Not for the first time in history Russia is exposing tensions in the west. I make the point in that way deliberately.
Stand back for a moment and ask what Putin is likely to be seeking to achieve with his belligerence towards the West even if to do so it's easier to say what he is not seeking to do first.
There are territorial issues, without doubt; Russian has always been insecure about its borders. Nothing has changed now. But major territorial expansion that threatens the West is not on the cards. That's not to dismiss the threat to others: it is to say that the threat is limited. I think that important to remember.
And Russian is not planning a Trotskyite revolution: it has no dogma to promote.
Nor is it really seeking foreign policy influence. The days when the world could be aligned on a Masco / Washington axis of influence have gone: Beijing has supplanted Russia's role, and it knows it.
So what is Putin seeking to do? The answer would seem to be petty. He is seeking to maintain his power. I struggle find a motive far beyond that.
I doubt it is chance that publicity is being created as he seeks re-election.
Nor do I think Putin really left the election to chance: the power he seeks is deeply old fashioned in the desire for dominance that he displays. This dominance does not brook criticism.
And in that context there should be little surprise that he might seek to undermine the UK. This is because it is simultaneously the home of many of his critics and the active promoter of the conduits for many of the money flows that those around him would appear to direct.
Putin can exploit the UK because we have left ourselves open to exploitation. As a host of corruption that is actively supported and even sanctioned through the network of tax havens that are, in effect, the branch offices of the City of London and its financial services sector we render ourselves unable to respond in any effective way t9 the challenge Putin poses without having to face up to the fact that we too are purveyors of corruption, albeit somewhat more genteel disguised than Putin might manage.
I am, of course, aware that I am simplifying arguments. But let me go back to my opening sentence. What Putin is doing is exposing tensions in the West. Whether current actions in destabilising elections, murdering opponents and directing funds are actually under the control of the Kremlin or not (and I assume it wise to think Putin does not think it omnipotent or he would not feel threatened) does not greatly matter.
What does matter is that Putin and others think the West so conflicted that they can happily sow confusion with very limited risk to themselves in the interests of securing their domestic power base.
And what also matters is that we are not facing up to the fact that this is the consequence of our own lack of conviction in democracy, fair markets and transparency that might expose corruption before it becomes pernicious.
The whiff of panic that pervades our elite on this issue smacks very strongly of the sweat of the person who knows that at the very least they have been rumbled, and more likely is the odour of guilt by association, if only by the tacit grant of permission for this situation to exist.
So what can be done? I have already signalled the way in my post ‘To Russia, with love'. We must eliminate the mechanisms that can be used to deliver the corruption that will, inevitably, undermine western mixed-economy, market-based democracies if permitted to continue. We have no choice: it is that or face our own failure as the markets we believe co-exist to deliver prosperity alongside the state collapse under the assault of corruption of all sorts.
And we must act to support our democracies. Whilst they fail to represent opinion and do represent the power of money they provide a model for a veneer of respectability that the likes of Putin are all too willing to copy.
Put bluntly, Putin is, in the pursuit of domestic power in a state that has lived in almost perpetual fear of aggression from the West, seeking to sow discord in the West to distract attention from all that he might do domestically, and our own lack of faith in what the West now stands for provides him with all the opportunity he needs to do so.
This is an unedifying spectacle.
It is also deeply worrying. Putin is undertaking existential warfare on the West and our own states are so compromised by corruption that we have no real idea how to respond. As a tool he has found something far more powerful than a nuclear warhead. All he needs do is keep pushing the West's ‘self destruct' button every now and again to expose our own inability, as a consequence of the divisions within western democracy, to effectively respond to any challenge he currently poses.
Only the restoration of confidence in the western, democratic, mixed economy that is intolerant of corruptiin in the pursuit of equality and fair markets can restore the balance of power. Right now we are instead falling into his trap by delivering responses that simply justify his own more extreme approaches.
