envelopment.
As with the Russian offensives today in Donbas, if you can’t break the defensive line, it’s pretty much of a failure.
Indeed, as with both Zitadel and Bakhmut, the losses in the attacks just mandate failure farther down the road.
True but that wasn’t my point was it?
It was the unreliability of renowned military historians/experts that is the problem.
It isn’t a “stunning victory” if an offensive fails in its objectives, and Germany ultimately loses because of it.
Every military analyst I know of saw/sees Kursk as a strategic failure, just like Putin’s offensives so far.
So maybe we ought to listen to them.
I was only talking about Day One, the 12th July, as you well know.
Rather like saying Putin won on 24 Feb.
Nonsense.
Mr. Logan is exactly right.
They can both be right – about two different events.
They can both be right – about two different events.
Mr. Logan is exactly right.
Nonsense.
In military terms, Logan is employing diversionary tactics.
Rather like saying Putin won on 24 Feb.
In military terms, Logan is employing diversionary tactics.
I was only talking about Day One, the 12th July, as you well know.
It isn’t a “stunning victory” if an offensive fails in its objectives, and Germany ultimately loses because of it.
Every military analyst I know of saw/sees Kursk as a strategic failure, just like Putin’s offensives so far.
So maybe we ought to listen to them.
True but that wasn’t my point was it?
It was the unreliability of renowned military historians/experts that is the problem.
Do you have any links to corroborate this?
It was an essay written about a year ago that mentioned the “release’ of new Luftwaffe photos by the US.
I shall see if I can dig it out and get back to you.
It’s easy. See: “Prokhorovka: the greatest tank battle in history? — Bill Purdue takes a look at recent critical reappraisal of this famous clash of Soviet and Nazi armour in the summer of 1943.” – Military History, 12/11/2020. Purdue mentions that after the battle Stalin, who trusted almost nobody, dispatched Molotov to verify the reports.
It’s easy. See: “Prokhorovka: the greatest tank battle in history? — Bill Purdue takes a look at recent critical reappraisal of this famous clash of Soviet and Nazi armour in the summer of 1943.” – Military History, 12/11/2020. Purdue mentions that after the battle Stalin, who trusted almost nobody, dispatched Molotov to verify the reports.
It was an essay written about a year ago that mentioned the “release’ of new Luftwaffe photos by the US.
I shall see if I can dig it out and get back to you.
I shall ponder about it. I have to agree with you that the Soviets (maybe Russian tradition) lie to an unimaginable extent. Lie is an epxdient to gain time when you have no truth to show.
I would count the USA among the more proficient liars on the planet. I am sure you would agree. Our warmongers still express fume about the Russian placement of missiles–at Cuba’s request–as if it were the height of infamy. They deliberately do not mention that it was multiple attempts to assasinate Castro as well the hapless Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 that drove Cuba to the missile request for Cuba’s defense the very next year: 1962.
We hear plenty of the Bay of PIgs debacle and the tension with Cuba. Get the wax out of your ears.
We hear plenty of the Bay of PIgs debacle and the tension with Cuba. Get the wax out of your ears.
How on earth do you get to a pre the USSR Russian tradition being lying to an unbelievable extent? Tsarist Russia had plenty of FDI , open borders, journalists, excellent universities, schools and local government , all free to see by anybody, Russian or foreign. I think your comment was meant to be entirely casual. But words have meaning.
While I agree with you that during the Zar’s regime the control on the population did not reach the levels of CEKA, NKVD or KGB, I would suggest you study more deeply about the Ochrana and their methods. And also have a look of how minorities were treated.
I also agree with you that words have meaning, and I meant it.
While I agree with you that during the Zar’s regime the control on the population did not reach the levels of CEKA, NKVD or KGB, I would suggest you study more deeply about the Ochrana and their methods. And also have a look of how minorities were treated.
I also agree with you that words have meaning, and I meant it.
I would count the USA among the more proficient liars on the planet. I am sure you would agree. Our warmongers still express fume about the Russian placement of missiles–at Cuba’s request–as if it were the height of infamy. They deliberately do not mention that it was multiple attempts to assasinate Castro as well the hapless Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 that drove Cuba to the missile request for Cuba’s defense the very next year: 1962.
How on earth do you get to a pre the USSR Russian tradition being lying to an unbelievable extent? Tsarist Russia had plenty of FDI , open borders, journalists, excellent universities, schools and local government , all free to see by anybody, Russian or foreign. I think your comment was meant to be entirely casual. But words have meaning.
The Germans were stopped from taking the town of Prokhorovka despite their “great victory,” causing Hitler to cancel Operation Citadel, which was the last German offensive of the war. From that point on the Russians were on the offensive, and in less than a year were at the gates of Warsaw. Yes siree, a great German victory.
Rather strange then that the Russians subsequently went on the offensive.
Numbers of tanks destroyed don’t tell the story. It’s the RESULTS of the battle that are key.
And the main result of Zitadel was that the Germans failed to break the Soviet defences, and so inflict much greater losses on Stalin’s army via an envelopment.
As with the Russian offensives today in Donbas, if you can’t break the defensive line, it’s pretty much of a failure.
Indeed, as with both Zitadel and Bakhmut, the losses in the attacks just mandate failure farther down the road.
Do you have any links to corroborate this?
I shall ponder about it. I have to agree with you that the Soviets (maybe Russian tradition) lie to an unimaginable extent. Lie is an epxdient to gain time when you have no truth to show.
The Germans were stopped from taking the town of Prokhorovka despite their “great victory,” causing Hitler to cancel Operation Citadel, which was the last German offensive of the war. From that point on the Russians were on the offensive, and in less than a year were at the gates of Warsaw. Yes siree, a great German victory.
Then I am sorry but we shall have to differ.
I have a rather deep aversion to so called ‘Defence Analysts’, based on years of disappointment.
Perhaps I may give you an example and not to be vindictive, it is not about Luttwak.
For years the Soviets used to claim and their cousins still do, that the Battle of Prokhorovka fought on the 12th July,1943 was the greatest tank battle in history and a resounding Soviet success. Stories of gallant Soviet T-34 tanks ramming evil German ‘Tigers and Panthers’* abounded.
Sadly eminent British military historians abetted them by regurgitating Soviet propaganda almost undiluted. The late John Keegan and the late John Erickson agreeing that the Germans lost ‘more that 300 tanks, among them 70 Tigers’. Richard Overy went on to describe how Soviet T-34’s we’re ‘blasting Tigers and PANTHERS at the side and rear’
Modern research including contemporary aerial photography has now made the startling revelation that the Soviets lost 255 tanks to the German’s 5, one Tiger and four Panzer IV’s. Incidentally there were NO Panthers involved. Thus a stunning German victory and not an heroic Soviet defence..
When our best can be so easily fooled it does make
one wonder.
(* German Tanks.)
Actually his theory is rather cogent, and I’m surprised that an anti-imperialist such as yourself doesn’t like it.
Yes it is cogent, but it also a statement of “the bleeding obvious “ as Sir Michael Caine might put it.
Except that Luttwak finds that imperialism isn’t about some evil will to power.
At each stage the instability beyond the empire’s borders impels it to try and quell that instability.
Pretty important insight. Indeed, it presents a dilemma that every state has to deal with.
As I said above there is nothing new in that!
As I said above there is nothing new in that!
Except that Luttwak finds that imperialism isn’t about some evil will to power.
At each stage the instability beyond the empire’s borders impels it to try and quell that instability.
Pretty important insight. Indeed, it presents a dilemma that every state has to deal with.
Yes it is cogent, but it also a statement of “the bleeding obvious “ as Sir Michael Caine might put it.
Luttwak always seems to make sense — and very entertaining reading — but events do not necessarily unfold the way he predicts. Still, some of his missives are surely correct, e.g. this one from several years back:
“There is the perverse, noxious disastrous language of “rights.” Let me tell you, Hungary has a right to Arad, the city I was born in. China has the right to Vladivostok, Poland has the right to Lvov. The Slovaks have a right to Ushgarad. The Sudeten Germans have a right to their homes, which are now lived in by Czechs. There are more rights than there is space; more rights than square miles. If you want to have a war, talk the language of rights, talk the language of Justice. If you want peace, make a deal.”
Articles regarding geopolitics are some kind of brain storming and if the journalist gets two or three points right then this is enough to give him some credit. To get all things right and in every article is seeking for perfection and the perfection is not of this world.
Articles regarding geopolitics are some kind of brain storming and if the journalist gets two or three points right then this is enough to give him some credit. To get all things right and in every article is seeking for perfection and the perfection is not of this world.
Sorry, I do not share your point of view, I read his articles for many years now. I found them very convincing based on countries I visited extensively for business or pleasure.
Actually his theory is rather cogent, and I’m surprised that an anti-imperialist such as yourself doesn’t like it.
Luttwak always seems to make sense — and very entertaining reading — but events do not necessarily unfold the way he predicts. Still, some of his missives are surely correct, e.g. this one from several years back:
“There is the perverse, noxious disastrous language of “rights.” Let me tell you, Hungary has a right to Arad, the city I was born in. China has the right to Vladivostok, Poland has the right to Lvov. The Slovaks have a right to Ushgarad. The Sudeten Germans have a right to their homes, which are now lived in by Czechs. There are more rights than there is space; more rights than square miles. If you want to have a war, talk the language of rights, talk the language of Justice. If you want peace, make a deal.”
Luttwak has been writing, intermittently for UnHerd for the past three years, and it is mainly, but not exclusively, on this work that I base my judgement.
Oh fhs I’m agreeing with you again Charlie! This will have to stop!
Down with this sort of ‘ting! Father Ted was right!!
Don’t let Mrs Doyle hear you saying that!
Don’t let Mrs Doyle hear you saying that!
Lol, yes I have found myself also supporting Charles recently!
(Or at least the alien who has abducted him)….
Down with this sort of ‘ting! Father Ted was right!!
Lol, yes I have found myself also supporting Charles recently!
(Or at least the alien who has abducted him)….
Can you elaborate a bit further please ?
Oh fhs I’m agreeing with you again Charlie! This will have to stop!
No, he is an arch bluffer of the first degree and ever since his “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire” published in 1976.
Edward Luttwak is one of the brightest analysts who exists and is always looking at events from various angles most people miss.
The G7=roughly a GDP of 40 Trillion Dollars but there are other dormant members like Netherlands, Sweden, Taiwan, S.Korea or Australia to mention a few which share the same type of economic/political system. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Fazi who yesterday was in a rather depressed mood. He can read Luttwak’s article today and feel better.
V informative esp on the Chinese food/animal feed strategic weakness.
The whole Ukraine war presents Xi with conflicting opportunities and threats. A weakened Russia and a distracted West with depleted munition stock on the ‘positive’ side of the calculus. The fact the West has shown an ability to rally and now also better recognise the CCP threat must be countered earlier with deterrence on the ‘negative’. One wonders therefore if Xi even knows himself what’s in his interest.
Slightly separately re: Crimea – Ukraine gets one shot this late Spring/Summer to take back a position from which it can negotiate the future of the peninsula. Much will depend on whether the morale of Russian forces can hold up. No real negotiations will proceed in all likelihood until both these questions have been battlefield tested.
My guess is that the Ukrainians will drive south through Zaporizhia and roll up the Russians in southern Kherson in the West and push them back towards Mariupol in the East. Further advances in Donetsk and Luhansk will depend on whether the Ukrainians have the forces and speed to render the Russians incapable of defense as in Kharkov oblast last year. This is unlikely. So with the Russians pushed back approximately to their Feb 22 lines, real negotiations can begin. As an outcome, Ukraine will need -real- security guarantees or Russia will just attack again in a couple of years.
My guess is that the Ukrainians will drive south through Zaporizhia and roll up the Russians in southern Kherson in the West and push them back towards Mariupol in the East. Further advances in Donetsk and Luhansk will depend on whether the Ukrainians have the forces and speed to render the Russians incapable of defense as in Kharkov oblast last year. This is unlikely. So with the Russians pushed back approximately to their Feb 22 lines, real negotiations can begin. As an outcome, Ukraine will need -real- security guarantees or Russia will just attack again in a couple of years.
