Boris Johnson latest Putin Sympathiser.

Scroll to see replies

An elected government that was notoriously corrupt, broke its electoral promises, shot peaceful protestors and then escaped during peace talks to russia where they now have Milliuons of Rubles in their accounts.

Democratically overthrowing authoritarian regimes is legitimite in my view.
The government was overthrown not democratically but by mobs carrying signs written in English and paid salaries by Western organisations.

Now I am not saying that this is a bad thing - and nor as far as I am aware has Boris Johnson - but it was always absurd to expect Russia not to respond to this and the EU had no plan to counter Russia's response.

The EU wants to be an interventionist power and at the same time do pacifist moral posturing and at the same time spend very small and ever decreasing amounts of money on the military. This is incoherent and has led to things like the Ukraine mess.

If the EU wants to be a military power and use that military strength to back foreign interventions then fine, but in that case the same people who are funding rebels in Ukraine need to make sure that the army is funded, that nuclear weapons are funded, that a Black Sea Fleet is funded, that missile defence is funded. They also need to make sure that there would be public backing for actions that would make Putin think twice before invading which there isn't. None of the pre-requisites for a Ukraine intervention were done but the people responsible for that intervention didn't care and went ahead anyway. "That's not my department!".

The EU is like an octopus where each tentacle is acting with no regard at all for what the other tentacles are doing and that was, as I understand it, the point Boris was making.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

DanteTheDoorKnob

Original post by Observatory

The government was overthrown not democratically but by mobs carrying signs written in English and paid salaries by Western organisations.

Now I am not saying that this is a bad thing - and nor as far as I am aware has Boris Johnson - but it was always absurd to expect Russia not to respond to this and the EU had no plan to counter Russia's response.

The EU wants to be an interventionist power and at the same time do pacifist moral posturing and at the same time spend very small and ever decreasing amounts of money on the military. This is incoherent and has led to things like the Ukraine mess.

If the EU wants to be a military power and use that military strength to back foreign interventions then fine, but in that case the same people who are funding rebels in Ukraine need to make sure that the army is funded, that nuclear weapons are funded, that a Black Sea Fleet is funded, that missile defence is funded. They also need to make sure that there would be public backing for actions that would make Putin think twice before invading which there isn't. None of the pre-requisites for a Ukraine intervention were done but the people responsible for that intervention didn't care and went ahead anyway. "That's not my department!".

The EU is like an octopus where each tentacle is acting with no regard at all for what the other tentacles are doing and that was, as I understand it, the point Boris was making.

The Ukrainian parliament voted to hold a new presidential election as the old president had left. Excluding the street violence that is entirely legitimate given that parliament has the power to impeach. If the government had been overthrown by a mob that would be illegal, but parliaments response to that mob was to stabilize the situation by granting concessions.

I think you grossly exaggerate the power we have over Ukraine if you think the original parliament were all in our pocket, they are not, they are citizens who serve all over the country much like the UK and they have understood the dissent there was not only limited to Kiev.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 22

brainhuman

Original post by Omen96

I agree with Boris and I respect Russia. I'd put my support behind Russia any day than the EU.

I always knew you were a dirtbag.

Only violence loving fascists would be cool with Putin.

I bet you'd want to be best mates with Erdogan, too?

Reply 23

Observatory

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob

The Ukrainian parliament voted to hold a new presidential election as the old president had left.

Excluding the street violence that is entirely legitimate given that parliament has the power to impeach. If the government had been overthrown by a mob that would be illegal, but parliaments response to that mob was to stabilize the situation by granting concessions.

I think you grossly exaggerate the power we have over Ukraine if you think the original parliament were all in our pocket, they are not, they are citizens who serve all over the country much like the UK and they have understood the dissent there not only in Kiev.

We do not have the parliament in our pocket, but as you have pointed out the parliament was coerced by mobs we paid for.

If Russia paid for mobs to destabilise the UK I would consider it an act of war and I suspect you would too.

Reply 24

DanteTheDoorKnob

Original post by Observatory

Had left because mobs had taken control of his capital.

King James II fled the UK on similar grounds. Again I am not saying that things worked out for the worst but please be serious, this is not equivalent to a party losing an election in a constitutional fashion. If it is justified it can only be justified by its good consequences and not its procedural purity.

We do not have the parliament in our pocket, but as you have pointed out the parliament was coerced by mobs we paid for.

If Russia paid for mobs to destabilise the UK I would consider it an act of war and I suspect you would too.

Russia is already funding far right parties in Europe. I don't know how much funding went into them, how much it was organised or anything of that nature. Do you know really? You can't just rent a mob on craigslist. I do agree that funding mobs is an act of aggression though.

Reply 25

karl pilkington

It was responsible it's a blatant fact. Their expansionist aims and the interference of the US. Ukraine is fair more Russian than European they have a similar language history and culture.

Reply 26

Observatory

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob

Russia is already funding far right parties in Europe. I don't know how much funding went into them, how much it was organised or anything of that nature. Do you know really?

Parties are a bit different to mobs, although I agree that foreign governments should not be allowed to fund political parties.

You can't just rent a mob on craigslist. I do agree that funding mobs is an act of aggression though.

Of course there were local factors that made this even possible. However the EU did not seek to de-escalate and avoid conflict, it wanted to push forward its borders. Now unlike Putin apologists I do not necessarily regard this a bad. I do regard doing it in a half-hearted way that results in, at best, partial success despite massive damage to our supposed partners as bad.

