ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As that link mentioned, there were presidential elections there on 8 May which were won by an opposition party candidate. I don’t know whether or not this means that the place could be described as some sort of limited political democracy or what divides political opinion there. The size of the electorate suggests that the election was more like one for one small parliamentary constituency in Britain. According to Wikipedia the opposition candidate was less keen on joining Russia so the result of the referendum might not be a foregone conclusion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Ossetian_presidential_election
Of course. He’ll be satisfied if Sweden renders a couple of PKK members. I would the PKK might have more to worry about if Sweden joined, though, come to think of it, they too are the US proxies, in Syria.
It’s not a done deal yet:
“Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan remarked to journalists after leaving Friday prayers in Istanbul that Turkey would not welcome either Sweden or Finland joining the Nato. ‘We are currently following developments regarding Sweden and Finland, but we don’t feel positively about this,’ he said.(…) Accession to Nato requires consensus from all member countries.”
We keep on warning not to believe what you read in the Daily Wail at least not without checking it somewhere else, otherwise you can end repeating the Ukrainian propaganda it echos.
This story, on the other hand, is obviously not Ukrainian propaganda (except for the tendentious subheading — the Grauniad is also pro-Ukraine if a bit more sophisticated) as it describes acts of kindness by Russian soldiers, including the Chechens:
I’m not and I don’t think they are either. It’s just posturing. But they chose the title of “expeditionary force” which is military-speak for “a group of soldiers sent to fight in a foreign country”.
“Ben Wallace has said Britain would “definitely come to the aid militarily” of Finland and Sweden if such a scenario became necessary.
The Defence Secretary, speaking with The Washington Post, said the UK’s position in the Joint Expeditionary Force (which also includes Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway) meant it would “reassure” countries like Sweden and Finland that it would be “inconceivable” not to help them if attacked.“But
“The entire British Army today has the people, equipment and stocks to defend only half the Donbas region” (General Sir Richard Barrons, letter in the Times today).
This could be Borys’s chance to play Churchill again since the last time Britain sent an “expeditionary force” to Russia was in 1919 when Churchill was Minister of War:
“North Russian Expeditionary Force, Dvina River, actions against Bolsheviks
They called it “Churchill’s War,” “The Great Russian Gamble,” and “Whitehall’s Folly.” More than 600 British and Commonwealth soldiers were killed and wounded …” (see 1954 article here: https://naval-history.net/WW1z05NorthRussia.htm)Revealing passage in the obituary in yesterday’s Times of Leonid Kravchuk, a former member of the Soviet nomenkltura who was the first president of independent Ukraine from 1991-94, who died on 10 May:
“Relations with Russia remained tense after the end of Soviet Russia. Yeltsin had warned him against pursuing too close a relaionship with the West, saying:’Ukraine has been, is and will remain within the system of strategic naional interests of Russia’”
This shows the stupidity of regsrding the current Russian invasion of Ukraine as due to the character of the particular head of the Russian government at the present time. It is clear that whoever is in charge of the Russian State will regard Ukraine as falling “within the system of stategic national interests of Russia.”
They can hang Putin (if they can catch him) but that won’t make any difference to any ruler of Russia regarding Ukraine as essential to its strategic interest as a capitalist state. It’s not a question of personalities, but structral. If they were Russian politicians Boris woild be Putin and Truss would be Lavrov.
So do I. But supposing Russia did attack Sweden, what could Britain do? Fight a war with Russia on its own? In fact if Britain could do anything then there’d be no need for Sweden to join NATO. Like I said, it’s meaningless posturing, typical of Borys.
It will just be a pose. The only reason I can think of is that it fits in with Borys’s political agenda of “global Britain”, ie to try to show that Brexit Britain is a world power in its own right alongside the US and the EU. That’s a delusion of course since Britain like the EU, Japan and South Korea is dependent on the US for its own defence. Which is why they have no alternative to go along with the US on sanctions (which wouldn’t work without US participation). Maybe Borys is expecting a few treats as best poodle.
There is also Borys’s personal agenda of portraying himself as a war leader. I imagine the rest of the cabinet are humouring him on this and leaving him a free hand since they know it’s just posturing (and surely are joking about it behind his back).
It is rather surprising though that, from a bourgeois-democratic point of view, Britain can sign, without any parliamentary or public discussion, a treaty with Sweden to go to war to defend that country in the event of it being attacked. But it means nothing as there is no prospect of this of course. So just a cheap gesture.
They did rather ask for it. And probably wanted it as a means of getting further publicity and maybe support, though as frequently happens in campaigns that break the law, this shifts the emphasis from the original aim to defending those who have been penalised for taking part. Like the IRA and “Republican prisoners”.
Are you sure that is a reliable source? It doesn’t seem to be. The Dutch Forum for Democracy party seems to be a far-right white nationalist party:
I thought Putin explained clearly in his speech at the military parade yesterday in Red Square why Russia went to war. Besides fearing NATO moving its bases and missiles right up to its southern border he also saw NATO arming Ukraine for an attack on the two breakaway statelets. Whether or not he was wrong about the first he could well have been right about the second. Which Russia couldn’t let happen. In which case Russia’s invasion would be a pre-emptive strike. We will see what he settles for after Russia captures the rest of the Donbas region.
Borys restates his war aim:
“UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson vowed to remain a “steadfast friend of Ukraine as it continues its heroic struggle against Russia’s invasion,” in a written foreword to the Queen’s Speech, marking the state opening of Parliament on Tuesday.
“We will not waver — and we will not let up — until Putin fails,” Johnson said.”He is obviously in his element but to what end? The chances are that he will fall before Putin does.
I can’t think of any, though forcing Germany to pay more for its gas will undermine the competitiveness of a commercial rival.
Britain’s belligerence, as expressed by Borys, Truss and Wally, would seem to be political, even personal. It has even been described as delusional in that Britain thinks that it still has the global clout that it had in the past. Whatever it is, it is malign.
At some point British oligarchs can be expected to put pressure on the government and get it to tone down its rhetoric and bring the matter to an end so that normal profit-making can resume. But there’s no sign of this yet. Maybe we will have to wait until the cost of living crisis and slump in world trade provoked by sanctions get worse.
Good question. Biden has just signed a lend-lease bill to send war supplies to Ukraine. It contains this clause:
“Under the measure, Ukraine can request streamlined transfers of U.S. weapons and other security assistance. The U.S. will get guarantees that the country will replace or reimburse the assets at a later date.”
Not for free then. A merchant of deaths charter. They will paid upfront and the US pick up the tab and then get the money back from Ukraine (if it can). Britain didn’t repay the Ww2 US lend lease till 2006.