V informative esp on the Chinese food/animal feed strategic weakness.
The whole Ukraine war presents Xi with conflicting opportunities and threats. A weakened Russia and a distracted West with depleted munition stock on the ‘positive’ side of the calculus. The fact the West has shown an ability to rally and now also better recognise the CCP threat must be countered earlier with deterrence on the ‘negative’. One wonders therefore if Xi even knows himself what’s in his interest.
Slightly separately re: Crimea – Ukraine gets one shot this late Spring/Summer to take back a position from which it can negotiate the future of the peninsula. Much will depend on whether the morale of Russian forces can hold up. No real negotiations will proceed in all likelihood until both these questions have been battlefield tested.
“the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.”
This is the best description of the G7 I’ve read.
Growing up, I naively accepted the idea that it was a group of economically powerful nations.
In reality, it’s the US and the countries the US has dominated since World War II.
Britain and France were defeated in WW2, as surely as Italy, Germany and Japan. The only winners were the US and the Soviet Union.
With the fall of British and French Empires came the end of any pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression. Since Suez, if not before, Canada has existed as an independent nation because it suits the Americans for it to remain (notionally) independent.
Germany and Japan came out of the war better than the others – with hindsight. Germany suffers badly from guilt but Japan didn’t even apologise. As you say, those countries above are just states of the USA. My only hope is France which seems to have more pride than the others.
When I go to France I still feel like I’m in France. In fact, most of the tourists there are Chinese. Even the waiters have been forced to speak English because of the Chinese visitors.
Here, we copy every word and movement of the US. Our children try to speak with American accents, our TV programmes are the same American cops & robbers as always. We are woking up following every US trend. Time for MI5 to raid No.10 Downing Street.
The US is a disaster. Do not follow. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Japan has made numerous statements apologising, to various countries. The most legendary was HIrohito’s attempt to apologise to Macarthur, which was rebuffed . . . this was a disaster.
Successive Japanese governments, as well as the emperor himself, have repeatedly expressed their “deep remorse” and “profound regret” that the war happened, and have been quite forthright in extending sympathy to (Japanese) victims but as for a direct and unconditional apology, to the nations across which its Imperial Army rampaged for more than a decade, next to nothing has been heard. This is because a full and frank apology would imply taking full responsibility for the 1931-45 carnage. The line most often taken is “We were all victims of the war”.
Successive Japanese governments, as well as the emperor himself, have repeatedly expressed their “deep remorse” and “profound regret” that the war happened, and have been quite forthright in extending sympathy to (Japanese) victims but as for a direct and unconditional apology, to the nations across which its Imperial Army rampaged for more than a decade, next to nothing has been heard. This is because a full and frank apology would imply taking full responsibility for the 1931-45 carnage. The line most often taken is “We were all victims of the war”.
By your own reckoning, it’s tough to be a colony.
Which the US found out some 250 years ago.
Sad but true, USA is a bully and not at all clever.
based on the above, one might think the U.S. had oppressed and colonized the rest of the G7, which is beyond laughable. And cultural “domination” if you can even call it that is nowhere near the same thing as direct military occupation, as all the countries of the former Eastern bloc can tell you from experience.
Japan has made numerous statements apologising, to various countries. The most legendary was HIrohito’s attempt to apologise to Macarthur, which was rebuffed . . . this was a disaster.
By your own reckoning, it’s tough to be a colony.
Which the US found out some 250 years ago.
Sad but true, USA is a bully and not at all clever.
based on the above, one might think the U.S. had oppressed and colonized the rest of the G7, which is beyond laughable. And cultural “domination” if you can even call it that is nowhere near the same thing as direct military occupation, as all the countries of the former Eastern bloc can tell you from experience.
Perhaps you would care to provide some real examples of how US “dominance” has degraded peoples’ lives and freedoms in “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK”. And under what alternative system and in what ways things would be better.
It is one thing to have an instinctive dislike of large, powerful countries (or football teams, or companies). And quite another to actually demonstrate a better alternative.
I think the USA has kept sea lanes open, and allowed much more open trade in the world. The payback is other countries buying into the US system for security. As long as the US espouse democracy it seems a good deal. However, the US seems to be tearing itself apart with awful identity politics.
US trade war causing inflation.
US nopec bill will cause inflation.
US (probably) blowing up the nord stream.
US dragging us into the middle east.
US home of Clinton’s, bushes, faucis.
US home of progressive American crazy politics.
US home of crazy neo con politics.
US federal reserve, qe ruining everyones currencies. Its just a mess.
US tariffs affect millions of dollars in global trade.
US sanctions also causing inflation and messing up global trade.
Solution:
UK stops being the US b*tch.
More tea Ms Emery?
And a cream slice!
And a cream slice!
yawn. we’ve heard similar garbage about the U.S. for the last 50 years. Still way way way better to be aligned with the U.S. than any of the alternatives currently available, which is why individuals continue to flock to the U.S., and freed countries willingly ally with it.
More tea Ms Emery?
yawn. we’ve heard similar garbage about the U.S. for the last 50 years. Still way way way better to be aligned with the U.S. than any of the alternatives currently available, which is why individuals continue to flock to the U.S., and freed countries willingly ally with it.
I think he meant Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc!
touche.
I think the USA has kept sea lanes open, and allowed much more open trade in the world. The payback is other countries buying into the US system for security. As long as the US espouse democracy it seems a good deal. However, the US seems to be tearing itself apart with awful identity politics.
US trade war causing inflation.
US nopec bill will cause inflation.
US (probably) blowing up the nord stream.
US dragging us into the middle east.
US home of Clinton’s, bushes, faucis.
US home of progressive American crazy politics.
US home of crazy neo con politics.
US federal reserve, qe ruining everyones currencies. Its just a mess.
US tariffs affect millions of dollars in global trade.
US sanctions also causing inflation and messing up global trade.
Solution:
UK stops being the US b*tch.
I think he meant Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc!
touche.
As far back as 1922 the US used the Canadian Premier to put pressure on London to end the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Alliance, and thus give the US a fee hand for adventures in China and the Pacific.
Thus did the ‘Pearl Harbour clock start ticking.
Incidentally those “allies” are really ‘Client States’ after the Roman fashion. A fact they cannot ignore.
Eventually Rome tired of them.
So, Britain should have fought with Japan in 1941?
Given its mounting ambitions throughout this period, that seems to be the only alternative.
Sorry, you seem to just assume that, as long as “some other road” were taken, human conflict would be avoided. You ignore the fact that each state has agency, and we can never “solve” human conflict by some clever dodge and weave.
No, with any luck the British and Japanese Empires would have united to conquer China. After all we already had a good foothold on the place.
Off course from the US point of view this was disastrous for their Chinese ambitions and hence they just HAD to break the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty. QED.
You old imperialist, you!
You old imperialist, you!
Why did Britain declare war at all? Protecting Poland wasnt very successful. Why not declare war on the USSR for invading Finland? Not to think of taking half of Poland and the Baltic States in 1939.
No, with any luck the British and Japanese Empires would have united to conquer China. After all we already had a good foothold on the place.
Off course from the US point of view this was disastrous for their Chinese ambitions and hence they just HAD to break the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty. QED.
Why did Britain declare war at all? Protecting Poland wasnt very successful. Why not declare war on the USSR for invading Finland? Not to think of taking half of Poland and the Baltic States in 1939.
Client states my ass. If they were truly client states, they all would have joined the war in Iraq.
So, Britain should have fought with Japan in 1941?
Given its mounting ambitions throughout this period, that seems to be the only alternative.
Sorry, you seem to just assume that, as long as “some other road” were taken, human conflict would be avoided. You ignore the fact that each state has agency, and we can never “solve” human conflict by some clever dodge and weave.
Client states my ass. If they were truly client states, they all would have joined the war in Iraq.
The “pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression”????? Are you kidding. Long before WWII began, there was no chance of that happening, and no defence by the UK would have been required. As for France, that’s just simply bizarre, as they gave up on Quebec and their other colonies in 1763 and 1805.
Germany and Japan came out of the war better than the others – with hindsight. Germany suffers badly from guilt but Japan didn’t even apologise. As you say, those countries above are just states of the USA. My only hope is France which seems to have more pride than the others.
When I go to France I still feel like I’m in France. In fact, most of the tourists there are Chinese. Even the waiters have been forced to speak English because of the Chinese visitors.
Here, we copy every word and movement of the US. Our children try to speak with American accents, our TV programmes are the same American cops & robbers as always. We are woking up following every US trend. Time for MI5 to raid No.10 Downing Street.
The US is a disaster. Do not follow. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Perhaps you would care to provide some real examples of how US “dominance” has degraded peoples’ lives and freedoms in “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK”. And under what alternative system and in what ways things would be better.
It is one thing to have an instinctive dislike of large, powerful countries (or football teams, or companies). And quite another to actually demonstrate a better alternative.
As far back as 1922 the US used the Canadian Premier to put pressure on London to end the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Alliance, and thus give the US a fee hand for adventures in China and the Pacific.
Thus did the ‘Pearl Harbour clock start ticking.
Incidentally those “allies” are really ‘Client States’ after the Roman fashion. A fact they cannot ignore.
Eventually Rome tired of them.
The “pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression”????? Are you kidding. Long before WWII began, there was no chance of that happening, and no defence by the UK would have been required. As for France, that’s just simply bizarre, as they gave up on Quebec and their other colonies in 1763 and 1805.
“the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.”
This is the best description of the G7 I’ve read.
Growing up, I naively accepted the idea that it was a group of economically powerful nations.
In reality, it’s the US and the countries the US has dominated since World War II.
Britain and France were defeated in WW2, as surely as Italy, Germany and Japan. The only winners were the US and the Soviet Union.
With the fall of British and French Empires came the end of any pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression. Since Suez, if not before, Canada has existed as an independent nation because it suits the Americans for it to remain (notionally) independent.
He’s right about one thing: the war won’t end until the Ukrainians accept that Crimea is Russian.
The war will end when every drunken orc serf in Ukraine has had a grenade dropped on them by a drone.
Problem is that as the BBC actually reported, Russians are now doing the same to Ukrainian troops. Russians are learning according to a BBC report from a Ukrainian soldier in Bahkmut AND according to him “We need to learn faster.” He claimed Russians were increasingly effective at combined air/ground operations and had learnt dispersal and were also increasingly threatening Ukrainian supply lines. IF this is what slips through the BBC net, then the myths of an inevitable Ukrainian victory appear to be just that.
Next was the report that Ukraine is facing regulars, well trained. “We fly a drone with a grenade, and these Russians step behind a tree, then when the grenade has gone off, they come back out fighting.”
Someone is lying, and given the myths about the state of the Russian economy, I fear it is likely the West. Ukraine cannot trade man for man, Russia has far more of them.
The other interesting facts that slip through the BBC now and then is the casualty figures. Pre Xmas the Russian figures were given in men per month in the Luhansk, the BBC quoted Zelenesky in men per day his forces suffered. Simple maths and Ukraine was actually losing a few hundred more per month than the Russians. The numbers the BBC provided matched the numbers a US General suggested was the Ukraine’s actual losses, both well above the ‘propaganda’ figures.
One might also ask where are the 300,000 Russian conscripts that reputedly were called up last year? They don’t appear to be in Bahkmut. Reports suggest they are ‘training’. But for What?
The original ‘invasion’ was more an occupation, The Russian troops in the convoys appeared to have no idea they were supposed to be fighting. One classic video of a group of soldiers sitting on a stationary tank included a translation of the conversation between the ‘passing’ Ukrainian Citizens’ and the Russian invaders – very civilised, even to the polite suggestion from the Ukrainians that the Russians should go home. The tank wasn’t ‘destroyed’ BTW, it had run out of fuel.
The elite troops attempts to capture airports etc turned quickly into a shooting war, but IF the elite units had the same attitude as the soldiers I saw in the videos, they were rather surprised to discover that the Ukrainians were actually shooting at them.
