Yeah I realized and edited my post. Feck me your reply was quick though
Seems more logical for leftists to support Russia though. Isn't communisme like the anti thesis of right wing American?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Seems more logical for leftists to support Russia though. Isn't communisme like the anti thesis of right wing American?
"I'm wondering, what's Pogba doing?"
Yes, but EU sanctions also go against an additional 193 individuals and 48 further companies.
Yeah I realized and edited my post. Feck me your reply was quick though
Seems more logical for leftists to support Russia though. Isn't communisme like the anti thesis of right wing American?
To be fair, both hard left and hard right seem to support Putin.
As a centrist, I am one of the most hated people in the United Kingdom
RedCafe appears to have a bit of soft-left bias, therefore is quicker to point out the crazy Republicans supporting Putin. The truth is, tankies on the left oppose NATO and have a tendency to support Russia and China blindly. Corbyn and Abbott recently spoke at a Stop the War coalition event, they blamed Britain and the west for the tensions in Ukraine.
Yeah, I'm guilty of mostly pointing out right wing loonies honestly and so is the caf in general. It's why I feel at homeTo be fair, both hard left and hard right seem to support Putin.
As a centrist, I am one of the most hated people in the United Kingdom
RedCafe appears to have a bit of soft-left bias, therefore is quicker to point out the crazy Republicans supporting Putin. The truth is, tankies on the left oppose NATO and have a tendency to support Russia and China blindly. Corbyn and Abbott recently spoke at a Stop the War coalition event, they blamed Britain and the west for the tensions in Ukraine.
Possibly conjecture from me but I would suspect at this point that we do not have as many assets to freeze - i.e. we are able to sanction oligarchs, businessmen and banks who conduct business related to the United Kingdom, but a lot more business is done with the EU and Russia than between just the UK and Russia.
You do make a good point that these things take longer to ratify for them though due to the nature of their size.
Last edited:
I never not laugh when I see this gif."I'm wondering, what's Pogba doing?"
Horseshoe theory & all thatYeah I realized and edited my post. Feck me your reply was quick though
Seems more logical for leftists to support Russia though. Isn't communisme like the anti thesis of right wing American?
Thanks for clearing that up. Genuinely fascinating to read as an outsider.
Meh, don't really subscribe to that.
Redcaf is just indicative of the UK, we’re all closet Lib Dems eternally waiting to break cover with our canary yellow silk ties.To be fair, both hard left and hard right seem to support Putin.
As a centrist, I am one of the most hated people in the United Kingdom
RedCafe appears to have a bit of soft-left bias, therefore is quicker to point out the crazy Republicans supporting Putin. The truth is, tankies on the left oppose NATO and have a tendency to support Russia and China blindly. Corbyn and Abbott recently spoke at a Stop the War coalition event, they blamed Britain and the west for the tensions in Ukraine.
It's not too different to how Trump's policies are viewed, when he was president, his actions were thought to be representative of majority American opinion, which was often not the case in reality.
Leftists would be against America entering into foreign wars.
The alt-right simply can't bring themselves to support a Democrat administration, despite their own recent history of characterizing criticism of America as anti-American.
The alt-right simply can't bring themselves to support a Democrat administration, despite their own recent history of characterizing criticism of America as anti-American.
I agree with Boris, any country that invade other countries, start wars, kill thousands and hundred of thousands of civilians should not have the honor to host major sport tournaments. So where were you hypocrite when your country invaded Iraq based on a lie?
I think UK has enough assets to impose significant sanctions. There is a reason why London is sometimes called Londongrad. However, I think the main problem is that the Tory in particular aren't shy to donations coming from oligarchs or people close to Putin.
So it should go ahead in Russia then? Is that your point?
China have played this masterfully.
So far so good, yup. But it's a risky game where they have to balance Russia on the one hand and not alienating the West on the other hand. High stakes stuff.
Yes, because STW have a horrific record on this stuff. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and the rest all being completely justified. Indeed, their stance of condemning Russian expansion and calling on a pan-European security framework divorced from NATO will live in infamy as the worst most warmongering response to this crisis ever recorded.
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/2/22/nina_khrushcheva_on_putins_ukraine_moves
Khruscheva is both Ukranian and fiercely anti-Putin. Interesting analysis. She views Putin as hating Lenin because Lenin was about revolution, which makes sense.
Khruscheva is both Ukranian and fiercely anti-Putin. Interesting analysis. She views Putin as hating Lenin because Lenin was about revolution, which makes sense.
I think all they can do from here is win. The more Putin, Biden and the EU saber rattle about gas and reducing long term Russian energy dependency, the more goes to China, the less they have to dig the black stuff out the ground, and the cheaper they get it. Not to mention, increased shipping benefits (South Korea and Japan benefit more here but get parts from China), and the role as 'peacekeeper.'
Just need to make sure they stay 'neutral' and 'understand Russian concerns.'