Our lack of confidence in who and what we are is all Putin needs to keep the West at arm's length and out of his domestic arena, which is what he really desires. And he's winning that war right now. It gives me no pleasure to say so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Last night I saw on one of the Sky channels “The Spider’s web’ about the secrecy jurisdictions. I was able to put faces to people you have written about.
http://spiderswebfilm.com/
I was asked to be in it and did not have time….
A shame. It is very good
I heard a phrase in my childhood which goes ” aggressors will always have the advantage” another goes ” a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its socks on”. I strongly suspect that your reasoning is very close to the truth. Thank you. I must admit to wondering what the end game might be. When the last two large entities have fought to the death what does the ”winner” think he has achieved? He/it can only become the next target for destruction! Cant really see a ”winner” in a game of endless revolution.
I tend to agree that a winer is very hard to spot in the game being played
So the West has to change the game
[…] via Putin is waging existential warfare – Tax Research UK […]
A very useful summary Richard. UK has put itself in a morally corrupt position by embracing Russian criminals and allowing them to launder their cash through the City.
The corruption of the West goes further than that relying on regime change in resource rich/strategically positioned countries to boost profits.
Putin is not just interested in preserving his power. He seeks to protect Russian civilisation from being dismembered by the NATO alliance which has stealthily crept up to his borders over the 25 years. Despite assurances from NATO on the dissolution of the Soviet Union that it would not do so.
Your final paragraph puts it very well. I would add that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone but it will take serious talks to get to that point. Talks that May and Johnson have shown they are completely unfit for.
We may find Putin repugnant: he would not appeal to me as a leader. But I seriously hope we have no plans for regime change. In that case your premise that we should ‘lay off’ is appropriate subject to usual checks and balances
But as you say, that imposes serious demands on us and I doubt many western leaders are up to this
There was a quote from a Treasury spokeperson in “TMOS” this morning – “It’s true that multinationals are paying the tax they owe under the current system, but there is a much wider question around whether the current system is fair”.
There is so much wrong with the current system that it is difficult to know where to start ; the Russian issues add to the mess.
And our accountants, are they part of the problem or the solution to it?
We need to start again, to build a new country, but with the chaos of Brexit looming what chance of that?
Not a lot….
But I always live in hope
Optimism in the face of the inevitably of demise is the paradox of good living
There’s every chance that from the coming chaos a new order can be built. It’s when things are stable they’re difficult to change. Today, opportunity beckons 🙂
Accountants have gone from boring clerks to well established places in boardroom like magical God’s on how to trick the system, remuneration and bilk shareholders of the risk takers rewards.
Good news though RB S has finally after six years accepted a shareholders resolution to establish a Shareholders Nomination to the Agm Committee SNAC that will gather a few big willing shareholders into a room with the chairman to discuss only the current and future directors and leaders of the business.
Expect a fight back despite this very system being what private equity funds do and what used to happen at all PLCs.
I would welcome your groups intellectual support to bolster this in the battles ahead. In this regard Richard would you be willing to have 120 keen students be invited to sign resolutions for hours and stock transfer forms.
Per company we need about 1,500 signed pages. Would you help?
I am happy for these pages to be used for discussion
I cannot, and would not, ask students to share my views or actions. I do not think that ethical.
KeithP says:
“We need to start again, to build a new country, but with the chaos of Brexit looming what chance of that? ”
Ironic isn’t it that Brexit, in a sense, creates that very opportunity ? For the ‘leavites’ it was indeed the whole point.
Actually it isn’t so much an ‘opportunity’; it’s an inevitable consequence of having the referendum and accepting it as binding. We didn’t have to have done either of those things. Whatever we do now determines the future (as is always the case). Brexit is just an abnormally disruptive sort of cusp point.
Whether we like the resultant new country will be entirely determined by the individuals and groups we allow to determine the future.
Many, having seen hints of what it is likely to look like, would now prefer to have the referendum again. Tough! We can’t have it again, and if the consensus does shift far enough to demand a second referendum it won’t be a re-run it will be a different referendum based on a different question framed in a different world.
As they say, ‘Life is not a dress rehearsal’.
Persons with sensitive olfactory organs better wear nosegays, but we, all of us, have a lot of ‘shit’ to shovel and we’d better get on with it or be overwhelmed.