That blase approach to the occupation of Ukraine is now long gone, and any belief that Ukraine is going to motor all the way across Crimea is as much fantasy as thinking the US/NATO are going to put boots on the ground. It is Ukrainians who will have to fight and die. The really relevant question is, ‘How many of them are left to continue dying?’ I don’t know, but I understand the Russians have a hell of a lot more yet to be committed.
Also, the casualties suffered by Ukraine in the Luhansk etc are, IF the claims are true that their best troops were there, of elite/veteran units. I doubt Wagner groups fighters are elite or veteran, AND they are certainly NOT Russian Military.
Peace and seceding the Russian ethnic areas is the sensible thing Like the former Yugoslavia, this war is now about Soviet Drawn borders in a post Soviet World, and Russia is more than likely the one who will redraw those borders. How many lives could have been saved had that been recognised earlier?
“ceding” not “seceding.”
Quite ingenious!
–But Putin wouldn’t be calling for 400,000 more “volunteers” if he were winning in Donbas. That they want everyone to come in and confirm their draft status shows Moscow is desperate for more recruits, and will use any means to trick people into the miltiary.
–Russia wouldn’t be held up in one small town in Donbas for 8 months if they were “learning more and more.”
–That’s particularly true WRT the disastrous battle at Vuhledar.
–The Russian army has pretty much taken over the Bakhnmut offensive, and Avdiivka as well. But the naval infantry and airborne troops there are no longer “elite”–just the best Putin can now scratch together.
–You give in to the Russian fantasy that any nation smaller than Russia is somehow Luxembourg. That a nation of 40 million will somehow “run out of men” is delusional. Vietnam was half that size and they fought for decades. Similar-sized nations like France and Germany fought world wars for years.
So, sorry, no Siberian Ski Troops about to launch their Winter offensive against the Nazis. Putin has wasted a good a part of his army on offensives that have yielded zero gain.
A far better strategy would have been to wait until spring, repel the Ukrainian offensive, and then launch a Russian reposte.
But Vova is impatient, and needs “wins” now, not in the spring.
But still, nice effort!
“ceding” not “seceding.”
Quite ingenious!
–But Putin wouldn’t be calling for 400,000 more “volunteers” if he were winning in Donbas. That they want everyone to come in and confirm their draft status shows Moscow is desperate for more recruits, and will use any means to trick people into the miltiary.
–Russia wouldn’t be held up in one small town in Donbas for 8 months if they were “learning more and more.”
–That’s particularly true WRT the disastrous battle at Vuhledar.
–The Russian army has pretty much taken over the Bakhnmut offensive, and Avdiivka as well. But the naval infantry and airborne troops there are no longer “elite”–just the best Putin can now scratch together.
–You give in to the Russian fantasy that any nation smaller than Russia is somehow Luxembourg. That a nation of 40 million will somehow “run out of men” is delusional. Vietnam was half that size and they fought for decades. Similar-sized nations like France and Germany fought world wars for years.
So, sorry, no Siberian Ski Troops about to launch their Winter offensive against the Nazis. Putin has wasted a good a part of his army on offensives that have yielded zero gain.
A far better strategy would have been to wait until spring, repel the Ukrainian offensive, and then launch a Russian reposte.
But Vova is impatient, and needs “wins” now, not in the spring.
But still, nice effort!
Tom Graham, you’re an odious, post human gobsh*te utterly devoid of any moral agency.
Problem is that as the BBC actually reported, Russians are now doing the same to Ukrainian troops. Russians are learning according to a BBC report from a Ukrainian soldier in Bahkmut AND according to him “We need to learn faster.” He claimed Russians were increasingly effective at combined air/ground operations and had learnt dispersal and were also increasingly threatening Ukrainian supply lines. IF this is what slips through the BBC net, then the myths of an inevitable Ukrainian victory appear to be just that.
Next was the report that Ukraine is facing regulars, well trained. “We fly a drone with a grenade, and these Russians step behind a tree, then when the grenade has gone off, they come back out fighting.”
Someone is lying, and given the myths about the state of the Russian economy, I fear it is likely the West. Ukraine cannot trade man for man, Russia has far more of them.
The other interesting facts that slip through the BBC now and then is the casualty figures. Pre Xmas the Russian figures were given in men per month in the Luhansk, the BBC quoted Zelenesky in men per day his forces suffered. Simple maths and Ukraine was actually losing a few hundred more per month than the Russians. The numbers the BBC provided matched the numbers a US General suggested was the Ukraine’s actual losses, both well above the ‘propaganda’ figures.
One might also ask where are the 300,000 Russian conscripts that reputedly were called up last year? They don’t appear to be in Bahkmut. Reports suggest they are ‘training’. But for What?
The original ‘invasion’ was more an occupation, The Russian troops in the convoys appeared to have no idea they were supposed to be fighting. One classic video of a group of soldiers sitting on a stationary tank included a translation of the conversation between the ‘passing’ Ukrainian Citizens’ and the Russian invaders – very civilised, even to the polite suggestion from the Ukrainians that the Russians should go home. The tank wasn’t ‘destroyed’ BTW, it had run out of fuel.
The elite troops attempts to capture airports etc turned quickly into a shooting war, but IF the elite units had the same attitude as the soldiers I saw in the videos, they were rather surprised to discover that the Ukrainians were actually shooting at them.
That blase approach to the occupation of Ukraine is now long gone, and any belief that Ukraine is going to motor all the way across Crimea is as much fantasy as thinking the US/NATO are going to put boots on the ground. It is Ukrainians who will have to fight and die. The really relevant question is, ‘How many of them are left to continue dying?’ I don’t know, but I understand the Russians have a hell of a lot more yet to be committed.
Also, the casualties suffered by Ukraine in the Luhansk etc are, IF the claims are true that their best troops were there, of elite/veteran units. I doubt Wagner groups fighters are elite or veteran, AND they are certainly NOT Russian Military.
Peace and seceding the Russian ethnic areas is the sensible thing Like the former Yugoslavia, this war is now about Soviet Drawn borders in a post Soviet World, and Russia is more than likely the one who will redraw those borders. How many lives could have been saved had that been recognised earlier?
Tom Graham, you’re an odious, post human gobsh*te utterly devoid of any moral agency.
Except it wouldn’t and the Crimea isn’t.
Crimea has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great: it’s been ‘misalocated’ to Ukraine for like 5 minutes! it’s population is 88% Russian. Russia’s Black Sea navy is stationed in Svevastipol.. Get a grip will you!
Crimea became Russian shortly before Ireland became British, so….
Who taught you that?
Ireland didn’t become completely subjugated until say ‘The Flight of the Earls’ in 1607, whist Katherine formerly seized the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars in 1783.
Oh Charlie – I was referring to the 1801 Act of Union: ut bene scis. Thank you for your intervention though, it furthers my challenge of Mr Mahoney….and think I am getting the gist of the Plastic Paddy concept.
Your point is irrelevant Domlick..
Don’t be racist Dominic…
Explain. NB: Ireland is not a race, Plastic Paddy is not a racist idea, and you do not know my race, ethnicity or nationality.
Explain. NB: Ireland is not a race, Plastic Paddy is not a racist idea, and you do not know my race, ethnicity or nationality.
Your point is irrelevant Domlick..
Don’t be racist Dominic…
Oh Charlie – I was referring to the 1801 Act of Union: ut bene scis. Thank you for your intervention though, it furthers my challenge of Mr Mahoney….and think I am getting the gist of the Plastic Paddy concept.
Who taught you that?
Ireland didn’t become completely subjugated until say ‘The Flight of the Earls’ in 1607, whist Katherine formerly seized the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars in 1783.
Of course shipping out and killing off the native population firstly by the Tsar and then by Stalin rather assisted that Russification!
Indeed it did, but no Ukrainians filled the vacuum did they?
Granted that might have been rather hard as ‘they’ didn’t actually exist.
Been around since Rurik.
Whereas Moscow only came into being in the 12th C.
But as Renan says: “A nation is a nation, when it thinks it’s a nation.
And that thought has been around for over a century.
Courtesy of Max Hoffmann and the German Army no less.
Sorry, there were Ukrainian nationalists long before that.
Who achieved nothing of consequence until the German Army triumphed and dictated Brest-Litovsk.
Which is why weaker empires quite often implode, when they try to recover past glory.
24 Feb 2022 is a classic example.
What has that to do with the supposed Ukrainian nationalists whom you talk of?
And incidentally what part did ‘they’ play in 1918 other than being Helots for the German Army?
Laid the groundwork for a Ukrainian nation, I guess.
And going pretty strong just now.
What has THAT got to do with any of your points, if only one could determine what they actually are.
And joined with other puppet states to work with Germany , till 1943. Stefan Bandera, the great nationalist, seized the chance to turn of the Soviet oppressors, rather like Chandra Bose.
Laid the groundwork for a Ukrainian nation, I guess.
And going pretty strong just now.
What has THAT got to do with any of your points, if only one could determine what they actually are.
And joined with other puppet states to work with Germany , till 1943. Stefan Bandera, the great nationalist, seized the chance to turn of the Soviet oppressors, rather like Chandra Bose.
What has that to do with the supposed Ukrainian nationalists whom you talk of?
And incidentally what part did ‘they’ play in 1918 other than being Helots for the German Army?
Which is why weaker empires quite often implode, when they try to recover past glory.
24 Feb 2022 is a classic example.
Who achieved nothing of consequence until the German Army triumphed and dictated Brest-Litovsk.
Sorry, there were Ukrainian nationalists long before that.
Courtesy of Max Hoffmann and the German Army no less.
Well, yes and no, the Tartars (who were ethnically cleansed) started returning in the 1990s and would certainly consider themselves more Ukrainian than Russian.
How is that possible?
Tartar is a polite term for a Mongoloid people speaking a Ural-Altaic tongue, and practising Islam, who were the detritus of the Mongolian ‘Golden Horde’, some of whom got ‘left behind’ in the Crimea.
Those that didn’t somewhat reluctantly became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At no stage was there an independent Ukrainian state after its destruction in the 13th century by the aforementioned Mongolian thugs.
No the Tartars are of Turkic origin they are not Mongoloid and were in the Crimea before being conquered. So yes they were conquered by Ghengis khan and are Islamic but they weren’t “left behind”.
Yes Ukraine it was divided up many times between various countries bur at no time was it totally controlled by one country (until the time of the Bosheviks) and the idea of a Ukrainian nation persisted. It could be argued is was independent after the 1stWW if only very briefly.
.
They oscillated between the Lithuanian Tartars and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They were a frontier state, hence the name. When you see where Poltava was fought, a battle which destroyed the Swedish Empire’s attempt to conquer Russia, you can see how the borders shifted.
They oscillated between the Lithuanian Tartars and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They were a frontier state, hence the name. When you see where Poltava was fought, a battle which destroyed the Swedish Empire’s attempt to conquer Russia, you can see how the borders shifted.
and your point is…..
No the Tartars are of Turkic origin they are not Mongoloid and were in the Crimea before being conquered. So yes they were conquered by Ghengis khan and are Islamic but they weren’t “left behind”.
Yes Ukraine it was divided up many times between various countries bur at no time was it totally controlled by one country (until the time of the Bosheviks) and the idea of a Ukrainian nation persisted. It could be argued is was independent after the 1stWW if only very briefly.
.
and your point is…..
How is that possible?
Tartar is a polite term for a Mongoloid people speaking a Ural-Altaic tongue, and practising Islam, who were the detritus of the Mongolian ‘Golden Horde’, some of whom got ‘left behind’ in the Crimea.
Those that didn’t somewhat reluctantly became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At no stage was there an independent Ukrainian state after its destruction in the 13th century by the aforementioned Mongolian thugs.
Been around since Rurik.
Whereas Moscow only came into being in the 12th C.
But as Renan says: “A nation is a nation, when it thinks it’s a nation.
And that thought has been around for over a century.
Well, yes and no, the Tartars (who were ethnically cleansed) started returning in the 1990s and would certainly consider themselves more Ukrainian than Russian.
