Cameron's approach on Georgia a general indicator of foreign policy

Today's Scotman reports both William Hague and John Redwood as among those Tories disconcerted by David Cameron's strong support for Georgia against Russia.

"It has been pointed out by sources that William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, had given a more muted response in the immediate aftermath of the incursion. In fact, the normally outspoken MP has been deafeningly silent on the issue of late. Could this be because his leader has seized the agenda and, according to critics, got carried away with it?

"Meanwhile, former Cabinet minister John Redwood appears to be openly critical of the tone taken. On his blog, he has called for the Tory party to take a more "considered" view on Russia, while condemning its incursion into Georgia. "We need to think before we speak, and plan and act before we commit ourselves too deeply, beyond the range and strength of our power," he writes. His words will be interpreted as a challenge to Mr Cameron to consider whether Britain has the military might to take a tougher stand on the latest Caucasus crisis."

But as the Scotsman piece notes, military might can be matched to military commitments by increasing military spending, as Cameron has hinted, as well as by reducing commitments.

David Cameron has enjoyed a personal boost and favourable coverage following his success in leading the government on Georgia. But the strength of his stance contrasts surprisingly with the relative caution of the Conservatives on foreign affairs in recent years - including on Europe, the United States, the Middle East. Last week James Forsyth argued in The Spectator that Cameron's approach will be neither neoconservative nor understated, but rather "a very British hawkishness, strong in defence of the national interest but with a distrust of ideology."

In the Telegraph today, Iain Martin notes that this means choices must be made:

"Cameron's biggest task ... should be the disengagement of Britain from the emerging European collective foreign policy. We have never really had such a thing in our history, being interested mainly in the balance of power between the continental states, stepping in when aggression unbalanced Europe and posed a threat to Britain or its allies.

"This necessitates a little national self-confidence. Britain has the second most significant armed forces in the West, matters a good deal to the Americans and is not made stronger by subsuming its foreign policy in a greater EU, only weaker.

"There is a place for an independent Britain, closely allied to the Americans, although not slavishly so, and a leading power in Nato and on the UN Security Council. At our instigation, Nato should have been the main body at work after Georgia, rather than standing back as the EU flunked its latest attempt at a power play."

Comments

[David_at_Home]

William Hague (why on earth is he not still the Party Leader?), Ian Martin and John Redwood (though I do not find him an attractive politician) are all worth listening too on this matter whilst both David Cameron and our Foreign Secretary make meaningless belligerent and provocative statements about Georgia and the Ukraine.

By the way, I can predict with near certainty that one of the first acts of the incoming Conservative administration will be to make deep cuts in defence expenditure. This has been the record of just about every Conservative Government since WW2.

A well researched and considered defence policy can be found here:

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/570-uk-independence-party-defence-policy-april-2008

It is one of e many reasons why all true Tories should defect to the UK Independence Party.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not really sure what to think here. You can sure that militarily the West will not lift a finger to help Georgia recover their lost territory but they do wish to make clear to Russia that there will be consequences should Russia continue to seek territorial expansion. So in that sense the approach adopted by Milliband and Cameron is probably right. The only problem comes if Putin calls their bluff, what then?
As regards David at homes post. What UKIP proposes or doesn't propose on defence policy is irrelevant because as we both know it isn't going to get within a million miles of being able to enact anything.
You can predict whatever you like David but as regards the Army the Conservative Party has already promised to restore three infantry battalions that were cut by Blair.

[R.Baker.]

David,I liked that Policy a lot and also some of the other stuff on your site.
Pity about the UKIP NEC and all the infighting though.Thanks for posting the link.