I don’t think this is what is generally meant when pundits speak of a ‘shovel ready’ project, but I’m afraid it’s the project we have created.
Today I feel overwhelmed, but maybe I’ll feel a bit more positive tomorrow (?)
Perhaps I’ll go see if I can find my wellies.
I comment with some temerity – since saying anything positive about Russia seems to unacceptable nowadays. I don’t think Putin is belligerent at all. Rather he is reactive. Putin has always sought good relations with Europe – he sees Russia as being part of Europe. Time and time again Russia has offered help to the west – Putin was the first world leader to phone George Bush after 9/11 offering assistance – and much assistance was given in the movement of US troops through Afghanistan. However how has the west treated Putin? It is now a matter of record that when the USSR agreed to the unification of Germany promises were given – including by the UK – that NATO would not move one inch to the east. Now NATO is all round Russia’s borders with misiles capable of firing nuclear weapons.Can you imagine for a moment the US attitude if nukes were lined up along the border of Mexico & Canada? The US engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine – we have the’fuck the EU’ telephone conversation of Victoria Newland on YouTube to verify that! She was discussing before the coup who best to have as leader- and lo and behold it all came to pass. The US withdrew unilaterally from the ballistic defence treaty – at a time when Russia was in ruins after Yeltsin – remember the US proudly boasted that they had secured Yeltsin’s ( a drunk and a catastrophically bad leader for Russia ) victory – it was on the front cover of Time magazine. Finally Russia is in Syria legally at the request of Assad ( unlike the US who are there illegally under international law) and has ensured that Syria is still a sovereign country – had the US been left to it’s own devices Syria would have become another Iraq/ Libya . Remember there are US communications showing that the US was working to undermine Assad as far back as 2006. If anyone is interested I would recommend listening to Stephen Cohen, a professor in Russian Studies – you can find him at ‘The Nation’ or listen to Ray McGovern one of the founders of Veteran Professionals for Sanity. Sadly after the Scottish referendum it became clear to many Scots that the establishment lies blatantly and repeatedly for its own ends. Much of Scotland doesn’t believe a word the BBCsays – and looks for the truth elsewhere. Hope I don’t get pelters for this .
I think to believe Putin is benign demands imagination way beyond what I have
I make clear the West is not either
But I have little faith in Putin’s good intentions
I think Putin wishes to protect the sovereignty of Russia and to work for Russia’s national interests. I think it is always problematic to judge other countries by your own standards. When you consider where Russia was in the early 90’s – and indeed where China was after the cultural revolution – then both countries have made amazing progress. Yes, there are many things we find unacceptable – but each country must move forward at its own pace. I just find the perpetual demonising of Russia deeply worrying – dialogue is the way forward. Boris Johnson’s crass comments and what’s his names ‘ shut up and go home’ comment are unacceptable. World diplomacy not playground name calling is needed here. If only we had representatives who were up to the job.
“Hope I don’t get pelters for this ”
Well you probably deserve them for the pro-Assad spin if nothing else.
I’m not pro-Assad but the alternative of a failed state is far worse. And Assad is certainly not the worst government in the world – the Saudi regime beloved of Teresa May and recently given an audience with the Queen is far worse.
I’ve read Babsp’s post a few times now, but fail to see anything that could be described as ‘pro Assad spin.’ Could you clarify what you mean by that?
Babsp says:
“I comment with some temerity — since saying anything positive about Russia seems to unacceptable nowadays. I don’t think Putin is belligerent at all……
…..Hope I don’t get pelters for this ”
No pelters from me Babsp. I’m seeing the sort of playground bully tactics that get the victim into trouble for responding to a constant threat.
We are holding the bully’s coat as we did when Blair backed up Bush and his Iraq invasion nonsense. We have no legitimate quarrel with Russia, and in reality neither does the US, but they continue to press to create a response they can use as excuse for more war in one theatre of conflict or another. Their economy depends on it.
All this chaos is symptomatic of the US global empire cracking up. It won’t happen quickly, and will be very destructive. It already is. It will be a long time before we see any positive outcome.