Since Stalin had Sevastopol rebuilt brick by brick after the Ukrai— I mean, Germans and other current NATO members— destroyed it, would the Ukrainians now destroy it because it’s a Soviet monument?
Really up to them.
Rather shameful place for Russia anyway, since its only real claim to fame involves Russian defeats.
Really up to them.
Rather shameful place for Russia anyway, since its only real claim to fame involves Russian defeats.
Be that as it may.. Crimea will remain Russian as long as Russia exists.. it will.never again be entrusted to corrupt Ukrainians.
And the Russians are paragons of virtue and are not corrupt…
Because corrupt, dictatorial Russians are just so much better.
And the Russians are paragons of virtue and are not corrupt…
Because corrupt, dictatorial Russians are just so much better.
The Tartar populations were shipped out to Kazakhstan by Stalin, also the Volga Germans, Poles, and others considered a danger during the war. Ukraine had already been gifted Eastern Poland and other bits of Central and Eastern Europe in 1939. In 1945 the Ukraine’s borders were enlarged to the west by hundreds of kilometres, while Soviet occupied Poland was compensated with large chunks of territory. The USSR sent ethnic Russians into the Baltic States after the war. The idea that the USSR decided to repopulate Ukraine with ethnic Russians is unfounded.
Indeed it did, but no Ukrainians filled the vacuum did they?
Granted that might have been rather hard as ‘they’ didn’t actually exist.
Since Stalin had Sevastopol rebuilt brick by brick after the Ukrai— I mean, Germans and other current NATO members— destroyed it, would the Ukrainians now destroy it because it’s a Soviet monument?
Be that as it may.. Crimea will remain Russian as long as Russia exists.. it will.never again be entrusted to corrupt Ukrainians.
The Tartar populations were shipped out to Kazakhstan by Stalin, also the Volga Germans, Poles, and others considered a danger during the war. Ukraine had already been gifted Eastern Poland and other bits of Central and Eastern Europe in 1939. In 1945 the Ukraine’s borders were enlarged to the west by hundreds of kilometres, while Soviet occupied Poland was compensated with large chunks of territory. The USSR sent ethnic Russians into the Baltic States after the war. The idea that the USSR decided to repopulate Ukraine with ethnic Russians is unfounded.
Well said Lliam old chap.
All this mutual agreement is getting rather embarrassing!
I suspect Ukraine will surely “get a grip”–on Crimea.
After the shameful surprise attack by Putin, and the subsequent overt ethnic cleansing, nothing less than Crimea will satisfy them.
You better pray Putin somehow stops them. Or as I hope, Blue Helmets come in.
If neither of those things happens, well…they’ll remember Bucha.
Actions have consequences–especially when most Russians support Putin’s policies.
Ok lets see what a grip I have. The Crimea was originally occupied by the Greeks and remained Greek in culture for around 2000 years (should we give it back to the Greeks then?). But of course it was annexed by the Romans in the mean time (give it to the Italians then? ) and later became part of the Byzantine empire and then, perhaps of more relevance conquered by the Kievan Rus. Yes it was conquered by Catherine the Great (born German – what a surprise then) and formally annexed in 1783. No clue what “misallocated” means but Kruschev (a Russian) transferred it (legally and in a recognised way) to Ukraine in 1954. So it was part of Ukraine for 60 years. It was part of Russia for 171 years. Thus since that time 35% of it was part of Ukraine (if we don’t include it being in Russian hands since 2014) hardly “5 minutes” even metaphorically. Thus I think its quite legitimate for Ukraine to thinks its part of their country. Yes, the majority in the Crimea would probably would want Crimea to be part of Russia but the more recent inhabitants (the Tartars) were ethnically cleansed – over 200,000 removed – less than 100 years ago so still relevant in my opinion. Also the majority population in Odessa is Russian – even the mayor is a Russian speaker – but they don’t want to part of Russia, so maybe, even now, it would be significantly less of a majority in the Crimea who would want to be part of Russia than the demographics’ might suggest. Now, as an Irishman I wouldn’t have thought you would approve of ethnic cleansing ..
Anyway I think I would suggest (politely of course) its you who need who needs to get a grip – at least of your manners if not your maths I got a B in my leaving cert you?. Mine is quite a reasoned argument even if you don’t like it.
Khrushchev, possibly a Ukrainian himself, transferred the Crimea from The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of an ambitious ‘accountancy exercise’’.
Thus the Ukrainian exchequer would now pay for the Crimea rather than the Russian exchequer.
A Helots life can be hard!
No, Khrushchev was Russian born in Kursk. It doesn’t matter why he did it, he did it. Sure the Brits were often screwing up peoples’ countries drawing lines on map to tell people where their country were. See ME, Africa etc. are they not countries?
‘K’ was born in Kalinovka, Khomutovsky District, Kursk Oblast. That is about 70 miles west of the City of Kursk, and a mere 6 miles from the Ukrainian border.
‘His’ actions are axiomatic to understanding the legality of this issue, and thus they DO very much matter.
As to the “Brits screwing up peoples” that is completely irrelevant to this issue.
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant because you are a Brit.
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant” because you are a Brit.
It is the 6 miles that is relevant here!
I’m surprised and rather disappointed you ‘missed’ it.
Do you always repeat yourself in such a brief utterance?
Incidentally why “as a Brit” would I find it irrelevant. Attention to detail, as always, is what counts
This superior attitude of yours is entirely without grounds.
This superior attitude of yours is entirely without grounds.
It is the 6 miles that is relevant here!
I’m surprised and rather disappointed you ‘missed’ it.
Do you always repeat yourself in such a brief utterance?
Incidentally why “as a Brit” would I find it irrelevant. Attention to detail, as always, is what counts
I see…
Treaties and agreements matter–except when they don’t.
Precisely.
Precisely.
As an analogy it’s entirely relevant. You know an argument is a loser when one side constantly refers to the other side’s argument as irrelevant.
“you know an argument is a loser when one…..”
That should read: You know an argument is lost when one……”
What’s your excuse, besides the obvious one?
As to IW, she doesn’t know her facts, not that you are any better, sadly.
“you know an argument is a loser when one…..”
That should read: You know an argument is lost when one……”
What’s your excuse, besides the obvious one?
As to IW, she doesn’t know her facts, not that you are any better, sadly.
Didnt K move to Ukraine to work when he was 15? I always assumed he was of U stock, but seems not. His 1956 speech dwelt on the horrors suffered by Ukraine during collectivisation, and then the years of fighting on its territory during WW2. I remember reading he that when the war was over Ukrainians were living in holes in the ground.
Frankly when K was born the difference between being Russian and Ukrainian didn’t exist, except in the mind of a tiny minority of nationalistic nutters.
How different is an Englishman born in say Suffolk, to one born 6 miles away in Norfolk?
Frankly when K was born the difference between being Russian and Ukrainian didn’t exist, except in the mind of a tiny minority of nationalistic nutters.
How different is an Englishman born in say Suffolk, to one born 6 miles away in Norfolk?
However, Russia signed up treaties confirming that Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of Soviet Union.
I would have some sympathy with Russian view if they argued at that juncture that Crimea being given to Ukraine by Kruschev was an anomaly to be corrected by referendum.
Russia did not argue that and signed relevant treaties confirming status of Crimea as Ukrainian.
Referendum happened anyway in 1991 and Crimea voted 54% to be part of Ukraine.
So there is no legal justification to Russian claims to any part of Ukraine.
Unless you subscribe to argument that might is right?
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant because you are a Brit.
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant” because you are a Brit.
I see…
Treaties and agreements matter–except when they don’t.
As an analogy it’s entirely relevant. You know an argument is a loser when one side constantly refers to the other side’s argument as irrelevant.
Didnt K move to Ukraine to work when he was 15? I always assumed he was of U stock, but seems not. His 1956 speech dwelt on the horrors suffered by Ukraine during collectivisation, and then the years of fighting on its territory during WW2. I remember reading he that when the war was over Ukrainians were living in holes in the ground.
However, Russia signed up treaties confirming that Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of Soviet Union.
I would have some sympathy with Russian view if they argued at that juncture that Crimea being given to Ukraine by Kruschev was an anomaly to be corrected by referendum.
Russia did not argue that and signed relevant treaties confirming status of Crimea as Ukrainian.
Referendum happened anyway in 1991 and Crimea voted 54% to be part of Ukraine.
So there is no legal justification to Russian claims to any part of Ukraine.
Unless you subscribe to argument that might is right?
‘K’ was born in Kalinovka, Khomutovsky District, Kursk Oblast. That is about 70 miles west of the City of Kursk, and a mere 6 miles from the Ukrainian border.
‘His’ actions are axiomatic to understanding the legality of this issue, and thus they DO very much matter.
As to the “Brits screwing up peoples” that is completely irrelevant to this issue.
Problem is that all the claims about part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia are not supported by evidence.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 when both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 80% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
All this talk of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine being given to Russia is based either on ignorance or part of Russian propaganda campaign.
Why should Ireland exist?
Great majority speak English. They are nothing more than “little English”.
No, Khrushchev was Russian born in Kursk. It doesn’t matter why he did it, he did it. Sure the Brits were often screwing up peoples’ countries drawing lines on map to tell people where their country were. See ME, Africa etc. are they not countries?
Problem is that all the claims about part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia are not supported by evidence.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 when both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 80% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
All this talk of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine being given to Russia is based either on ignorance or part of Russian propaganda campaign.
Why should Ireland exist?
Great majority speak English. They are nothing more than “little English”.
Self praise is NO recommendation!
Presumably you achieved an ‘F’ grade for English?
Khrushchev, possibly a Ukrainian himself, transferred the Crimea from The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of an ambitious ‘accountancy exercise’’.
Thus the Ukrainian exchequer would now pay for the Crimea rather than the Russian exchequer.
A Helots life can be hard!
Self praise is NO recommendation!
Presumably you achieved an ‘F’ grade for English?
Crimea became Russian shortly before Ireland became British, so….
Of course shipping out and killing off the native population firstly by the Tsar and then by Stalin rather assisted that Russification!
Well said Lliam old chap.
All this mutual agreement is getting rather embarrassing!
I suspect Ukraine will surely “get a grip”–on Crimea.
After the shameful surprise attack by Putin, and the subsequent overt ethnic cleansing, nothing less than Crimea will satisfy them.
You better pray Putin somehow stops them. Or as I hope, Blue Helmets come in.
If neither of those things happens, well…they’ll remember Bucha.
Actions have consequences–especially when most Russians support Putin’s policies.
Ok lets see what a grip I have. The Crimea was originally occupied by the Greeks and remained Greek in culture for around 2000 years (should we give it back to the Greeks then?). But of course it was annexed by the Romans in the mean time (give it to the Italians then? ) and later became part of the Byzantine empire and then, perhaps of more relevance conquered by the Kievan Rus. Yes it was conquered by Catherine the Great (born German – what a surprise then) and formally annexed in 1783. No clue what “misallocated” means but Kruschev (a Russian) transferred it (legally and in a recognised way) to Ukraine in 1954. So it was part of Ukraine for 60 years. It was part of Russia for 171 years. Thus since that time 35% of it was part of Ukraine (if we don’t include it being in Russian hands since 2014) hardly “5 minutes” even metaphorically. Thus I think its quite legitimate for Ukraine to thinks its part of their country. Yes, the majority in the Crimea would probably would want Crimea to be part of Russia but the more recent inhabitants (the Tartars) were ethnically cleansed – over 200,000 removed – less than 100 years ago so still relevant in my opinion. Also the majority population in Odessa is Russian – even the mayor is a Russian speaker – but they don’t want to part of Russia, so maybe, even now, it would be significantly less of a majority in the Crimea who would want to be part of Russia than the demographics’ might suggest. Now, as an Irishman I wouldn’t have thought you would approve of ethnic cleansing ..
Anyway I think I would suggest (politely of course) its you who need who needs to get a grip – at least of your manners if not your maths I got a B in my leaving cert you?. Mine is quite a reasoned argument even if you don’t like it.
Crimea has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great: it’s been ‘misalocated’ to Ukraine for like 5 minutes! it’s population is 88% Russian. Russia’s Black Sea navy is stationed in Svevastipol.. Get a grip will you!