Is that what you took from my point? despite me writing it obviously!
Diplomatic routes slowly fading it seems. First the French called their meeting off, now the Americans.
If they fight, I have no doubt they’ll fight fiercely, but the sad truth is they’ll get battered and lose
Some catch-up to do here in chronological order. I may not cover everything in one post.
If Germany says that it is willing to take the hit of any retaliation related on gas, then Russia are the ones getting fecked here because alternative options are on the table and will very likely get the nod. This will hurt Russia on the long run.
That is an understatement. Who can be this crazy to go live on the air and say a country has no right to sovereignty? People from far and wide would be screaming for the British Prime Minister's head to roll if Downing Street said something of that nature regarding the Republic of Ireland, fanning the flames of nostalgia longing for the British Empire.
Medvedev is a cnut.
Speaking of Plan B, isn't it why those talks in Qatar increased in recent days? In any case, Europe will have to reactivate those nuclear plants for the time they can expand other sources of energy (like Denmark's wind power system).
After what happened last summer, why Wembley? Just go to the Stade de France, which is equally good.
Biden better do it. Just as I wrote yesterday, it may be strong and yet not be the strongest option economically (that would be a full embargo).
If Germany says that it is willing to take the hit of any retaliation related on gas, then Russia are the ones getting fecked here because alternative options are on the table and will very likely get the nod. This will hurt Russia on the long run.
That is an understatement. Who can be this crazy to go live on the air and say a country has no right to sovereignty? People from far and wide would be screaming for the British Prime Minister's head to roll if Downing Street said something of that nature regarding the Republic of Ireland, fanning the flames of nostalgia longing for the British Empire.
Medvedev is a cnut.
Speaking of Plan B, isn't it why those talks in Qatar increased in recent days? In any case, Europe will have to reactivate those nuclear plants for the time they can expand other sources of energy (like Denmark's wind power system).
After what happened last summer, why Wembley? Just go to the Stade de France, which is equally good.
Biden better do it. Just as I wrote yesterday, it may be strong and yet not be the strongest option economically (that would be a full embargo).
To be fair, both hard left and hard right seem to support Putin.
As a centrist, I am one of the most hated people in the United Kingdom
RedCafe appears to have a bit of soft-left bias, therefore is quicker to point out the crazy Republicans supporting Putin. The truth is, tankies on the left oppose NATO and have a tendency to support Russia and China blindly. Corbyn and Abbott recently spoke at a Stop the War coalition event, they blamed Britain and the west for the tensions in Ukraine.
I think there is an element of fringes on the two extremes liking his image as a strongman leader but for two opposite reasons. The hard left because Putin channels their opposition to western powers and the hard right because Putin channels their support of social conservatism.
I suspect it’s not that simple, Ukraine is massive in terms of land size and has a huge army. Their army is also much better trained and equipped now and has what looks like a huge amount of NATO support and you’d assume that includes access to all our intel.
They can’t fight toe to toe with Russia but they can make it very risky for Putin - it could cost a huge amount of Russian lives and money to invade.
I don't think this is true? It is not mentioned in the linked article and I think he would have certainly mentioned it when being called out as weak by members of the commons. EU sanction do not apply in the UK.
I think we possibly hold more Russian assets than anywhere else in the world, when you consider the overseas territories under UK control that guarentee financial secrecy. I don't KNOW that's true because the whole point is that its a secret who stores their wealth there, but it is obviously where the crooks of the world store their ill-gotten gains.
See blue lines for UK juristictions:
https://fsi.taxjustice.net/en/introduction/fsi-results
I've no idea if our government can actually access/sanction assets held however, not a chance the Tories would ever attempt it if they could anyway.
I'm in danger of thinking everyone is a Russian bot/troll I know, but Russian disinfo/psyop/whatever does genuinely support both extremes of the political compass.
The part about directly blaming Biden or American entirely is obviously silly and she is an idiot but is there not a legitimate debate to be had about some of what she is saying? Much smarter people than her are highlighting the problem of NATO's expansion East after the Cold War, the broken promises made by NATO member countries to a number of Russia premiers and its affect on Russia. Evidently George Kennan predicted the negative ramifications of NATO's movement East
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/#3
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. “I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn’t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn’t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
“The ‘crazy Nixon’ approach,” I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you’re capable of committing irrational acts.
“But let’s examine the Nixon theory,” he said. “So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I’m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?”
But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova—another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn’t it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?
“There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that’s how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it’s really important to somebody, and it’s not that important to us, they know that, and we know that,” he said. “There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/#3
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. “I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn’t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn’t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
“The ‘crazy Nixon’ approach,” I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you’re capable of committing irrational acts.
“But let’s examine the Nixon theory,” he said. “So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I’m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?”
But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova—another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn’t it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?
“There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that’s how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it’s really important to somebody, and it’s not that important to us, they know that, and we know that,” he said. “There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years.”