[john parkes]

Although history does not repeat itself exactly, it is unwise not to draw lessons from our past. In a material sense, what David-at-Home writes above is correct. It would have been equally correct had he written it in 1940 and had his thinking been pursued then, the UK would quite probably not be in the position in the world that it is today. The key was the line that Churchill took, that of a willingness to continue to oppose Germany until help could be mobilised to defeat Hitler`s ambitions.
So it is important that our leadership identifies now where our national interests lie and how we will best ensure they are safeguarded. Operation within international alliances has always allowed us the best opportunity to look after our interests, albeit with drawbacks (the US conditions for helping us in 1942 left us in a financially poor state, but one that was better than the alternative would have been). Although our relationship with other EU States and with the EU itself might well be equivocal, the line taken by them will have, as it did in 1914 and again in 1939 and since, a direct impact on our future security. European stability is a key factor here and the Russians, for reasons of their own interest, are trying now to undermine that stability, attempting by military means to dictate their will to independent nations that have said they want no part of a future under Russian hegemony. There must be a risk, then, that unless the present situation is faced up to, we are in danger of seeing a mirror image of Middle Eastern instability replicated in Eastern Europe. Would that be in our national interest, bearing in mind our reliance on energy resources, trade and other factors that would be affected? Certainly not. So it is necessary for Russia to be under no illusions that we will oppose what they are trying to achieve. This opposition is already alliance-based and is the more credible for that reason. However if we were to equivocate and show a lack of firmness, Russia will press on and that will lead to wider military conflict (will the Ukraine be next, as Putin seeks to restore the USSR`s pre-glasnost boundaries?), which we must try to avoid; but emphatically not at all costs. Allied determination must make it clear to Russia that disastrous though war would be, they will have to face up to its reality if their adventurism is not curbed.
A balance was achieved throughout the Cold War, when the possibility of conflict was greater than it is today (Russian missiles en route for Cuba). Then Russia was insulated from the world. Now the Russian people are much more aware of the result that their country`s reckless behaviour could bring about. Will they let Putin and the generals continue to push their luck? Time will tell.

[Londoner]

"William Hague (why on earth is he not still the Party Leader?),"

Er, because although he is clever and talented man he had very limited public appeal as Party leader, made major tactical blunders in that position and led us to a humiliatingly poor result in 2001. And I can say that even though I am/was a fan of his. Next...

[Michael de Malpas-Finlay]

I think that if a NATO force led by the USA and Britain had been put into Georgia at the outset, the Russians would have been prevented from enacting their bullying and brutal occupation. History show that you have to stand up to the Russians else they will walk all over you. If we had put in such a NATO force, does anyone seriously believe that the Russians would have fired on them? I think not - they would have feared the consequences! The problem in doing that of course is that NATO now has far too many small member countries ever to take quick and decisive action over anything and is just another giant talking shop - just like the UN which costs a fortune and achieves almost nothing.

[Edward Huxley]

Walk quietly and carry a big stick. Problem is we don`t have a big stick.

Nato did a great job in the past, but how many members now would be willing to go to war to defend one of its countries?

What has happened elsewhere in recent years does not inspire confidence. You can be sure the Russians are aware of this.

[David_at_Home]

"Next... "

You don't really think that the Tories are doing well in the polls because the public love David Cameron do you Londoner?

The real reason is that NewLabour have imploded and the economy is close to recession.

[john parkes]

David-at-Home`s views give, as ever,an interesting perspective from a rather unusual standpoint. Perhaps Londoner has noticed the same national opinion polls that I too have read; those that give Cameron a significant personal lead over Brown. Perhaps the reasons for this are open to interpretation but winning is winning, whatever language you speak. Perhaps the answer might be to take another look at the UKIP view, which with the head either firmly underneath a blanket, or planted firmly in the sand, might perhaps lead to different conclusions (just pulling your leg, David!)

[Richard Carey]

Perhaps the answer might be to take another look at the UKIP view

I'd love to, but try as I might I am just not enough of a contortionist to physically get my head up my own backside...

[Ken Stevens]

"..At our instigation, Nato should have been the main body at work after Georgia, rather than standing back as the EU flunked its latest attempt at a power play." [Iain Martin]

Maybe rather useful to have done so, to demonstrate that the EU really is no substitute for NATO.