Reply 27

DanteTheDoorKnob

Original post by karl pilkington

It was responsible it's a blatant fact. Their expansionist aims and the interference of the US. Ukraine is fair more Russian than European they have a similar language history and culture.

Same argument was used in the Munich agreement to justify assimilation of Czech and Austria into Germany.

They might be culturally similar but that's no grounds for termination of sovereignty.

I should like to see a more accountable foreign policy.
a) funding terrorist groups and mobs is a bad idea
b) ousting elected leaders is a bad idea
c) using armed forces to violate territory is a bad idea

Only reason i'm supporting the EU is because our domestic policy isn't driven by fascism.

@Observatory

Reply 28

Observatory

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob

Same argument was used in the Munich agreement to justify assimilation of Czech and Austria into Germany.

They might be culturally similar but that's no grounds for termination of sovereignty.

Ukraine is two countries - part of it is genuinely very Russian, the other part is genetically Polish, linguistically almost Polish, and certainly "more European than Russian" to put it that way (though whether Russia itself does not count as "European" when Portugal, Bulgaria, and Iceland all apparently do is open to question). That is the basic origin of this conflict but neither Russia nor the EU is willing to give up on the possibility of controlling the whole country.

I should like to see a more accountable foreign policy.
a) funding terrorist groups and mobs is a bad idea
b) ousting elected leaders is a bad idea
c) using armed forces to violate territory is a bad idea

Only reason i'm supporting the EU is because our domestic policy isn't driven by fascism.

@Observatory

The counter-argument in favour of mobs is that the Russians also fund mobs and the Russians possibly also rigged the election. If we don't use dirty tricks and they do they will win and they are dirtier than us on the whole. I have some sympathy for this argument, even if not total sympathy. So I am not saying in no circumstances use mobs.

I am saying that mobs can only be part of a joined-up foreign and military policy. If we want to be an imperial power - and stripped of all disguise the EU is proposing to annex Ukraine diplomatically - then I am not necessarily saying "No.", but I do not want to be part of an incompetent imperial power the drags Britain into conflicts with its neighbours over causes of at best marginal relevance to our interests and then loses those conflicts.

Reply 29

Davij038

Original post by Observatory

We do not have the parliament in our pocket, but as you have pointed out the parliament was coerced by mobs we paid for.

Do you have any evidence the EU paid for the mobs?

Reply 30

Omen96

Original post by brainhuman

I always knew you were a dirtbag.

Only violence loving fascists would be cool with Putin.

I bet you'd want to be best mates with Erdogan, too?

That's rich considering it's the liberals and left who want them in the EU.

It sounds like you have formulated your opinion on Putin from the western propaganda machine, nice to know you are getting cosy with the Rupert murdochs of the world after the way you criticise them

Reply 31

brainhuman

Original post by Omen96

You're ****ing with me.

Even Göbbels is jealous in his grave of Putin's propaganda.

Reply 32

Rakas21

Original post by Davij038

@Rakas21 what are your thoughts?

With regards to Boris he's just spinning. He's far too populist and liberal at heart to be a Putin fan.

With regards to the content he is somewhat correct in that both Russia and the EU have knowingly ripped Ukraine apart for economic gain. The EU seems to have won most of Ukraine and will get them into the custom union but Russia will eventually get the independent regions in all likelyhood. The conflict in Ukraine is important in the sense that it's yet another show from Russia that it is not 'one of us' (us being the west) and will not bend the knee to us while its also important in the sense that it's the first time that the EU has being willing to shed blood for future territory (or by proxy i should say). The positive is that it can be seen as a sign that it will defend its members against Russia, the negative is that it increases the chance of future conflict be it directly or by proxy.

Regarding the strength of the Russian military they are strong on the ground and stronger in the air than the UK alone however their navy is pitiful and most of their air force old. If the UK and France combined forces, i'd bet on us to win given that we would have air and naval superiority in both numbers and technology.

..

I think i covered the main points in this thread. Anybody reading, feel free to comment.

Reply 33

username2228735

Original post by Davij038

By my reasoning, if i took the culpability of the crime away from the perpetrator, even if they do not directly agree with the perpetrator they are still essentially defending them.

My issue is not with that. It's with the fact that your statement implied that Boris Johnson blamed the EU for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then proceeding to criticise said statement and individual. That's fine, but you are criticising a statement without presenting the entire facts and understanding that he implied there were other reasons.

My point being that criticism is healthy; but do so on the relevant facts.

Reply 34

Denka

Lol, what's next? The US and NATO are honest peacemakers? Get outta here.

Reply 35

M14B

Original post by brainhuman

I always knew you were a dirtbag.

Only violence loving fascists would be cool with Putin.

I bet you'd want to be best mates with Erdogan, too?

I am very cool with Putin and hate Erdogan.
:biggrin:

Reply 36

politics studenx

Obviously Boris Johnson has been bribed by Putin and FSB. If Putin was able to bribe Olympic committee and FIFA officials there is no problem for him to bribe a London mayor. Boris Johnson's character is very inviting for such an approach too, given his history. Only look at a chain of his praises to Putin over last 6 month. And now he is a major accomplice in ruining UK as such. Just check out who will be happy about this. If I were MI5 or CIA I'd start looking at his and his closest relatives accounts and I am sure a big recent money arrival (yeah, we are probably talking 100s of millions here in 2014-2015) from an unknown source will be found very quickly.