That is an absolute fact.. the only way for that to be otherwise would involve the total defeat of Russia including the fall of Moscow! That ain’t going to happen this side of an all out nuclear holocaust!
Well the Ukrainians have been trying to remove any remembrance of the Soviet Union. As such, Crimea would be a painful reminder of the Khrushchev-era if it remained Ukrainian.
Honestly they should thank the Kremlin for undoing this Soviet error.
A little late for that.
They are mad as hell, and if they can take it, well, better hope the Crimean bridge is still open. Sadly, after Bucha, et al, they won’t be nice to any collaborators.
Any sane Russian ruler would call in blue helmets, to keep order.
But Putin will fight to the last Crimean.
What rot. My wife is Crimean. I’ve been there a number of times.
It’s entirely at peace and the people there are overwhelmingly Russian.
There was no fighting over Crimea in 2014 and there will be none moving forwards.
Sure, presumably she is Russian (and not a Tartar) . When did you go?
The Ukrainians claimed post coup that 15% of Crimeans were of Tartar origin. They claimed the Tartars would rather live under Ukraine than under Russian, though South Ossetia and Abkhazia dont bear that out.
The Ukrainians claimed post coup that 15% of Crimeans were of Tartar origin. They claimed the Tartars would rather live under Ukraine than under Russian, though South Ossetia and Abkhazia dont bear that out.
Nobody’s talking about a maidan in Crimea.
But the Ukrainian army, rather upset with Russian actins in Bucha, and continued attacks on their civilian population, may well be coming to Crimea.
I know, Bucha et al were Putin’s ingenious attempts at presenting Russians with the choice of either mass exodus, or a battle to the death. Rather like Goebel’s “Totaler Krieg” speech in 1943.
But given coming events on the battle field, that choice may narrow dramatically–and soon.
They are Russian speakers, not the same thing…
If they were so keen on being part of Russia, why did they vote 54% to be part of Ukraine in 1991 independence referendum?
Sure, presumably she is Russian (and not a Tartar) . When did you go?
Nobody’s talking about a maidan in Crimea.
But the Ukrainian army, rather upset with Russian actins in Bucha, and continued attacks on their civilian population, may well be coming to Crimea.
I know, Bucha et al were Putin’s ingenious attempts at presenting Russians with the choice of either mass exodus, or a battle to the death. Rather like Goebel’s “Totaler Krieg” speech in 1943.
But given coming events on the battle field, that choice may narrow dramatically–and soon.
They are Russian speakers, not the same thing…
If they were so keen on being part of Russia, why did they vote 54% to be part of Ukraine in 1991 independence referendum?
What rot. My wife is Crimean. I’ve been there a number of times.
It’s entirely at peace and the people there are overwhelmingly Russian.
There was no fighting over Crimea in 2014 and there will be none moving forwards.
A little late for that.
They are mad as hell, and if they can take it, well, better hope the Crimean bridge is still open. Sadly, after Bucha, et al, they won’t be nice to any collaborators.
Any sane Russian ruler would call in blue helmets, to keep order.
But Putin will fight to the last Crimean.
The war will end when every drunken orc serf in Ukraine has had a grenade dropped on them by a drone.
Except it wouldn’t and the Crimea isn’t.
That is an absolute fact.. the only way for that to be otherwise would involve the total defeat of Russia including the fall of Moscow! That ain’t going to happen this side of an all out nuclear holocaust!
Well the Ukrainians have been trying to remove any remembrance of the Soviet Union. As such, Crimea would be a painful reminder of the Khrushchev-era if it remained Ukrainian.
Honestly they should thank the Kremlin for undoing this Soviet error.
He’s right about one thing: the war won’t end until the Ukrainians accept that Crimea is Russian.
Valid points but IMO the article glosses over a few points that merit further discussion. I don’t think western unity was or is a certainty. Yes, the US has browbeat the G7 and NATO partners into contributing but how long will that last? Biden is a lame duck with an election next year. Trudeau is in trouble. In societies beset by culture wars what current western leader has the support and leadership ability to rally a nation for the greater good?
The point that everyone, including China, thought that the invasion would be over in a month is interesting. It is supposedly why the EU and NATO didn’t offer immediate support. Ukraine would surrender before shipments arrived. In other words the West was quite prepared to give Ukraine to Putin? The invasion wasn’t a surprise so what steps were taken to impress on Russia that an invasion would only result in their own demise?
Have the economic sanctions really accomplished anything? Canada’s trade with Russia was negligible. We banned Russian vodka, turns out 90% of vodka sold in Canada isn’t Russian anyway. Russia still ships oil and gas. Aside from the perennial powerhouse Americans, the pledges to donate weapons from other western allies has done more to expose their own deficiencies than it has helped Ukraine. Ironically, the same deficiencies that Trump warned about. How many times in the past year have we seen some variation of “Russian defeat imminent” headlines? Yet this mess still drags on.
My point is the article is assuming a level of US- lead purposeful economic and military unity of the West that I don’t believe exists. Yes, they’re all saying the right things and yes, on paper, China would be foolish to try anything with such an array of power stacked against them but Russia has nowhere near the economic and military power of China yet they’re still hanging around.
“Have the economic sanctions really accomplished anything?” – made it a bit harder to repair/rebuild equipment. And selling oil at a discount has really upended revenues recently. One might expect the maintenance of oil field gear may become a problem and the new Arctic fields require considerable technology not readily at hand.
But Russia isn’t actually fighting Western forces, at least not yet. And I don’t recall anyone with any sense or even the MSM predicting Russia’s imminent defeat. The “mess” is dragging on because Ukraine’s political goals and Russia’s cannot be reconciled, which means the war will continue until one side or both have had enough.
That’s right. Or until Putin is taken down by one of his own for engaging in this incredible folly.
That’s right. Or until Putin is taken down by one of his own for engaging in this incredible folly.
RE: The U.S. browbeating the G7 and NATO.
What utter nonsense. I suppose Finland and Sweden, neutral for the past 70 years, also were “browbeaten” into applying for NATO membership. Nobody’s been browbeaten into anything. You do seem rather propagandized, though.
I cant think of an example where sanctions achieved what they were supposed to. The US sanctions against Japan, – Pearl Harbour, is just one example. Iraq? No.
“Have the economic sanctions really accomplished anything?” – made it a bit harder to repair/rebuild equipment. And selling oil at a discount has really upended revenues recently. One might expect the maintenance of oil field gear may become a problem and the new Arctic fields require considerable technology not readily at hand.
But Russia isn’t actually fighting Western forces, at least not yet. And I don’t recall anyone with any sense or even the MSM predicting Russia’s imminent defeat. The “mess” is dragging on because Ukraine’s political goals and Russia’s cannot be reconciled, which means the war will continue until one side or both have had enough.
RE: The U.S. browbeating the G7 and NATO.
What utter nonsense. I suppose Finland and Sweden, neutral for the past 70 years, also were “browbeaten” into applying for NATO membership. Nobody’s been browbeaten into anything. You do seem rather propagandized, though.
I cant think of an example where sanctions achieved what they were supposed to. The US sanctions against Japan, – Pearl Harbour, is just one example. Iraq? No.
Valid points but IMO the article glosses over a few points that merit further discussion. I don’t think western unity was or is a certainty. Yes, the US has browbeat the G7 and NATO partners into contributing but how long will that last? Biden is a lame duck with an election next year. Trudeau is in trouble. In societies beset by culture wars what current western leader has the support and leadership ability to rally a nation for the greater good?
The point that everyone, including China, thought that the invasion would be over in a month is interesting. It is supposedly why the EU and NATO didn’t offer immediate support. Ukraine would surrender before shipments arrived. In other words the West was quite prepared to give Ukraine to Putin? The invasion wasn’t a surprise so what steps were taken to impress on Russia that an invasion would only result in their own demise?
Have the economic sanctions really accomplished anything? Canada’s trade with Russia was negligible. We banned Russian vodka, turns out 90% of vodka sold in Canada isn’t Russian anyway. Russia still ships oil and gas. Aside from the perennial powerhouse Americans, the pledges to donate weapons from other western allies has done more to expose their own deficiencies than it has helped Ukraine. Ironically, the same deficiencies that Trump warned about. How many times in the past year have we seen some variation of “Russian defeat imminent” headlines? Yet this mess still drags on.
My point is the article is assuming a level of US- lead purposeful economic and military unity of the West that I don’t believe exists. Yes, they’re all saying the right things and yes, on paper, China would be foolish to try anything with such an array of power stacked against them but Russia has nowhere near the economic and military power of China yet they’re still hanging around.
Prof. Luttwak is continuing his gradual process of embedding cold home truths in a mush of bellicose rhetoric and moonshine about peace settlement solutions that might have served for discussion a year ago but now are total non-starters.
When Beijing outlines as a principle for a peace settlement the respect for territorial integrity, are we sure that Beijing means the borders of 2013 or even 2021, and not the borders post-accession by the four oblast – in which case a respect for territorial integrity would oblige Ukraine to withdraw from the Russian territories it now occupies?
Well surely it is better to give it a chance and see what they can come up with, the Ukrainians have said they will speak with China, it is surely better to try and avoid escalation if we can.
Absolutely
Absolutely
Do you happen to know where Luttwak held his professorial ‘chair’?
The real interesting thing about Xi since Putin started his grand miscalculation is that we’ve barely heard anything about Taiwan. No more buzzing Taiwanese airspace, no more bellicose statements. Between Ukraine, the lockdown revolt and the subsequent COVID epidemic, Xi’s realized he ain’t nearly as powerful as he thought.
Well surely it is better to give it a chance and see what they can come up with, the Ukrainians have said they will speak with China, it is surely better to try and avoid escalation if we can.
Do you happen to know where Luttwak held his professorial ‘chair’?
The real interesting thing about Xi since Putin started his grand miscalculation is that we’ve barely heard anything about Taiwan. No more buzzing Taiwanese airspace, no more bellicose statements. Between Ukraine, the lockdown revolt and the subsequent COVID epidemic, Xi’s realized he ain’t nearly as powerful as he thought.
Prof. Luttwak is continuing his gradual process of embedding cold home truths in a mush of bellicose rhetoric and moonshine about peace settlement solutions that might have served for discussion a year ago but now are total non-starters.
When Beijing outlines as a principle for a peace settlement the respect for territorial integrity, are we sure that Beijing means the borders of 2013 or even 2021, and not the borders post-accession by the four oblast – in which case a respect for territorial integrity would oblige Ukraine to withdraw from the Russian territories it now occupies?
It gets real frustrating when my comments are deleted. I NEVER!!! treat people with disrespect when I comment. If someone writes an offensive response to my comments, that has nothing to do with me.
It’s very frustrating I agree. They seem to have a lot of problems with their comments system. It might not have been deleted – I noticed comments I made from my mobile just didn’t appear when the same article is viewed on a PC. They then appeared again later.
They have a lot of problems that they should sort out but I’m not holding my breath this has been going on a long time.
It keeps happening to me. I now think that when a post has accumulated enough downvotes fast enough, it gets taken off for moderation, then comes back again later. It is bl**dy frustrating with this incompetent comment handling system, by I have resigned myself to it. At least I cannot claim that they prevent me from speaking 😉
It’s very frustrating I agree. They seem to have a lot of problems with their comments system. It might not have been deleted – I noticed comments I made from my mobile just didn’t appear when the same article is viewed on a PC. They then appeared again later.
They have a lot of problems that they should sort out but I’m not holding my breath this has been going on a long time.
It keeps happening to me. I now think that when a post has accumulated enough downvotes fast enough, it gets taken off for moderation, then comes back again later. It is bl**dy frustrating with this incompetent comment handling system, by I have resigned myself to it. At least I cannot claim that they prevent me from speaking 😉
It gets real frustrating when my comments are deleted. I NEVER!!! treat people with disrespect when I comment. If someone writes an offensive response to my comments, that has nothing to do with me.