When America was ‘great’ it was a nation in state control acting collectively. That no longer applies. The power is elsewhere and totally unaccountable.
Is there any wonder (some) Scots see a brighter future divorced from the UK.
Also read Craig Murray on the Novichok stuff
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/first-recorded-successful-novichok-synthesis-was-in-2017-by-iran-in-cooperation-with-the-opcw/
I have read this and think Craig is offering a powerful argument
I am willing to believe a nerve agent was used
I am willing to believe a Russian delivered it
I think Craig’s sourced argument that no one knows what Novichok is powerful
I am open-minded as to who ordered the delivery
But that does not change my view that the West has to change in response to this – and not by copying Putin
Albeit he’ll undoubtedly be relected today for another 6 years, he has a growing power struggle in his own back-yard. Apparently there is a lot more dissent in Russia than is reported in western media. In such a vast and varied country unanimity would be a miracle. He’s done better to hold it together than most of his predecessors, and to rescue the nation from collapse in 1991 to relative strength today. No mean achievement on a macro-scale.
Since the allied invasion in 1918, the west has continually harassed and demonised Russia – so little surprise its leaders have a viscersal distrust of the US / European power structure. Especially after WW2. Not a lot of recognition on our side for the 20 million+ Russians who saved our skins.
If Putin’s strategy is to prod the west where it’s weakest and keep it at arm’s length, I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t think how war is seen as a rational option from his perspective. I don’t know the Russian word for it but he seems to be telling NATO to ‘fxck off’ out of his sphere of influence, which includes Ukraine.
The principal global aggressor is the US military industrial complex.
John D,
“he has a growing power struggle in his own back-yard. Apparently there is a lot more dissent in Russia than is reported in western media.”
You’re definitely right about that but I don’t get this bit:
“prod the west where it’s weakest and keep it at arm’s length”
That looks like a contradiction in terms. You don’t keep anyone at arms length by conspicuously meddling in their affairs. Quite the opposite.
Marco – I didn’t mean to imply it’s an ideal tactic to achieve lasting world peace. I’m simply guessing it’s the way he sees it best to defend his country’s interests. I’m no expert on such matters (lol) but he’s a highly qualified karate expert and ex-KGB colonel – which would influence his strategic thinking. Compared to the current bunch of western leaders he’s in a class of his own in terms of experience, achievements and mastery of the political dark arts.
But, seriously, what do any of us know what goes on at such levels of power? We merely react to events according to our prejudices, what we selectively read and subconscious beliefs – while enjoying the intellectual debate.
From my own research I find Putin a fascinating historical character with so many contradictions and complexities that maybe one would have to be Russian to understand. Of course there are many good profiles of him, including this by Shaun Walker, the Guardian’s outgoing Moscow correspondent – https://www.history.com/news/vladimir-putin-russia-power. To get a more balanced handle on the Russian perspective I also read these two blogs – https://thesaker.is and https://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk.
Although regrettably I don’t speak their language I admit to being a bit of a Russophile. I love the culture – music, literature, intellectual achievements, traditions etc. So much to admire. I just don’t understand why the UK doesn’t make every effort at every level to be genuine friends and not systemic enemies. In the name of peace, maybe for once we should take a courageous initative. But we would need a very different political culture here. The Tories are dyed-in-the-wool sabre ratlers.
The reality is that the west and Russia are already at war. Thankfully at the moment the war is 95% informational/propaganda. Both sides make their plays and what we are seeing from May and Johnson is their (I refuse to say our, because I do not believe the British people are aware or support any kind of conflict) latest attack. Some of the war is hot in Syria and Ukraine but both sides do their best to cover that up from western electorates. To me it looks like the west attacking and Russia defending. Why the West is doing this is not open to clear evidence and certainly not voted for. Trump was elected by the “deplorables” to get USA out of foreign wars. It hasn’t worked so far.
The people pulling the strings for this aggressive stance are probably the same as those who have made sure tax havens are available to the rich. To identify them requires steps into conspiracy theories that lack evidential support. Someone credible must know and should blow the whistle.