[Sally Roberts]

"I'd love to, but try as I might I am just not enough of a contortionist to physically get my head up my own backside..."

A wonderful vision, Richard - but would you really want to anyway?

[James Maskell]

The more I think about how the Russians have played this, youve got to hand it to them, theyve played a blinder. Seriously, GB threatens the use of international condemnation and warns of a Cold War. Russia just goes in and flips the bird at the lot of the West while invading Georgia.

Its all well and good making threats, but unless you are willing to actually back it up with force, you might as well shut up. Russia does have that back up whilst we do not. Threatening Russia is pointless since the West relies on Russia so much. On the one hand the Government and others cannot blame the rest of the world for problems with credit/utilities, then make out that Britain can do a thing about Russian expansionism. We cant do squat and its time Cameron realises that. RUSSIA DOESNT CARE!!!

[Jon Gale]

Since comparisons with events of the 1930's are so popular on this site, try this powerful piece from Pat Buchanan on the dangers of pushing Russia away from the West:

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/pushing_putin_into_the_cold/

[Kris Taylor]

I'm afraid it was somewhat shortsighted and foolish for Cameron to rush off to Georgia and give such unequivocal support in the manner he did. It's a hostage to fortune and will come back to haunt him when he is PM and has to follow through. Wiser heads such as Hague's should have prevailed.

[john parkes]

I think Richard Carey is being rather hard on David-at-Home as well as on the UKIP tendency in general. I think we should all concentrate more on their tremendous sense of fun and ability to make such good jokes. I for one am now resolved to look for the humour they represent, even though from time-to-time they test us by wrapping it up to make it really difficult to find.
It would be such a worthwhile diversion if we all now did our best to point out their marvellous flashes of humour each day, as they do their utmost to entertain us in such an altruistic fashion. Perhaps a prize for the most comic daily pronouncement would be the way forward. The awards might be known as `The KIPpers` unless anyone has a better idea.

[Charles Tannock MEP]

James you are right that Russia doesnt care right now but if the west starts to accelerate its programme of diversifying awayfrom importation of Russian oil and gas by buying more gas from Norway and Qatar, by building more nuclear power stations, developing clean coal technology, renewables etc etc the Russia's economy will be damaged as I dont think they can readily divert their supplies to China. I also believe there are a number of non military options as sanctions to put pressure on Russia from restrictions on travel to Free trade agreements with the countries Russia has its eyes set on as well as accelerating the NATO accession of a country like Ukraine although this will be a hard sell for NATO accession which remains unpopular but Ukraine is very keen on EU membership.
The bear may have overplayed its hand and I as a long standing Russia watcher (regrettably relatively unusual in the Conservative Party these days)have no doubt Russia is probing our resolve to standup to its advances and it would dearly like to reconquer lost territory in the "near abroad" as they see it such as the Crimea.

[Peter Berrow]

I think David Cameron view on this is brillant. Firstly South Ossetia is heavily divded between the people who support making it a third autonmous region and joining up with North Ossetia. Also we all know Ukraine will be next with Russia backing heavily the Party of Regions against the Tymoshenko Bloc but also Our Ukraine. Do we really want to be hidding in the shadows to a guy who thinks that he can fix whatever election their is?

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Most people seem to overlook the fact that Georgia's President, Saakashvili, did actually start this whole mess, a mess that only received attention on the international stage because of a) the oil involved b) NATO c) the fact that Russia retaliated. Otherwise, reportage of the events probably would have received a cursory paragraph to the right of more important World News.

[Sally Roberts]

"The awards might be known as `The KIPpers` unless anyone has a better idea."

John Parkes this is a brilliant idea and I support your idea of calling the awards "The KIPpers"!
Kippers go off quite quickly and smell very strongly once they have done so - they also make one very thirsty after eating them.
I think UKIP policies are probably not that dis-similar!