That is an interesting proposition: China observed the G7 countries almost seamlessly coordinate and has internalized the consequences of such coordination were it directed at itself. Hmm …
That is an interesting proposition: China observed the G7 countries almost seamlessly coordinate and has internalized the consequences of such coordination were it directed at itself. Hmm …
“internationally supervised plebiscites (with refugees anywhere in the world all assured a vote) will be required in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”
I don’t think Russia would accept those terms.
The only realistic way for this war to end (short of WW3) is for Ukraine to give up Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as Crimea.
If Western Ukraine was fast-tracked into the EU, and Ukrainians in the annexed regions were free to “vote with their feet”, and move to Western Ukraine, this wouldn’t be a bad outcome for them.
Putin would have to be assured, however, that any invasion an EU member (including Western Ukraine) would result in nuclear war.
Unfortunately, powerful people in the US have an interest in this war dragging on, so we shouldn’t expect peace anytime soon.
Apart from you last sentence all your assertions are pie in the sky and based presumably on propaganda..
Just one man’s thoughts about what’s realistic to expect from Russia, and what *could* be done by the EU (unilaterally) to secure peace.
I don’t know whose propaganda you have in mind – there’s lots of it flying around from all sides – but I doubt Russia would be thrilled by rump Ukraine joining the EU. That said, they might accept it.
My proposal represents a compromise that allows both sides to save face. Russia can say they succeeded at protecting ethnic Russians in pro-Russian areas of Ukraine. Zelenskyy can say he delivered the Western-alignment that Maidan supporters wanted.
Getting 27 nations to agree about anything is difficult, but a long war hurts the EU.
I for one would be appalled at Ukraine, rump or otherwise joining the EU.. there are real standards to comply with and Ukraine complies with none of them.. in fact their ‘standards’ are anathema to the EU. So forget that..
We didn’t want the US’s other wars either but we weren’t enticed to have Afghanistan or Iraq in the EU!! You may be thinking those countries are not in Europe but hey, NATO is trying to recruit Asian countries despite the fact that the NA in Nato stands for North Atlantic!
By “Western Ukraine,” I assume you mean the current boundaries in the fighting.
Russia can’t take any more physically. Their only chance would be to fight Ukraine to a standstill.
Without tanks, the days of Russian offensives are long gone.
I cant see Ukraine joining soon. Post 1990, it took 14 years for the first accession, Rumania and Bulgaria scraping by under the wire three years later. Hard as it was for states that were forcibly Communist after 1945, the obstacles before the former USSR are different in kind. The social and cultural destruction over two-three generations was that much greater. This is clear when you compare Ukraine to Poland since 1989-1990.( I mention Poland because a third of today’s Ukraine was Polish before the war, and many Poles survived the civil war fought up to 1949).
I for one would be appalled at Ukraine, rump or otherwise joining the EU.. there are real standards to comply with and Ukraine complies with none of them.. in fact their ‘standards’ are anathema to the EU. So forget that..
We didn’t want the US’s other wars either but we weren’t enticed to have Afghanistan or Iraq in the EU!! You may be thinking those countries are not in Europe but hey, NATO is trying to recruit Asian countries despite the fact that the NA in Nato stands for North Atlantic!
By “Western Ukraine,” I assume you mean the current boundaries in the fighting.
Russia can’t take any more physically. Their only chance would be to fight Ukraine to a standstill.
Without tanks, the days of Russian offensives are long gone.
I cant see Ukraine joining soon. Post 1990, it took 14 years for the first accession, Rumania and Bulgaria scraping by under the wire three years later. Hard as it was for states that were forcibly Communist after 1945, the obstacles before the former USSR are different in kind. The social and cultural destruction over two-three generations was that much greater. This is clear when you compare Ukraine to Poland since 1989-1990.( I mention Poland because a third of today’s Ukraine was Polish before the war, and many Poles survived the civil war fought up to 1949).
Just one man’s thoughts about what’s realistic to expect from Russia, and what *could* be done by the EU (unilaterally) to secure peace.
I don’t know whose propaganda you have in mind – there’s lots of it flying around from all sides – but I doubt Russia would be thrilled by rump Ukraine joining the EU. That said, they might accept it.
My proposal represents a compromise that allows both sides to save face. Russia can say they succeeded at protecting ethnic Russians in pro-Russian areas of Ukraine. Zelenskyy can say he delivered the Western-alignment that Maidan supporters wanted.
Getting 27 nations to agree about anything is difficult, but a long war hurts the EU.
You’re not thinking like any Ukrainian.
If their offensive is successful, they won’t accept anything but full control.
IF.
IF.
Apart from you last sentence all your assertions are pie in the sky and based presumably on propaganda..
You’re not thinking like any Ukrainian.
If their offensive is successful, they won’t accept anything but full control.
“internationally supervised plebiscites (with refugees anywhere in the world all assured a vote) will be required in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”
I don’t think Russia would accept those terms.
The only realistic way for this war to end (short of WW3) is for Ukraine to give up Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as Crimea.
If Western Ukraine was fast-tracked into the EU, and Ukrainians in the annexed regions were free to “vote with their feet”, and move to Western Ukraine, this wouldn’t be a bad outcome for them.
Putin would have to be assured, however, that any invasion an EU member (including Western Ukraine) would result in nuclear war.
Unfortunately, powerful people in the US have an interest in this war dragging on, so we shouldn’t expect peace anytime soon.
I don’t think Xi expects his peace talks to succeed. They will fail because the western countries don’t want peace. When that happens, Xi can say he tried his best but will now support his ally, Russia, with all the weapons and intelligence it wants.
I don’t think Xi expects his peace talks to succeed. They will fail because the western countries don’t want peace. When that happens, Xi can say he tried his best but will now support his ally, Russia, with all the weapons and intelligence it wants.
Xi is cuckooing Russia. Putin will again sell out his country to keep himself in charge.
“China’s latest map-content regulations issued last month by the Ministry of Natural Resources require mapmakers to mark six cities, an island and a mountain range along the Chinese-Russian border in their old Chinese names, alongside their Russian names. Similar requirements were previously made for contested territories in the East and South China Seas.”
Seizing the Amur river ‘area,’ would be far easier than invading Taiwan and would also reverse the ‘humiliation’ of 1867 rather well.
In fact a full scale Russo- Chinese War might we rather beneficial for the West.
I was rather hoping, given his past that Luttwak might suggest such a scenario.
Surely you are not encouraging war?
No, but as I say, I was disappointed that Luttwak didn’t discuss the possibility.
No, but as I say, I was disappointed that Luttwak didn’t discuss the possibility.
Xi knows that if it waits long enough he will get those without war.
Climate change is a threat to China itself, which is why it’s the largest manufacturer of solar panels.
Once Xi no longer needs oil and gas, Russia will implode, and China will pick up the pieces for free.
If China believed anthropogenic climate were real, it wouldn’t be building coal-fired power plants as fast as it can. Solar panels are for stupid Westerners.
If China believed anthropogenic climate were real, it wouldn’t be building coal-fired power plants as fast as it can. Solar panels are for stupid Westerners.
Hum. One result of the 2014 sanctions against Russia was the amazingly swift building of a pipeline ( gas or oil, dont remember) from Siberia to China, including the first bridge across the Amur river. The trade agreement between the two was beefed up.
Surely you are not encouraging war?
Xi knows that if it waits long enough he will get those without war.
Climate change is a threat to China itself, which is why it’s the largest manufacturer of solar panels.
Once Xi no longer needs oil and gas, Russia will implode, and China will pick up the pieces for free.
Hum. One result of the 2014 sanctions against Russia was the amazingly swift building of a pipeline ( gas or oil, dont remember) from Siberia to China, including the first bridge across the Amur river. The trade agreement between the two was beefed up.
I’ve read this idea about China renaming maps of the far-east as some sort of pretext for an invasion of Russia several times and I think it’s total bunk, for several reasons which I will now try to explain.
Firstly if renaming maps is a sign of hostile intent which Washington and the West can see and recognize then why wouldn’t Moscow be able to see it too ? Why telegraph your intent to invade ahead of time ? Is it to create a pretext for war ? If Beijing wanted a pretext for war with Russian then what the hell have their last 20+ years of economic, political and military co-operation been about ? Is China really trying to strengthen a nation they plan to invade ? Utter madness.
Why even invade, morality aside what could possibly be the benefits that would out weight the enormous costs and risks of an invasion of Russia ? Is it to take territory in the frozen north to house China’s shrinking population ? Is it to gain vital resources ? There is nothing of value in Russia that the Russians aren’t eager to sell to the Chinese just as fast as they can dig them up and pump them out. Moving those minerals and hydrocarbons from the sparsely populated north to the densely populated production centers of the south, to be made into consumer goods is a highly logical and profitable strategy for everyone involved. Starting a major war with a huge nuclear power to shut all that down is again utter madness.
The above line about Chinese designs on Vladivostok et. al seems to be taken verbatim from a Kyiv Post opinion piece;
“China Challenges Russia by Restoring Chinese Names of Cities on Their Border”
https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/13560
A commenter called Budu offers an interesting perspective, part of which I will quote here
I also note the writer of this “opinion piece” Bohdan Nahaylo is a former director editor of Radio Liberty Ukraine. Now you don’t have to call Radio Liberty American government propaganda if you don’t want to, but you can’t deny that it’s a branch of the American government and funded directly by congress.
Maybe this isn’t American propaganda designed to sow seeds of distrust (Although I think it probably is) maybe Bohdan Nahaylo is so desperate to see a Moscow-Beijing split that he’s hallucinating up evidence that just doesn’t exist.
China won’t go to war with Russia as long as it get what it wants (raw materials and food, cheaply) by trade.
China won’t go to war with Russia as long as it get what it wants (raw materials and food, cheaply) by trade.
Seizing the Amur river ‘area,’ would be far easier than invading Taiwan and would also reverse the ‘humiliation’ of 1867 rather well.
In fact a full scale Russo- Chinese War might we rather beneficial for the West.
I was rather hoping, given his past that Luttwak might suggest such a scenario.
I’ve read this idea about China renaming maps of the far-east as some sort of pretext for an invasion of Russia several times and I think it’s total bunk, for several reasons which I will now try to explain.
Firstly if renaming maps is a sign of hostile intent which Washington and the West can see and recognize then why wouldn’t Moscow be able to see it too ? Why telegraph your intent to invade ahead of time ? Is it to create a pretext for war ? If Beijing wanted a pretext for war with Russian then what the hell have their last 20+ years of economic, political and military co-operation been about ? Is China really trying to strengthen a nation they plan to invade ? Utter madness.
Why even invade, morality aside what could possibly be the benefits that would out weight the enormous costs and risks of an invasion of Russia ? Is it to take territory in the frozen north to house China’s shrinking population ? Is it to gain vital resources ? There is nothing of value in Russia that the Russians aren’t eager to sell to the Chinese just as fast as they can dig them up and pump them out. Moving those minerals and hydrocarbons from the sparsely populated north to the densely populated production centers of the south, to be made into consumer goods is a highly logical and profitable strategy for everyone involved. Starting a major war with a huge nuclear power to shut all that down is again utter madness.
The above line about Chinese designs on Vladivostok et. al seems to be taken verbatim from a Kyiv Post opinion piece;
“China Challenges Russia by Restoring Chinese Names of Cities on Their Border”
https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/13560
A commenter called Budu offers an interesting perspective, part of which I will quote here
I also note the writer of this “opinion piece” Bohdan Nahaylo is a former director editor of Radio Liberty Ukraine. Now you don’t have to call Radio Liberty American government propaganda if you don’t want to, but you can’t deny that it’s a branch of the American government and funded directly by congress.
Maybe this isn’t American propaganda designed to sow seeds of distrust (Although I think it probably is) maybe Bohdan Nahaylo is so desperate to see a Moscow-Beijing split that he’s hallucinating up evidence that just doesn’t exist.
Xi is cuckooing Russia. Putin will again sell out his country to keep himself in charge.
“China’s latest map-content regulations issued last month by the Ministry of Natural Resources require mapmakers to mark six cities, an island and a mountain range along the Chinese-Russian border in their old Chinese names, alongside their Russian names. Similar requirements were previously made for contested territories in the East and South China Seas.”