PS: Meant to add that when it comes to ‘meddling in their affairs’ I’d say Puitn is playing catch-up with the west! The CIA wrote the modern handbook on that – and before them MI6.
Remember the Cuban missile crisis? I was sitting in a Maths class on the day Armageddon was about to break out and as the clock hands ticked towards the fateful hour the teacher looked up and said “Have we time to do one more example? Yes, I think we have.”
The US and its allies had surrounded the USSR with nuclear warheads, but when they had the temerity to attempt to install the same in Cuba……one rule for us, another for them.
Looking from Russia, the world is a very different place. How many of us, for example, would accept that during the Great Patriotic War (which we call WW2) it was Russia that suffered the most from Nazi aggression, and it was largely their sacrifice and resilience which defeated them?
I don’t think Putin is benign, but nor is he a Stalin. My left-wing, Russia-sympathising university tutor in the late 70’s always said he worried more about the USA. I think he was right and I would add the UK too. We have carried out innumerable “dirty tricks” over the years, including assassination, regime change, wars and proxy wars, destructive colonialism and now we are bent on economic colonialism.
Until we mend our ways we can hardly claim the moral high ground.
The last was, I thought, the point I was making
Agreed.
G Hewitt says:
“Remember the Cuban missile crisis? I was sitting in a Maths class on the day Armageddon was about to break out and as the clock hands ticked towards the fateful hour the teacher looked up and said “Have we time to do one more example? Yes, I think we have.” ”
I do hope that’s a true story. It says a lot about changed attitudes.
Can you imagine Tony Blair saying ” Oh, whoops. Dead princess. So it goes.
What was I saying about changing attitudes?
FT headline today (20 03 ’18)
“Uber halts self-driving tests after pedestrian death in Arizona”
Can we imagine, “Ford decommissions experimental vehicle production line because of pedestrian fatality.”
Gee-up! Neddy. I wonder what it would cost these days to ‘park’ a horse at livery in central London ?
It was always insurance costs that was going to put paid to thi8s technology
“It was always insurance costs that was going to put paid to this technology”
Loss of revenue for the insurance industry is a more credible threat.
Richard you write “So what is Putin seeking to do………He is seeking to maintain power. Nor do I think Putin really left the election to chance”
Well I never, a politician seeking to maintain power and therefore not leaving an election to chance.
Most politicians want to hang on to power and therefore few are content to leave their re-election to chance.
We could just as easily write “I doubt it is chance that publicity is being created as (s)he seeks re-election. The she is Mrs May and the elections being the upcoming council elections later in this year.
We could equally say that the Salisbury incident is just a political stunt dreamt up by Mrs May to shore up the failing appeal of the Tory party and to stick it to Jeremy Corbyn.
The propositions that say Putin/Russia, or that Mrs May (or whoever) is guilty in the matter of the Salisbury incident must be open to being either true or false. Not to allow so contradicts the principle of relativity. To insist on only one value cannot therefore be correct, and no right-thinking person should allow themselves to fall for such a canard.
What of course allows the truth value of the proposition to be ascertained is the evidence. However, evidence is exactly what we don’t have. What we have is a surfeit of information/disinformation fed to us by the politicians. Remember these are the same politicians who lie about every single aspect of their failed governance of an economic system that they don’t remotely understand.
To come to a measured judgement, we need the evidence placed in the public domain by independent and disinterested experts. No secrecy. Secrecy is an abusers charter. Politicians shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the process. Fat chance I know. The chorus of support from NATO members means nothing it is not independent. (That is in stark contrast to the complaints of the 100 or so alleged victims of assault by John Forbouys. Where those submissions are independent they constitute valid evidence.)
As part of my professional life I was required to carry out audits. As much as I liked the person whose safe I wanted to be opened for inspection I never accepted their word “no need the money is all there”. As Regan said, “Trust but verify”.
The days of me accepting the word of politicians uncritically are long gone.
Now that we have had adequate time to look at it the one thing that strikes me as being most obvious about Russia’s clandestine interference in Western democracies is how completely NON-clandestine it all is.
