Skip to main content

The UK stirs...

After the Hollande-Merkel "peace" mission and Michael Fallon's "infelicitous" choice of words about the Russian threat to the Baltic, it seemed that British detachment from both its allies, including the US, and the burgeoning Putin crisis was growing. In fact, the lack of involvement by the UK in the Minsk-2 debacle now looks prescient. Meanwhile the British decision to provide direct military assistance to the Ukrainian government is controversial, but the in face of the dumb insolence of the Putin government it is a pretty small step, albeit one with potentially momentous consequences for the endgame of the crisis.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the pressure of the Putinist lie machine and the further persecution of Navalny, it is becoming clear that the situation in Russia is deteriorating fast. Russia has chosen a direct challenge to the West, nuclear threats and all. However, the reaction from Washington and it now seems in London, is increasingly to call Putin's bluff. 

There has been cold fury in London to the overflight by Russian bear nuclear bombers, but in a way what is interesting is how understated the reaction has been, Cameron's comment, That the Russians were trying to "make some sort of point" was withering and came with the further comment that more sanctions were likely. Now of course the UK is set to provide the first  military assistance to Ukraine. The British have moved beyond sanctions and are now accepting that the breech with Putin's mafia state is probably irrecoverable for as long as the tyrant stays in the Kremlin.

Some will react with great concern at the potential for an acceleration in the conflict, yet the failure of the Russians to take any of the off ramps of the crisis, indeed to exacerbate the crisis at every turn with propaganda as well as with all out military aggression has ended global patience with Putin. It is the direct aggression of the Kremlin that is solely responsible for this war, and the laughable denials of Russian involvement have not altered the truth: this is a Russian war against Ukraine launched at the express order of Putin himself as an act of revenge against the Ukrainians who dared throw out a thieving and criminal tyrant.

The intervention of the United Kingdom is a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 9000 Russian troops and all the equipment that Putin has sent into Eastern Ukraine, plus the troops he has used in Crimea. However it signals quite clearly that this is not now about sanctions. It seems likely that sanctions against Putin will indeed be tightened- and that prospective Putin allies, such as Viktor Orban in Hungary will also not be treated gently, witness the American comments about the current government in Budapest. 

Putin has acted in bad faith throughout this entire crisis, and the repeated lies now longer make him look like a strategic master, but a bare faced liar and untrustworthy negotiator. The UK is recognising that Russia will not abide by any agreement unless it is made to do so. Putin's honour is gone, and his campaign in Ukraine- including the bomb attacks in Kharkiv, that his agents orchestrated- now make him look despicable. 

The deployment of British military advisers is the beginning of a ramp up in pressure against Putin. In my view his regime is fragile and his position increasingly unstable. Time will tell, but by taking Putin's threats seriously for the first time, there is now the potential for them to be countered and ultimately ended.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...