China is definitely in trouble. They face a confluence of forces pushing in opposite directions. First, as the author states, China is dependent on imports for food and energy needs. This would dictate a more patient approach to Taiwan, building up domestic agricultural and energy resources and also building alliances with partners who could replace imports from the US and their allies. However, China also has a looming demographic crisis that will see their population get much older and begin to shrink by the middle of the century if current trends continue. As China approaches this demographic cliff, they will face pressure to act on whatever geopolitical ambitions they may have before the supply of labor and soldiers dries up. At the same time, Xi’s bellicose rhetoric and harsh domestic policy have alienated neighbors and led possible neutral parties into an increasingly solid looking encircling alliance, which leaves Russia and not much else, and Russia conveniently has the two things China needs, food and energy. Historical grudges notwithstanding, there is a certain symbiosis in a China/Russia axis, with Russia supplying the two things China most needs, food and fuel, and with China supplying the industrial capacity and economic infrastructure Russia lacks. For now, China seems to be trying to occupy the neutral ground, but increased time and pressure may push them closer to Russia rather than further away. It all depends on what’s in the mind of Xi Jinping. I hope he has enough sense to back down, particularly on Taiwan, but he could just as easily let national pride and ego get in the way, double down on his alliance with Russia, and start WWIII.
China is definitely in trouble. They face a confluence of forces pushing in opposite directions. First, as the author states, China is dependent on imports for food and energy needs. This would dictate a more patient approach to Taiwan, building up domestic agricultural and energy resources and also building alliances with partners who could replace imports from the US and their allies. However, China also has a looming demographic crisis that will see their population get much older and begin to shrink by the middle of the century if current trends continue. As China approaches this demographic cliff, they will face pressure to act on whatever geopolitical ambitions they may have before the supply of labor and soldiers dries up. At the same time, Xi’s bellicose rhetoric and harsh domestic policy have alienated neighbors and led possible neutral parties into an increasingly solid looking encircling alliance, which leaves Russia and not much else, and Russia conveniently has the two things China needs, food and energy. Historical grudges notwithstanding, there is a certain symbiosis in a China/Russia axis, with Russia supplying the two things China most needs, food and fuel, and with China supplying the industrial capacity and economic infrastructure Russia lacks. For now, China seems to be trying to occupy the neutral ground, but increased time and pressure may push them closer to Russia rather than further away. It all depends on what’s in the mind of Xi Jinping. I hope he has enough sense to back down, particularly on Taiwan, but he could just as easily let national pride and ego get in the way, double down on his alliance with Russia, and start WWIII.
Why does China have such a problem feeding its population? I know it has a large population but it also has a large and varied land-mass and climate. Are the Chinese yet to adopt modern agricultural techniques?
Manpower: intensive agriculture without multimillion dollar machines requires lots of manpower. And much agricultural production has no machines to assist. China has opted instead to allocate resources to industrialization, providing a higher rate of return. But this is possible only on the simultaneous provision of plentiful and cheap labor from the Chinese countryside and agricultural imports.
Manpower: intensive agriculture without multimillion dollar machines requires lots of manpower. And much agricultural production has no machines to assist. China has opted instead to allocate resources to industrialization, providing a higher rate of return. But this is possible only on the simultaneous provision of plentiful and cheap labor from the Chinese countryside and agricultural imports.
Why does China have such a problem feeding its population? I know it has a large population but it also has a large and varied land-mass and climate. Are the Chinese yet to adopt modern agricultural techniques?
Very sad when someone tells hard truths about the real likelihood of any “multipolar world.”
Fact is, every one of the BRICS are in as deep trouble as any western nation. The only difference is most are caught in the “middle income” trap, with the likelihood that they will ever compare to any western nation increasingly remote.
That’s not because of any problem with Indians, South Africans, Brazilians or Chinese. It’s just that most of their govts are either too corrupt or too authoritarian to cultivate a dynamic economy and political system. So eventually all will stagnate–and probably be controlled in the end by ever-more venal leaders like Putin.
Still worse, this produces the brain drain we’ve seen, which, ironically, most benefits places like the US and Canada.
Russia isn’t losing because its soldiers are stupid. It’s losing because that’s what a corrupt, society run by incompetent crooks invariably does when it finally has to encounter a near-peer enemy.
And Xi is smart enough not to become tied to a corpse.
Very sad when someone tells hard truths about the real likelihood of any “multipolar world.”
Fact is, every one of the BRICS are in as deep trouble as any western nation. The only difference is most are caught in the “middle income” trap, with the likelihood that they will ever compare to any western nation increasingly remote.
That’s not because of any problem with Indians, South Africans, Brazilians or Chinese. It’s just that most of their govts are either too corrupt or too authoritarian to cultivate a dynamic economy and political system. So eventually all will stagnate–and probably be controlled in the end by ever-more venal leaders like Putin.
Still worse, this produces the brain drain we’ve seen, which, ironically, most benefits places like the US and Canada.
Russia isn’t losing because its soldiers are stupid. It’s losing because that’s what a corrupt, society run by incompetent crooks invariably does when it finally has to encounter a near-peer enemy.
And Xi is smart enough not to become tied to a corpse.
Both South Africa and Brazil will arrest if he visits.
Nice to see all the BRICS solidarity.
The West is indeed doomed.
Both South Africa and Brazil will arrest if he visits.
Nice to see all the BRICS solidarity.
The West is indeed doomed.
WOW!
With this level of understanding of the issues my guess is he called the Iraq war for Saddam and is now writing of how the raccoon-dogs being sold in the Wet Market were the natural vector for covid by eating diseased bats….
OK, so he is wrong about everything. This article gets it all wrong so much it is impossible to even address the wrongness in a BTL comment.
I instead just give a link to Youtube’s two greatest experts on the region, and on this war. Colonel MacGregor, and Scott Ritter.
These guys are a must. They will go back as far as you care to hear about.
MacGregor, Military expert, regional expert of highest caliber.
https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls/videos
Scott Ritter, Married to a Georgian, speaks the languages, lives there, and was the Key WMD inspector in Iraq (did not find any so had to resign) ex-US Marine.
https://www.youtube.com/@ScottRitterAgain/videos
Don’t be silly.. the majority here aren’t interested in truth of any kind. Don’t you have some nice Western propaganda to regurgitate?
Yes, we have all been deluded by that Western propaganda that relates that most of the regular Russian army was obliterated outside of Kyiv and Kharkiv, and now they have to rely on convicts to launch any attacks.
If only we knew the Truth!
Curiously that isn’t what the BBC reported in these 3 articles alone since last November.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64455123
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61742736
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63580372
Wheh, glad Putin is still besieging Kyiv then.
Guess I was deluded, as usual.
Wheh, glad Putin is still besieging Kyiv then.
Guess I was deluded, as usual.
Curiously that isn’t what the BBC reported in these 3 articles alone since last November.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64455123
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61742736
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63580372
Yes, we have all been deluded by that Western propaganda that relates that most of the regular Russian army was obliterated outside of Kyiv and Kharkiv, and now they have to rely on convicts to launch any attacks.
If only we knew the Truth!
Is there any basis for this cast iron confidence in everything these 2 say? As far as I can tell they’ve been predicting total Russian victory for months, mostly in capitals & with lots of exclamation marks.
Plus, Scott Ritter is a nonce. Ever heard of Kompromat?
While of course I don’t know (nobody does) I suspect Putin has changed his strategy in light of developments. You will recall the original Nato strategy was to..
1. Weaken Russia, economically.
2. Deplete Russia’s arsenal of weapons and ammunition.
3. Effect regime change in Moscow.
4. Break up the Russian Federation, and
5. Isolate Russia making it a global pariah.
..and oh yes, there was something about Ukraine in there as well; I forget what; it doesn’t matter; it wasn’t important.
But it now turns out…
1. The West (US, EU, UK) is the one being weakened, economically with soaring inflation, unaffordable energy costs, bank failures, unpayable debt etc. etc.
2. It seems it’s the West that is running short of weapons and ammunition with barely enough to defend the homelands!
3. Biden, the soon to be imprisoned Trump and the crazy deSantis are ones looking at regime change.
4. The EU may well break up (UK already gone) and the US are considering a mark 2 civil war.
5. The BRICS+ and Global South are not isolating Russia despite bullying by the Anglo-US empire. Apparently they are looking at their history and thinking maybe they were backing a losing side anyway.
So, since Russia and China are looking like the new guys on the bloc maybe its time to back winners who, to date have never done them any harm? Maybe the Belt & Road initiative looks better than neocolonial exploitation?
So yes, maybe Russia has more to gain by prolonging the war now!
Well said, we are being screwed by the Americans, Biden is such a dimwit!
I suspect many of the draftees in Donbas right now would welcome a breakup of Russia.
Well said, we are being screwed by the Americans, Biden is such a dimwit!
I suspect many of the draftees in Donbas right now would welcome a breakup of Russia.
While of course I don’t know (nobody does) I suspect Putin has changed his strategy in light of developments. You will recall the original Nato strategy was to..
1. Weaken Russia, economically.
2. Deplete Russia’s arsenal of weapons and ammunition.
3. Effect regime change in Moscow.
4. Break up the Russian Federation, and
5. Isolate Russia making it a global pariah.
..and oh yes, there was something about Ukraine in there as well; I forget what; it doesn’t matter; it wasn’t important.
But it now turns out…
1. The West (US, EU, UK) is the one being weakened, economically with soaring inflation, unaffordable energy costs, bank failures, unpayable debt etc. etc.
2. It seems it’s the West that is running short of weapons and ammunition with barely enough to defend the homelands!
3. Biden, the soon to be imprisoned Trump and the crazy deSantis are ones looking at regime change.
4. The EU may well break up (UK already gone) and the US are considering a mark 2 civil war.
5. The BRICS+ and Global South are not isolating Russia despite bullying by the Anglo-US empire. Apparently they are looking at their history and thinking maybe they were backing a losing side anyway.
So, since Russia and China are looking like the new guys on the bloc maybe its time to back winners who, to date have never done them any harm? Maybe the Belt & Road initiative looks better than neocolonial exploitation?
So yes, maybe Russia has more to gain by prolonging the war now!
I have to laugh when anyone mentions those two.
A broken clock is right occasionally, but these two clowns have been wrong on EVERY aspect of this war. Their problem is they so botched their initial predictions that they have to keep doubling down on them, a la Trump. Otherwise they would just be ignored.
Seeing them as having some sort of “secret knowledge” known only to them, have access to is delusional.
If you want better info, the Illuminati might be an alternative.
The CIA, Western Intelligence services sounded much like them pre-invasion. Russia even believed they could just walk in. Certainly the only aspect of the initial ‘special military’ operation that looked at all like an army in a shooting war, was the elite units attempts to capture the airport. The rest of the columns looked a bit like the British Army trundling up the motorways of the UK, in long convoys with no armed flank or forward operating units. In fact the conversations in the many videos put up by Ukrainian citizens talking to the convoy members struck one as less dangerous that the Jan 6th Weirdos day out in the US Capitol. and that was more like the Monster Raving Loony party’s idea of a a fancy dress day out than an insurrection.
There is a war on now however, and Russia seems to have finally grasped that fact. Which should worry NATO and the Ukraine. We should end it now.
Gerasimov and Shoigu are doubtless more serious about this. It’s their jobs. But they will never have the army to carry that out.
You would need a top to bottom overhaul of Russian society, including Putin’s removal. Otherwise the same mistakes will just keep being made.
The real problem is that Russia has lost nearly all of the Soviet and Russian armaments it produced over 60 years. Just as with the West, it will take years to get Russia back up to pre-war levels.
Even if there were enough conscripts, and they were trained, they won’t have the equpt for any real offensive this year, just the current spoiler attacks.
We’ll just have to wait and see how significant the next Ukrainian offensive is–and how fed up Russians are at being “cannon meat.”
Gerasimov and Shoigu are doubtless more serious about this. It’s their jobs. But they will never have the army to carry that out.