I mean all of it: The Leningrad troll factory, the Cambridge Analytica connection, the involvement with the Brexiteers, with Trump & Co. (which has now become a non-stop story). It all seems to have been done with the clear intention of being discovered, of attracting notoriety and significance.
Its not as if a KGB man like Putin wouldn’t know how be clandestine if he really wanted to be. Putin’s interference seems more like a massive attention-seeking exercise that has been staged for the benefit (as Richard says) of his own domestic audience.
Writing on another subject an article in Politico notes that:
“Ever since oil prices began to tumble in 2013, the Kremlin has been preparing for unrest and discontent – primarily with the help of distractions such as annexing Crimea and the campaign in Syria”
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-resurrects-the-kgb-moscow-security/
The Politico article covers a recent series of high level purges that are part of Putin’s decision to consolidate the FSB with other ‘security agencies’ and create a mega-agency that resembles the old KGB. This all very defensive stuff of course.
As for Putin’s foreign adventures a Reuters / Associated Press article today notes that:
“Many voters credit Putin, a 65-year-old former KGB spy, with standing up for Russia’s interests in a hostile outside world, even though the cost is confrontation with the West.”
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/polls-open-in-russian-presidential-vote/news-story/e02e9b2b3416d530dc0d3e14d28a804c
To the extent that is true it should remind us that one of the greatest delusions of the West is that many among us think that the rest of the world loves us and they all want to be like us. They don’t, well certainly not all of them.
Exactly how the Salisbury incident fits into all of this is yet to be determined but regardless of what happens in that case, R. Murphy is right. The closure of Britain’s money laundry is not just a worthy end in itself. It would also give the oligarchs a shake up and make a much greater impression than the usual exchange of diplomats.
I entirely agree that this non-clandestine activity is strange
I do believe it an expression of power, very obviously
And given it is of limited international benefit the audience must be domestic
Richard,
There is an international audience. Putin is saying to all of us normal folk “be afraid, I can strike anyone anywhere anytime and I don’t care who knows it.”
To our elites he is saying: ” Look how a real man rules. I can strike down traitors in your territory while you can’t even deal with descent on your own doorstep.”
He’s goading our leaders into taking ever more anti-democratic lines. He knows how to deal with a disparate group of corrupt and power hungry individuals. He knows it’s far easier than dealing with cohesive, open, democratic societies with strong institutions and a belief in the rule of law.
Putin is much smarter and much more dangerous than our media give him credit for.
… or rather he’s dangerous in a different way to that which our media portrays him. WW3 isn’t his game plan – he just wants to corrupt, divide and rule. Our media’s obsession with the threat of war is a means to control us. That’s straight out of Putin’s play book…
Adam Sawyer says:
A lot of stuff I’m not really in agreement with then get’s so oooo close to hitting the nail on the head when he says :
“Putin is much smarter “……then spoils it by failing to complete the line:
‘Smarter than the average bear.’
If it was a bear what done it, I reckon it was Yogi.
“… But I seriously hope we have no plans for regime change” : That’s an astonishingly naive view considering the Neocons and the NED have been openly calling for that very thing for years, whilst the Western mainstream media have been running a program to demonise Putin following that call. You talk of “his belligerence towards the West”: That would be the west that encircled Russia by placing ballistic missiles and US bases in the ex soviet states? The West that broke the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? the west that that admitted spending five billion dollars destabilising and organising a coup in Ukraine, hoping amongst other things, to get their hands on Sebastapol: a major naval base which has been Russian since shortly after the US was created? The West of which one country: the US, spends more on the military than all the other countries in the world put together?
You need to get beyond that unwarranted a priori notion that we are the “good guys” Richard: it might not be true.
Ken
First, I may think what I like
Second, did you read the article I wrote?
Third, I think you need to wake up about Putin. He’s no angel whatever you seem to think
Fourth, so far I have not found your presence on this blog very helpful
I am under no illusions about the failures of the West but Russian romanticisers don’t much do it for me either
Richard
” …. but Russian romanticisers don’t much do it for me either”.