[snegchui]

Russia actually started this mess by shelling with South Ossetian militias Georgian positions, and evacuating large parts of of the civilian population. I would go so far as to suggest that those left in Tskhinvali were only those without political connections to the Russians or the militias. Not an unknown ploy in world history.
I am awaitng with interest some accurate informed reporting on why Saakashvili retaliated/started/fell into the trap and what guided his thoughts at that time.
Testing resolve, yes very much so. And the thing that resolves confrontations the best is focus, and a coalition such as EU and NATO will always be more difficult to focus than a single entity. Being clear about who started what is important.
There are plenty of non-military options and they will hurt Russia very much and she will care.
Interesting to watch will be future activities in Sakhalin.

[john parkes]

My nomination for today`s KIPper Award is ukip.org/content/ukip[-policies/570-uk-independence-party-defence-policy-april-2008, as recommended reading by David-at-Home earlier today.
I have now read it and when I was about half-way through I scribbled a note which reads "written by a sailor who retired about 10 years ago." When I got to the end of this long and rather superficial paper, with its tabloid approach, I thought that it lacked a proper strategic grasp. It appeared to have arrived at force levels independently from any assessment of the level of threat to be faced; and more attached to the idea of returning to the idea that Britannia Rules the Waves. This is not the place to offer a detailed analysis of a 23 page document, except to say that the thinking behind it is muddled, chauvinistic to a degree and needs a cold douch of reality to bring it back to earth.
But it did provide a cheering end to the day

[David_at_Home]

Kippers, Sally, make a nourishing breakfast and, if taken regularly, enhance your brain power. You should try one and maybe you will have a pleasant surprise!

Concerning Georgia and/or The Ukraine, one of St Thomas Aquinas’ conditions for a “Just War” is that there must be a reasonable probability of success. This rather rules out direct military intervention, does it not, including assurances through NATO? Consequently we should approach the problem by other means, such as the use of diplomatic and economic pressure.

But we live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Consequently we should both enhance the size and capability of our dangerously under equipped Armed Services AND safeguard our increasingly vulnerable supplies of energy. The latter would indicate a revival of our coal and nuclear power industries.

[Sally Roberts]

"Kippers, Sally, make a nourishing breakfast and, if taken regularly, enhance your brain power. You should try one and maybe you will have a pleasant surprise!"

Thank you for the advice David! I can always do with something to improve my brain power if only to keep up with the various twists and turns of you and your KIPPER chums!

[Richard Calhoun]

I believe Cameron's approach is courageous and he perceives the danger of a bellicose Russia.

His stance will probably alienate us from Germany, France, Italy and Spain,and boost our standing with the new EU in the East.

A strengthening of our ties to the US will be the only option, assuming McCain is the next President which looks increasingly likely.

[Richard Calhoun]

I believe Cameron's approach is courageous and he perceives the danger of a bellicose Russia.

His stance will probably alienate us from Germany, France, Italy and Spain,and boost our standing with the new EU in the East.

A strengthening of our ties to the US will be the only option, assuming McCain is the next President which looks increasingly likely.

[Paul R]

Richard Calhoun - The Americans don't give a fig about us. Have you ever been there? As you enter our former colony they have the impertinence to label us 'Alien'. We have no right to reside there. Their newspapers, TV and radio pay very little attention to us, except as objects of amusement. They make films like 'The Patriot' which invent atrocities and attribute them to us. They bankrolled the IRA for years, as Enoch Powell repeatedly showed.
On the other hand, the Germans, French, Italians, and other EU countries like us, don't treat us as 'Aliens', and welcome us to reside in their countries. God knows why, when there are so many belligerent ingrates in the UK, and slavish followers of the American 'Project for the 21st Century'.

[ivan]

Conservative Policy 'to restore three infantry battalions cut by blair'. No good restoring three battalions as we do not have enough recruits to the Army each year to keep the existing battalions at full strength. We also have major retention problems with skilled personnel. If we get three more understrength battalions we will not have the procurement budget to equip them with appropriate equipment for whichever deployment they are sent on - the current units do not have the appropriate equipment either !! Finally skilled personnel would have to be withdrawn from already overstretched front line units to train the new soldiers.