You would need a top to bottom overhaul of Russian society, including Putin’s removal. Otherwise the same mistakes will just keep being made.
The real problem is that Russia has lost nearly all of the Soviet and Russian armaments it produced over 60 years. Just as with the West, it will take years to get Russia back up to pre-war levels.
Even if there were enough conscripts, and they were trained, they won’t have the equpt for any real offensive this year, just the current spoiler attacks.
We’ll just have to wait and see how significant the next Ukrainian offensive is–and how fed up Russians are at being “cannon meat.”
The CIA, Western Intelligence services sounded much like them pre-invasion. Russia even believed they could just walk in. Certainly the only aspect of the initial ‘special military’ operation that looked at all like an army in a shooting war, was the elite units attempts to capture the airport. The rest of the columns looked a bit like the British Army trundling up the motorways of the UK, in long convoys with no armed flank or forward operating units. In fact the conversations in the many videos put up by Ukrainian citizens talking to the convoy members struck one as less dangerous that the Jan 6th Weirdos day out in the US Capitol. and that was more like the Monster Raving Loony party’s idea of a a fancy dress day out than an insurrection.
There is a war on now however, and Russia seems to have finally grasped that fact. Which should worry NATO and the Ukraine. We should end it now.
Don’t be silly.. the majority here aren’t interested in truth of any kind. Don’t you have some nice Western propaganda to regurgitate?
Is there any basis for this cast iron confidence in everything these 2 say? As far as I can tell they’ve been predicting total Russian victory for months, mostly in capitals & with lots of exclamation marks.
Plus, Scott Ritter is a nonce. Ever heard of Kompromat?
I have to laugh when anyone mentions those two.
A broken clock is right occasionally, but these two clowns have been wrong on EVERY aspect of this war. Their problem is they so botched their initial predictions that they have to keep doubling down on them, a la Trump. Otherwise they would just be ignored.
Seeing them as having some sort of “secret knowledge” known only to them, have access to is delusional.
If you want better info, the Illuminati might be an alternative.
WOW!
With this level of understanding of the issues my guess is he called the Iraq war for Saddam and is now writing of how the raccoon-dogs being sold in the Wet Market were the natural vector for covid by eating diseased bats….
OK, so he is wrong about everything. This article gets it all wrong so much it is impossible to even address the wrongness in a BTL comment.
I instead just give a link to Youtube’s two greatest experts on the region, and on this war. Colonel MacGregor, and Scott Ritter.
These guys are a must. They will go back as far as you care to hear about.
MacGregor, Military expert, regional expert of highest caliber.
https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls/videos
Scott Ritter, Married to a Georgian, speaks the languages, lives there, and was the Key WMD inspector in Iraq (did not find any so had to resign) ex-US Marine.
https://www.youtube.com/@ScottRitterAgain/videos
Words fail me. Possibly the most unbalanced, war mongering article I’ve read about the war. I can only assume that Professor Edward Luttwak is the pseudonym for Jake Sullivan.
What parts do you disagree with?
I’ll assume you thought Fazis piece yesterday was a well researched unbiased look at the geopolitical situation?
“China’s role has been scarcely greater than Montenegro’s, where a number of wealthy Russians are sitting out the war, or Serbia’s, which remains Russia’s only true European ally.”
“Xi’s current trip to Moscow, then, is as much about saving face in Beijing as it is about bringing peace to Kyiv.”
“The primary reason for Beijing’s initial claim to neutrality was that Xi was caught by surprise, despite the “no-limits” strategic partnership he had proclaimed with Putin just three weeks before the war started.”
This is basically the first three paragraphs of the essay. I support the Ukraine, but it’s okay not to be neo-con war hawk either.
What in those paragraphs could in any way be described as warmongering? Not once has it gave an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the actual fighting, merely stating Chinas role and reaction to the conflict so far.
It appears your main criticism of the article is that it doesn’t echo your predetermined opinions rather than the actual content of the writing.
Actually seems to bear out what we’ve seen in Moscow.
That may change, and Luttwak may be proven wrong.
But so far his analysis matches the evidence.
What in those paragraphs could in any way be described as warmongering? Not once has it gave an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the actual fighting, merely stating Chinas role and reaction to the conflict so far.
It appears your main criticism of the article is that it doesn’t echo your predetermined opinions rather than the actual content of the writing.
Actually seems to bear out what we’ve seen in Moscow.
That may change, and Luttwak may be proven wrong.
But so far his analysis matches the evidence.
Touché
“China’s role has been scarcely greater than Montenegro’s, where a number of wealthy Russians are sitting out the war, or Serbia’s, which remains Russia’s only true European ally.”
“Xi’s current trip to Moscow, then, is as much about saving face in Beijing as it is about bringing peace to Kyiv.”
“The primary reason for Beijing’s initial claim to neutrality was that Xi was caught by surprise, despite the “no-limits” strategic partnership he had proclaimed with Putin just three weeks before the war started.”
This is basically the first three paragraphs of the essay. I support the Ukraine, but it’s okay not to be neo-con war hawk either.
Touché
In what way is it “war mongering”? I disagree , I think it’s an interesting article and can see most of his points have validity though I don’t see India the way he does.
India is fairly pragmatic in that it won’t turn down opportunities when they arrive (such as cheap Russian oil) but in my opinion they’re much more aligned with the west than the Russians or Chinese despite being in BRICS
Fair enough. I would really call them opportunistic. I agree they are not aligned with China and Russia after all they are in a permanent border dispute with the former. I would see them more as sort of “neutral” but leaning slightly to the west if push comes to shove.
India is a nuclear power and as such it will do whatever serves India best, irrespective of (dying) Western hegemony.. the world is changing.
Certainly India is changing into an extreme Brahminist state, where Muslims have no place.
Is that the “hegemon” you want on the future?
Pakistan is their other next door neighbour, I doubt India is going to be an Hegemon in the near Future.
Pakistan is their other next door neighbour, I doubt India is going to be an Hegemon in the near Future.
Certainly India is changing into an extreme Brahminist state, where Muslims have no place.
Is that the “hegemon” you want on the future?
India is a nuclear power and as such it will do whatever serves India best, irrespective of (dying) Western hegemony.. the world is changing.
Yes, it’s because of the beneficent history under the British Empire’s jack boot, fond memories of losing 23 million in famines, having it’s economy reduced from 20%. of world GDP to 4%. What’s not to like?
I guess India much preferred the second Muslem Empire then. Funny they asked for Partition, really. No Muslems in India before the first Muslem invasion, whoops, I mean the 1st Mughal Empire. Now why did other States in India not feed Bengal?
You need to study history. Famine relief was banned in India and all available resources were commandeered.. Churchill was happy with the famine as Bengalis were “a beastly people with a beastly religion” so he let them starve and yes, he blocked relief measures! It was Jenna who insisted on partition being the megalomaniac he was, despite Ghandi’s pleas for unification.. GB did in India what it did in Palestine and in Ireland. . divided the country and ran away leaving a mess.. which c9ntinues to this day!
So in Ireland it was the British who ‘split it up’?
https://ireland-calling.com/diarmait-macmurrough/
So in Ireland it was the British who ‘split it up’?
https://ireland-calling.com/diarmait-macmurrough/
You need to study history. Famine relief was banned in India and all available resources were commandeered.. Churchill was happy with the famine as Bengalis were “a beastly people with a beastly religion” so he let them starve and yes, he blocked relief measures! It was Jenna who insisted on partition being the megalomaniac he was, despite Ghandi’s pleas for unification.. GB did in India what it did in Palestine and in Ireland. . divided the country and ran away leaving a mess.. which c9ntinues to this day!
It’s a big subject but two erroneous points there. India didn’t have its economy reduced, the rest of the world (with the industrial revolution of the ‘west’) just massively increased its GDP, so India had a smaller relative share. And way more Indians died in famines before the British took control (a complicated issue but obviously you like your history simplified so there it is).
The smashing of a million Indian looms and the cutting off of weavers’ hands after they repaired their looms, and the consequent enforced export of India’s raw cotton to Yorkshire and wool to Lancashire might have had something to do with it as well don’t you think. A famine caused by drought is one thing but a famine caused by the theft of food is quite another. I love your economics btw.. India retaining it’s GDP ..lol!!
The smashing of a million Indian looms and the cutting off of weavers’ hands after they repaired their looms, and the consequent enforced export of India’s raw cotton to Yorkshire and wool to Lancashire might have had something to do with it as well don’t you think. A famine caused by drought is one thing but a famine caused by the theft of food is quite another. I love your economics btw.. India retaining it’s GDP ..lol!!
If Putin was to be toppled not doubt the Irish would be first in line to sign his book of condolence
A book of condolence is signed upon the death of a foreign leader, not his ‘toppling’ but to be fair, the CIA/MI6 are really more into murdering foreign leaders.
By the end of next year Biden and Sunak will be toppled and Putin will still be in power.. if you’re convinced otherwise let’s see the colour of your money!
1945 Birthday best wishes to the Fuhrer come to mind.
I suspect much of the reason for that is the manifest incompetence of the FSB.
When you spill the beans of an assassination attempt over an unsecured line–to the person who you tried to kill–that seems rather…unprofessional to me.
1945 Birthday best wishes to the Fuhrer come to mind.
I suspect much of the reason for that is the manifest incompetence of the FSB.
When you spill the beans of an assassination attempt over an unsecured line–to the person who you tried to kill–that seems rather…unprofessional to me.
A book of condolence is signed upon the death of a foreign leader, not his ‘toppling’ but to be fair, the CIA/MI6 are really more into murdering foreign leaders.
By the end of next year Biden and Sunak will be toppled and Putin will still be in power.. if you’re convinced otherwise let’s see the colour of your money!
India, like Ireland is the product of the British Empire, it was a sub-continent of many sub-states before the British united it, just as Ireland was a mass of Petty Kingdoms.
The British Empire was far more benign than the current Left gives it credit for, and some Indian’s agree.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/britains-empire-matter-pride-not-guilt-indians-know/
I guess India much preferred the second Muslem Empire then. Funny they asked for Partition, really. No Muslems in India before the first Muslem invasion, whoops, I mean the 1st Mughal Empire. Now why did other States in India not feed Bengal?
It’s a big subject but two erroneous points there. India didn’t have its economy reduced, the rest of the world (with the industrial revolution of the ‘west’) just massively increased its GDP, so India had a smaller relative share. And way more Indians died in famines before the British took control (a complicated issue but obviously you like your history simplified so there it is).
If Putin was to be toppled not doubt the Irish would be first in line to sign his book of condolence
India, like Ireland is the product of the British Empire, it was a sub-continent of many sub-states before the British united it, just as Ireland was a mass of Petty Kingdoms.
The British Empire was far more benign than the current Left gives it credit for, and some Indian’s agree.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/britains-empire-matter-pride-not-guilt-indians-know/
Fair enough. I would really call them opportunistic. I agree they are not aligned with China and Russia after all they are in a permanent border dispute with the former. I would see them more as sort of “neutral” but leaning slightly to the west if push comes to shove.
Yes, it’s because of the beneficent history under the British Empire’s jack boot, fond memories of losing 23 million in famines, having it’s economy reduced from 20%. of world GDP to 4%. What’s not to like?
India is fairly pragmatic in that it won’t turn down opportunities when they arrive (such as cheap Russian oil) but in my opinion they’re much more aligned with the west than the Russians or Chinese despite being in BRICS
Or perhaps even the late Wilhelm Bodewin Johann Gustav Keitel, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW)?
..nope, it’s Twatluk!
What parts do you disagree with?
I’ll assume you thought Fazis piece yesterday was a well researched unbiased look at the geopolitical situation?
In what way is it “war mongering”? I disagree , I think it’s an interesting article and can see most of his points have validity though I don’t see India the way he does.
Or perhaps even the late Wilhelm Bodewin Johann Gustav Keitel, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW)?
..nope, it’s Twatluk!
Words fail me. Possibly the most unbalanced, war mongering article I’ve read about the war. I can only assume that Professor Edward Luttwak is the pseudonym for Jake Sullivan.