I hope you’re referring to the Russian government and not the people. My one-time Russian girlfriend was definitely worth romanticising over (true) 😉
You got it in one
Great analysis Richard, appreciate it. I’ve been struggling to make sense of Putin’s strategy and it’s only reading this that I get it.
On this subject Adam Curtis’ Hypernormalisation is worth watching. Putin is a master of psychological warfare and manipulation. He perfected it on individuals while working in the KGB/FSB. Then he perfected it on millions of Russians. Now he’s learnt how to do it globally.
I agree 100% that our own corruption is enabling his strategy to work. It’s the same corruption that gave him power in Russia but on a global scale. Effectively he’s helping other corrupt people to seize power globally I’m the same way he did it in Russia.
In Russia he ended up top-dog despite his compatriots all thinking they were going to get the best of him as he helped them rise up. Trump et al should beware…
Do not understand why a sample of the nerve chemical cannot be provided to the Russians.
The sample will be provided to the international scrutiny body in any event and therefore the worst thing that Russia could then do would be to contradict the UK and that independent body.
As it is Russia can simply say that the sample has not been made available and cast doubt, in the minds of the Russian populace, over the testing procedure.
As I understand it the daughter is a Russian citizen and lives in Moscow and therefore Russia has a consular interest in investigating the events that took place.
The Prime Minister has not ruled out the lesser, but still serious, offence of Russia simply losing control of the stock of this nerve agent. Our Foreign Secretary mumbled something about Russia’s failure to rule out one of May’s options being a sign of Putin’s guilt.
Finally Europe is dependent upon Russia for a good portion of its gas and oli supplies and we in turn are dependent on the Norwegian / Russian pipeline. With the UK out of Europe where does that leave us with our future enegy policy?
KeithP says:
“Do not understand why a sample of the nerve chemical cannot be provided to the Russians.” Because it might indicate where it was actually manufactured (?)
“As I understand it the daughter is a Russian citizen and lives in Moscow and therefore Russia has a consular interest in investigating the events that took place.” ……Interesting point which I’ve seen referred to in passing somewhere, I don’t suppose we’re likely to find out what sort of communication is going on at consular level for at least thirty years.
” Our Foreign Secretary mumbled something…… ” His performance on the Today programme the other morning was pathetic and ‘demeaned his office’ to coin a phrase. I thought he was probably lying or at the very least being deliberately misleading and evasive. Mind you it is consistent of his style that he gives the impression of not having a grasp of his brief and making things up as he thinks of them. If it’s an act, it is a very strange one that doesn’t inspire much confidence.
With the UK out of Europe where does that leave us with our future energy policy?”
Desperate not to lose the control of Scotland.
I profess no expertise in politics. I suggest though a book by a guy named Tim Marshall called Prisoners of Geography. It gives what in my humble view is a decent insight into what drives foreign policy in Russia and also in other parts of the world.
https://www.guardianbookshop.com/prisoners-of-geography.html
First, I may think what I like
Course you can, but it doesn’t put your printed thoughts above criticism.
Second, did you read the article I wrote?
Yes. you start of with an assumption: that Putin is trying to achieve something based on notions that he is a belligerent rather than ( as others above point out above), responding to belligerence, and move on vaguely to a notion that ” Putin is undertaking existential warfare” : Its not your best.
Third, I think you need to wake up about Putin. He’s no angel whatever you seem to think
You do realise that I’ve actually said nothing about Putin negative or positive? So you knowledge of my views on Putin is based on what? My refusal to accept Western accusations of his guilt on this poisoning business without any evidence whatsoever? An accusation that comes in the midst of a US/UK anti Russian propaganda blitz?
I am under no illusions about the failures of the West but Russian romanticisers don’t much do it for me either
I’m glad to hear it on both counts but if you actually look to what I actually said, there’s no “romanticisng” of Russia there at all either : its another assumption you have made on no grounds.
Fourth, so far I have not found your presence on this blog very helpful
Fine, but have I actually said anything factually incorrect?