[snegchui]

Why, what do kippers make for breakfast that is so nourishing? Why aren't they writing articles to pay for Mr Farrage's coiffure?
Well as G7 members, Germany and France are signed up to give Russia a wigging (how severe we will see).
Soem good name-calling on and the SCO statement supporting Russia is less than fulsome. Maybe it is all those years of struggling for peace and justice that have left not one brick standing on another.

[Sally Roberts]

"Why, what do kippers make for breakfast that is so nourishing? Why aren't they writing articles to pay for Mr Farrage's coiffure?"

I don't know, snegchui - I think David was just alluding to the fact that fish is considered "brain food"!

As for his great leader's hairdo - I very much hope Mr Farage pays for it himself!

[Peter]

Ivan, please do not use the term 'yid' in the name you post under here.

[Richard Calhoun]

Paul R
'On the other hand, the Germans, French, Italians, and other EU countries like us, don't treat us as 'Aliens', and welcome us to reside in their countries'

'Like is a very strong word in this context, be that as it may they are very different to us vis a vis the EU and foreign policy.

The Americans recognise the threat of a bellicose Russia and a powerful China and we would do well to ally with them, subject of course to John McCain being President.

Remember it is the USA that has continually come to Europes rescue over the last 100 years: 2WW, Soviet Empire etc etc.

[john parkes]

Ivan makes an excellent point about the mechanics of increasing the number of infantry battalions. However I don`t think he need be too concerned at this stage. I believe that a significant factor behind poor recruitment as well as problems over retention is the attitude to Defence of the present government. They talk the talk but fail to produce the wherewithal to put talk into action.
Far from reductions in Defence spending by the next Conservative government, I believe there will be first, a proper Defence Review to match resources against commitments; which will include looking at the option of reducing commitments if necessary. There`s a lot to play for and it is very important to get it right. Please remember that 1968 is the only year of the 20th century when a British soldier was not killed on active service. If we send them to secure our interests, they must be properly supported. I am confident that they will be.

[snegchui]

"match resources against commitments;"
Very tricky phrase that, minimimum committments = minimimum resource = minimum expenditure = maximum Xmas Party pour nous.
Equipment shortages et al are bad news. In Falklands, logistically very close run. New committment, bad news, less Xmas party pour nous.
How do you think it will be done? Why are you confident will be better? I hope it is justified.

[Paul R]

Richard, - You appear to like living dangerously, which would be the way we would be living with 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain as President.
It is nonsense to say that America has come to Europe's rescue over the last 100 years. Like the UK, the US has an overwhelming urge to meddle in other continents' affairs. Britain would never have declared war on Germany in 1939 without (undeclared) American support. Churchill was an American as well as an alcoholic. There would not have been a world war, and we might still have an Empire. The Americans insisted that we dismantle Imperial trade preferences in return for their support in a war they pushed us into. The ending of Empire trade preferences led to the end of the Empire.
We are Europeans. We were born in Europe, we live in Europe, we are Europeans, not Americans. Our interests are not the same as the Americans', and picking a fight with Russia is not in our interests.

[Adrian Butterworth]

Paul R.,

Don't bother with this guy his Weekly Standard delusions run too deeply. In Richard's unrigorous mind:

Putin = Hitler
S. Ossetians = Sudeten Germans
Gergia = Czechoslovakia

This is how these neocons think. Or rather, how they don't think becuase there's just a muscle where their brain ought to be.

For anyone who is still convinced of Russian 'bellicosity', consider this question put by Leon Hadar of the Cato institute which might help you to wonder how the Americans might react if what they are currently doing in Russia's front porch was done in their own.

