Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

I'm surprised that the wish for a nation to determine its own destiny, rather than be a pawn of a more powerful external force, draws ire here, given that this argument is always at the heart of what the Brexit supporters here desire for their own country.

This pretty much sums it up. They are lamenting the alleged dictation from Brussels but not the actual and far greater one from Washington. Fortunately, it seems, the younger generations of Britons are not too obsessed with certain nationalist delusions. The Tories are basically irrelevant among the young, more so after pictures of a group of Tory students were published that (once again) show what they really think about democracy, its institutions and the working majority. They're wearing shirts with slogans such as "Fuck the NHS" and Hitler moustaches.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Comrade Stalin, lest we forget, was in an alliance with the Big H until circumstances changed. A lot of British servicemen will have fought German military forces which had been re-equipped, refueled and fed using Russian supplies under the Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact....I am glad thar you don't want any war in Europe, and I feel trustful that you include the Donbass region of Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia and the Baltic States in this generous sentiment.

Stalin wanted time. I think you understand that very well. The next four years were dreadful for both sides. But since the Red Army destroyed 80% of German forces, it worked out in the end

I fear you're reading only western propaganda about the regions you mention, because nothing is as they present it

Donbass is ethnically Russian and was attacked by Ukraine after a western-financed coup in Kiev. Did you think it wouldn't be defended? Crimea acceded to Russia because it is Russian, confirmed by 98% in a referendum. With Georgia/Osettia, it was a case of protecting Russian minorities. Note that we're not interested in Georgian-populated territory

The Baltic countries all have major Russian minorities (20% - 30%) and had major problems some years ago because they denied these people citizenship unless they spoke the majority language. Russia objected and so did the EU when they became members

However, the Baltics are not under military threat and never have been. Besides, aren't there a few hundred invincible British troops there to protect them?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

From "Handelsblatt":

"...the German military, which spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on its military than other big powers such as France and Britain, lacks tanks, spare parts, bulletproof vests, tents and winter clothing. Critics have said the shortages cast doubt on Germany’s pledges to take on more responsibilities in NATO and to forge joint EU military capabilities..."

I see. But British critics and serving soldiers say the same about Britain and its state of equipment

From what I've read, Britain is not in a state to defend much at all militarily, not even itself. It only has a 78,000 army, and only half of those are combat troops. It also receives sub-standard equipment, from what they say

The Germans have a multitude of trained reservists for an emergency. The British do not. EU defense co-operation without the UK/US makes sense to many

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

I have no idea why the quote button doesn't work?

Try another browser?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I see. But British critics and serving soldiers say the same about Britain and its state of equipment

From what I've read, Britain is not in a state to defend much at all militarily, not even itself. It only has a 78,000 army, and only half of those are combat troops. It also receives sub-standard equipment, from what they say

The Germans have a multitude of trained reservists for an emergency. The British do not. EU defense co-operation without the UK/US makes sense to many

Particularly the Kremlin, of course. Without the risk of starting a nuclear exchange, Russia could be in Berlin by Saturday afternoon tea time. As a conventional military force, NATO has never been much of a deterrent, though now that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and various other former Warsaw Pact members are in it, it has a bit more strength than it used to have. But the real point of NATO is that Russia risks a spot of instant sunshine if she attacks it in earnest.

The USA and the UK are the nuclear powers inside NATO. Without them, attacking the European Army is a much more attractive prospect. Russia has got this new main battle tank coming into service called the T-14 which is the absolute dogs bollocks...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40083641

Collective security without NATO?

Good luck with that.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Donbass is ethnically Russian and was attacked by Ukraine after a western-financed coup in Kiev. Did you think it wouldn't be defended? Crimea acceded to Russia because it is Russian, confirmed by 98% in a referendum. With Georgia/Osettia, it was a case of protecting Russian minorities. Note that we're not interested in Georgian-populated territory

The Baltic countries all have major Russian minorities (20% - 30%) and had major problems some years ago because they denied these people citizenship unless they spoke the majority language. Russia objected and so did the EU when they became members

However, the Baltics are not under military threat and never have been. Besides, aren't there a few hundred invincible British troops there to protect them?

You lack the thread of connection here Palo. Any country which has a substantial Russian speaking minority and is on the border with Russia risks Russian intervention, thanks to pan-Russian irredentism. The Baltic States do not want a strong Russian speaking minority because it is a standing invitation for the Kremlin to send forces to "rescue" them, as has happened in South Ossetia, the Crimea and the Donbass region. If I lived in one of the Baltic States I would feel exactly the same way.

Years ago, a British family who had emigrated to Sweden came home, complaining about the abuse to their human rights, because the Swedish social services were insisting that their children should speak Swedish at home as well as at school. This was at least 30 years ago. I well remember the total lack of sympathy I felt. If you refuse to speak the language of your new country, then don't live there.

[haroldeye]

With Georgia/Osettia, it was a case of protecting Russian minorities.

Someone else used that argument Palo old son. Now what was his name? Herr Hilter or something like that.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

With Georgia/Osettia, it was a case of protecting Russian minorities.

Someone else used that argument Palo old son. Now what was his name? Herr Hilter or something like that.

The Sudetenland, wasn't it?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Years ago, a British family who had emigrated to Sweden came home, complaining about the abuse to their human rights, because the Swedish social services were insisting that their children should speak Swedish at home as well as at school. This was at least 30 years ago. I well remember the total lack of sympathy I felt. If you refuse to speak the language of your new country, then don't live there.

Ah ha! Then presumably all the English who live in Spain should speak Spanish at home too, no? Of course they won't, and it's ludicrous to think they will. They're first generation immigrants

But you're conflating separate issues. The Russian population in bordering countries have always lived there, and have a right to their culture. The EU are correct in supporting this

[palo5]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

With Georgia/Osettia, it was a case of protecting Russian minorities.

Someone else used that argument Palo old son. Now what was his name? Herr Hilter or something like that.

"Old son"? If you were born in the 1930s you can call me that. But if you were born in the 50s, 60s or later, you're still juvenile

Sudetenland was different, because it led to the annexation of all Czechoslovakia. Osettia only led to the protection of a small part of Georgia for a good reason