I admire your work Richard and have your book which I have read several times, (its also good to dip into on my kindle) but if I’m pissing you off so badly that you feel the need to make me to out to be something I’m not: which is what you are doing, and all on an evidence free basis, I’ll take myself off.
Best
Ken
Ken
It’s not my best?
How many of 14,909 blog posts have you read to make 11 comments and form that judgement?
So why have I found your line irritating?
Because you have given my argument no credit and have assumed your own is right
I’ll give you space
but only if you accept the possibility you may be wrong
I am not seeing that in any of your comments as yet
And contrary to opinion oft expressed, I try to find that in others
Richard
Perfectly prepared to admit I was wrong if I am : I have nothing to lose.
It’s not my best?
No: not by a long chalk. Starting with unfounded assumptions and rolling on to conclusions isn’t a good way of being right.
How many of 14,909 blog posts have you read to make 11 comments and form that judgement?
You might be surprised. I’ve been promoting your website, book and views on economics and money in every argument and debate I have had on the issue for several years. Course I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong…
– But I don’t think so.
“So what is Putin seeking to do? The answer would seem to be petty. He is seeking to maintain his power. I struggle find a motive far beyond that.”
I kind of agree with that, but I’m not sure ‘petty’ is a word I would have chosen to describe it.
And as for “Russia is exposing tensions in the west” ….well he doesn’t need to break sweat to do that. We’re doing pretty well without his assistance. Brexit alone, without consideration of other things going on, reveals the tensions within Europe and within our own country. Relations between France, Germany and Britain are built on tensions and drag the rest of the European nations to some extent along with them.
It will be interesting to see if anything much hinges on Salisbury gate in the longer term.
I am disappointed that you have joined the fight for regime change.
We must put our own house in order and not be distracted by speculation about our neighbours We must lead by example and sort out the corruption within our financial systems. after all this is why Russia gave up communism.
The corruption in the western governing system is going to lead to a flip back to Dictatorship or more communism
I have not a clue what you are saying about me seeking regime change
Pardon?
“Putin is undertaking existential warfare on the West”
Where on earth does this assumption come from?
It’s what I observe
You think not?
I think not, by and large.
I think that “the West’s” existential crisis is mostly of its own making. I’m not saying Putin wouldn’t exploit it – why wouldn’t he after all our meddling in Ukraine and Georgia, not to mention its complete encirclement by the US and NATO and constant sanctions for one reason or another – but what I observe is Western hypocrisy and belligerence over decades.
And before anyone says it, no, I don’t romanticise Russia or think of Putin as anything better than a demagogue – though one whose progress to demagoguery we’ve amply assisted.
I said he was exploiting what we had made
Why not read what I wrote?
I know you did, I’ve read it several times.
“I’ve read Babsp’s post a few times now, but fail to see anything that could be described as ‘pro Assad spin.’ Could you clarify what you mean by that?”
I suspect Marco may not have answered this because it may just have looked as if I was nitpicking. In fact, I asked the question because, for me, it goes to the very heart of one of the issues we’re discussing in this thread.
What did Bapsp actually say that could be described as ‘pro-Assad spin?’ That ‘Russia is in Syria legally at the request of Assad ( unlike the US who are there illegally under international law) and has ensured that Syria is still a sovereign country — had the US been left to it’s own devices Syria would have become another Iraq/ Libya . Remember there are US communications showing that the US was working to undermine Assad as far back as 2006.’ I don’t think there’s anything else?
The legal position is perfectly clear. Syria has a recognised government, that of President Assad, represented at the United Nations. That government is legally entitled to call on Russian military assistance. Russian military action against ISIL is therefore legal.
By contrast, US and French military action has neither the sanction of the Syrian government nor the sanction of the United Nations Security Council. It is therefore plainly illegal.
We are increasingly unable or unwilling to distinguish between legitimacy (NB!: this is NOT the same as approving of them, or legitimising their actions) and our own dislikes, and are prepared to act on the latter as if they were the former. We (largely) completely fail to understand the degree to which those countries who are not our immediate favourites see us as lawless and dangerous. Come to a real understanding of that, and there will be a lot more about Putin’s approach to us which makes sense.