"Wouldn’t Americans see Russian policy as hostile if Moscow invited Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador to join the military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization? Or encouraged a Russian-government-backed version of the National Endowment for Democracy to assist anti-American political parties in activities against pro-American governments in Mexico, Panama, and Costa Rica? Or installed Russian antiballistic missiles in Cuba? Wouldn’t U.S. troops be landing in Panama if a pro-Russian government in Bogota, clamoring to join the STO, tried to regain control of Panama, which in a move backed by the U.S. seceded from Colombia in 1903 and became an American protectorate?"

Now you begin to understand that he problem lies not with the Russians but with the anti-conservative war-mongers who share Ricahard's demented world-view.

[john parkes]

snegchui
Since we became an outward-looking nation state, we developed trading interests in bringing in raw materials and then exporting manufactured goods, which became the foundation of the world-wide British Empire. Almost our entire naval and military effort was devoted to defending those interests. Much of our activity in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries was devoted to making sure that no one nation controlled the European coast line which had they done so, would have made it possible for them to strangle our seaborne trade. As our trading links were maritime, we developed a large navy; the Standing Army was small and scattered about the world with only a relatively small expeditionary force of about 4 divisions based at home. The gun followed trade, rather than the reverse.
Although WW2 was a watershed that saw the continued dissolution of the Empire, that bitter conflict showed that the UK homeland was now vulnerable to threats from air and sea, so home defence took on a different meaning. Then there was also a strong land-based threat posed by the Warsaw Pact (Russia and her allies) and the world-wide spread of communist adventurism appeared to be a real threat also. This, and residual alliances with the Commonwealth, drove successive governments here to maintain a high level of defence commitment. This was split into four main `pillars` of defence;
NATO
The nuclear deterrent
Out of Area ie the world less NATO and
Northern Ireland
Home Defence
Those commitments remained pretty much in force until those of NATO and NI became much reduced. Our Defence effort has reduced accordingly. However the threat remains dynamic and we now see global terrorism, new nuclear players, humanitarian interventions and the unforeseen (might that be a resurgent Russia keen to expand her boundaries and promote instabilty once more?).
The government must decide what priorites to give residual as well as new commitments and then decide what level of expenditure the economy, and the public will, is likely to bear. The decision then resolves around the level of effort we can afford, bearing in mind our constant need to share the burden with Allies as the likely expenditure will be beyond us acting alone. Working with others will inevitably see the need for quid pro quo responses from us.
As an example, our economy is oil-based. For that reason we have a strong national interest in seeing a stable Middle East. I believe this is the reason for our commitment to doing what we can, with Allies, to ensure that major war (particularly nuclear war) does not break out there. If it were to do so, it would destroy our economy as well as that of others.
The Falklands is a perfect example of the unforeseen. That was a near-run thing largely as a factor of distance, the 8,000 miles to the battle zone and unreliability of some of our Allies in Europe.
I believe that the Conservatives are well aware of all of this and accept that what we do, we must do properly and what we cannot do will see the liquidation of commitments. I cannot pretend to know the details but the options will be clear and will be tackled properly. It will be an option of difficulties.

[Richard Calhoun]

Adrian Butterworth

I don't care a fig what reaction the US would have if Russia became involved in Mexico, I am much more focused on the damage the Russians could do in Europe if we appease them.

Do you not remember the Soviet Empire and all its evil.

Paul R

You will be telling me next that the holcaust was a zionist lie. Get real for goodness sake.

As for the Empire, the best thing was for us to hand it back. Free markets are what we want, not trade preferences.

[Paul R]

Richard - >> Free markets are what we want, not trade preferences.<<

Free Trade means job exports. We export jobs to countries like China and India, where the wages are a fraction of ours. Sooner or later, as this process of job exports continues, our earnings disappear as our unemployment rises [2 million unemployed by Xmas this year]. Our manufacturing industry has largely emigrated, our service industries are emigrating, our R&D departments follow the lost manufacturing industries. Free Trade will leave us bankrupt. We will have nothing to trade, unless we undercut Chinese wages. Will you volunteer to take an 80% salary cut? Catch yourself on.

[snegchui]

Affirmation and delivery are two very different things. New Labour are vey very good at the first and very bad at the second, which is why I think they have got away with a lot of below-par delivery. It is the opposite of what I had drummed in, under-promise, over-deliver. But perhaps politics is a different game and the role of hope is more important - to get in.
John Parkes, my first reaction was are you slowly declining into a 4 bottle of wine evening? But maybe not. Your post is an affirmation of hope, but definitely not logic. I hope your affirmation is sound and I support it.
This administration talks frequently of joined up Govt, and then equally as frequently fails spectacularly to live up to it. Join the dots, I have seen crack-heads do better, especially if there is still a bit on the table.
But what I want to see from a Conservative Opposition, able to cope with "shrill cool" is the confidence to know who and what they are. This group will deliver a joined-up assessment rather than a short-term minimum-committment assessment.

[Adrian Butterworth]

"Do you not remember the Soviet Empire and all its evil."

Yes Richard, I remember when every British city was targeted by Marxist H-bombs and Moscow's mighty 3rd Shock Army sat a few miles from the British Army on the German plain.

Trouble is Dickie you don't seem to remember any of it because you forget that what made the Evil Empire evil was it's communist ideology and communism is dead in Russia.

Whatsmore, it's military is utterly shambolic and cannot even get enough soldiers, either as volunteers or as conscripts.

I'd also say that Russian society is about twenty years ahead of Britain's in terms of societal and cultural degredation. (which is what happens when radicals run any society for a long time) It's school system is abysmal and it's future generations are being aborted away; it's population is more corrupt and alcoholic than ever before. A huge social crisis is merely being staved off by high oil and gas prices. Sorry to dissapoint you Dickie but this is not a country which has time for any European designs.

You don't understand Russia Dickie, you don't understand anything. You receive your stupid opinions from the Weekly Standard and the AEI. Stop reading them Dickie. I'll recommened to you a nice film to ease your mindless Russophobia. It's called "White Bim - Black Ear" and it's a story of a hunting dog who tries to find his master. (It's got English subtitles) It's a deligtful film Dickie; my favorite in fact. Type it in on Youtube, the whole film is there.

And please stop with this neocon imbecility.

[snegchui]

"Sorry to dissapoint you Dickie but this is not a country which has time for any European designs. "
But Putin does.
How will peace come to the emptiness of the Russian soul in the desert of Putin's compassion and empathy? Where will it find nourishment to care again for the children?
The Arbat has come back. Will we again be its children or will we be free?

[Adrian Butterworth]

No he doesn't Snegchui, you're having a bad dream. Go back into your cupboard.

[snegchui]

To talk of cupboard, you understand. And I never dream, the ability to sleep deeply was shattered in Planet of the Apes.

[Adrian Butterworth]

Snegchui, it's too late for you to be conversing about Politics. You're clearly very tired and bewildered. Now switch off your computer and lay down your weary head.

[snegchui]

Really? Explain to me this paragraph of yours:
"I'd also say that Russian society is about twenty years ahead of Britain's in terms of societal and cultural degredation. (which is what happens when radicals run any society for a long time) It's school system is abysmal and it's future generations are being aborted away; it's population is more corrupt and alcoholic than ever before. A huge social crisis is merely being staved off by high oil and gas prices. Sorry to dissapoint you Dickie but this is not a country which has time for any European designs. "
Is Russia 20 years ahead of Britain in falling into pit of devil's emptiness? Or will Britain take 20 years to catch up with Russian glorious society?
Your posts seem cocaine-fuelled. Highs of "The West are idiots" and lows of ""We can't really do nuffink. Please don't beat us when you see through the charade".
Well, social workers are very powerful people here in free world, there may be a softer bed for you here.

[Adrian Butterworth]

"Is Russia 20 years ahead of Britain in falling into pit of devil's emptiness? Or will Britain take 20 years to catch up with Russian glorious society?"

I'm guessing English is not your first language but I'm still not sure what was unclear about what I said. Both British and Russian societies are badly "broken" to use Tory lexicon, and both exhibit very high levels of social pathology; public drunkeness, hooliganism, family breakdown etc, etc etc only Russia is rather further down the road than Britain, (that is, if Britain ever reaches such a stage which I think is certainly possible).

My coacaine fuelled posts? What do you mean by referring to "The Children of the Arbat"? Is that a sign of frivolity or paranoia, I'm not sure?

[snegchui]

"Trouble is Dickie you don't seem to remember any of it because you forget that what made the Evil Empire evil was it's communist ideology and communism is dead in Russia. "
But the spirit of Communism lives, and its bellicosity to achieve the land of peace with no walls, because no bricks survive the struggle with peace.
Adrian. learn meaning of term siloviki, urki and stop mouthing empty platitudes of "Oooh, the neo-cons did it all", In Russia today, we have real neo-cons ( neo-(as-if) conservatives spouting maintenance of a system of a society brought about by force (short-term history) rather than evolving over time of generations.
Russia may be all the weak things you say it is, but it is an alcohol-fuelled nation and it doesn't accept that reality, so it says I have nuclear missiles, I am strong, I can impose my will and the devil take you all. Russia is the problem. Russia is like an out of control mugger that needs to be reminded there are boundaries to behaviours and countries.
Blabbing on about neo-cons in the context of your posts indicates you have picked up the term, and in whatever reality you inhabit, spouting it gets accolades of empty approval: empty because react to sound rather than meaning.
Go read the book and assimilate some understanding of human condition under the warm embrace of a good socialist stae.

[Adrian Butterworth]

I'm sorry snegchui but you're talking a lot of b----ks. You strike me as some sort of metrosexual Lithuanian ultranationalist who has tried to learn a lot of poetic and evocative english words without realising that such language often comes across as awkward and vacuous when discussing matters such as this.

I suppose your hatred for Russians is to be expected but I hope you can see things from a reasonable point of view. I was once a naive believer in globalist neoconservatism myself; a strong supporter of the adventure in Iraq and of pushing our way into parts of the world where we have no real power to enforce our will, refusing to believe that washington could ever get it badly wrong and that 'democracy' (ie. elections) were the most important things above all. All you need to do is to lose your coloured ideological glasses and discover the joys of being a conservative.

[snegchui]

You are the one who is empty and lost. You are like the Russians, "only my point of view is reasonable". You therefore cannot enter into a meaningful discussion of facts. I have seen some strange wandering in posts, but yours is near the top
I will say again, without regard to human rights, (which are best served in a democracy), all other rights are transient and subject to will and whim of governing powers.
I still also think you have no real understanding of the term neo-con and are just spouting it to dull your ears to the truth.

[Adrian Butterworth]

Moronic babbling about 'the emptiness of the Russian soul in the desert of Putin's compassion and empathy' was enough indication that you are someone who is impervious to factual arguments. Your a sneering, embittered, Russophobic ideologue who hates a practical and rational approach to international affairs. I daresay you'd launch military attack on Russia this afternoon if you had your way you stupid, hot-headed, permenant adolescent.

[snegchui]

Oh, the argument has risen to the depths of personal abuse, again. Well, having just seen your masterpiece on another post, reflecting the same rational and practical approach, I can only snigger at your fatuousness.
If you can read and comprehend clearly, please show me anywhere I have said to engage in military action. But you can't, and even if you could, you wouldn't because it might mean challenging some your easily cut-and-pasted opinions.
Perhaps that polonium you have lying around to put in peoples' dinners is leaking into your drinking water.
Do ckorovo

[Sally Roberts]

"Kippers, Sally, make a nourishing breakfast and, if taken regularly, enhance your brain power. You should try one and maybe you will have a pleasant surprise!"

David_at_home you will be delighted to know that this afternoon I had someone at the door selling fresh fish from Northumberland and I have just purchased a pair of Craster kippers! I am looking forward to eating them.

[Edward Huxley]

Like UKIP,you can get Craster kippers on line Sally and very good they are too. Will freeze.