Russian invasion of Ukraine

metalblue said:
Foreign people cannot donate to any political party directly. They have to be a registered UK voter or donate via a UK company. The “Russians” (all three of them that made the vast majority of the donations, out of a country of 144m) two have publicly been strong critics of Putin and the other her husband possibly has some tentative links but has denied any of the money has come from Russian investments. But this just muddies the waters, think about it logically - the UK has been a very strong critic of Russia, particularly since Salisbury, it would seem this £2m in total hasn’t really yielded any “Russian Influence” has it?

If you really want to question any country about undue Russian influence you should start with Germany. The Russian state are rascals of that I have no doubt - but these individuals don’t have any real links to the state that make you think hmmmm.

Do you think the Labour Party are being influenced by the Chinese? To follow ypur logic; Gardiner has accepted £500k from Christine Lee, and employed her son as his diary secretary (this was a pretty stupid thing to do), she’s also been called out as a Chinese spy. Corruption or innocent?
Click to expand...

Russian money and influence in the UK has been an issue for years. This from just 2018 after Salisbury. It is questionable how much effective action has been taken to curtail this since 2018, other than lots of rhetoric and making life a bit awkward for Chelsea’s Abramovich.

‘May has vowed to clamp down on Russian money but a report by parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee accused her government of failing to back up its rhetoric with credible action.

“There is no excuse for the UK to turn a blind eye as President (Vladimir) Putin’s kleptocrats and human rights abusers use money laundered through London to corrupt our friends, weaken our alliances, and erode faith in our institutions,” said committee chairman Tom Tugendhat.’

www.reuters.com

Russian 'dirty money' flowing through London damages UK: lawmakers

"Dirty" Russian money hidden in British assets and laundered through City of London financial institutions is undermining the government's efforts to take a tougher stance against Moscow's "aggressive foreign policy", UK lawmakers said on Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
BobKowalski said:
Russian money and influence in the UK has been an issue for years. This from just 2018 after Salisbury. It is questionable how much effective action has been taken to curtail this since 2018, other than lots of rhetoric and making life a bit awkward for Chelsea’s Abramovich.

‘May has vowed to clamp down on Russian money but a report by parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee accused her government of failing to back up its rhetoric with credible action.

“There is no excuse for the UK to turn a blind eye as President (Vladimir) Putin’s kleptocrats and human rights abusers use money laundered through London to corrupt our friends, weaken our alliances, and erode faith in our institutions,” said committee chairman Tom Tugendhat.’

www.reuters.com

Russian 'dirty money' flowing through London damages UK: lawmakers

"Dirty" Russian money hidden in British assets and laundered through City of London financial institutions is undermining the government's efforts to take a tougher stance against Moscow's "aggressive foreign policy", UK lawmakers said on Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?
 
BobKowalski said:
76k currently, with a view to reducing further. Give it another decade and we will have more people attending No.10 parties than in the Army.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, announced on March 22 that the army will be reduced to 72,500 by 2025. This is set out in the Defence in a Competitive Age command paper.

This means the existing target of 82,000 personnel, set in 2015, has been scrapped.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

UK Army to be reduced to 72,500

The existing target of 82,000 personnel, set in 2015, has been scrapped.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk commonslibrary.parliament.uk
Click to expand...

And this is why being in NATO and a very active contributor is strategically important to the UK.

No one in their right mind would suggest we go and fight the Russians on our own. But as @SWP's back rightly points out if we stuck just 100 UK troops on the front line - particularly if it was a NATO sanctioned deployment- it would make the Russians battle plans a lot more complex and way beyond the actually military might that 100 troops would bring. Not that I would suggest we should do either, as that’s one miscalculation away from a big mess.
 
metalblue said:
All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say Russian money pouring into the City laundromat is ‘irrelevant‘. Money buys political influence, that’s kind of how it works.

The UK resisted passing the Magnitsky Act, until Salisbury happened, so yes Russian money influenced UK Russian policy until they murdered UK citizens on UK soil, and they did that because Russia has no sense of proportion or ability to see that every action it takes makes their position worse.

You mentioned that Russian money came from a ‘critic’ of Putin as if that is okay. It isn’t. UK foreign policy should be determined on what is in the UK’s best interests, not based on how much money some pissed off Russian slips the Tory Party, or indeed, any Party.
 
metalblue said:
And this is why being in NATO and a very active contributor is strategically important to the UK.

No one in their right mind would suggest we go and fight the Russians on our own. But as @SWP's back rightly points out if we stuck just 100 UK troops on the front line - particularly if it was a NATO sanctioned deployment- it would make the Russians battle plans a lot more complex and way beyond the actually military might that 100 troops would bring. Not that I would suggest we should do either, as that’s one miscalculation away from a big mess.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the UK stance on Ukraine. Wallace seems to be competent, which is a rarity these days. Clearly, he has no future in the Tory Party.

However the continual reduction of British Army numbers will bite at some point and no amount of spin about the ‘modern cyber soldier‘ is going to put boots on the ground when we most need them.

As for the strategic importance of NATO, again I would agree. But then so was EU membership given Putin is very keen on a divided and conflicted Europe.
 
BobKowalski said:
I wouldn’t say Russian money pouring into the City laundromat is ‘irrelevant‘. Money buys political influence, that’s kind of how it works.

The UK resisted passing the Magnitsky Act, until Salisbury happened, so yes Russian money influenced UK Russian policy until they murdered UK citizens on UK soil, and they did that because Russia has no sense of proportion or ability to see that every action it takes makes their position worse.

You mentioned that Russian money came from a ‘critic’ of Putin as if that is okay. It isn’t. UK foreign policy should be determined on what is in the UK’s best interests, not based on how much money some pissed off Russian slips the Tory Party, or indeed, any Party.
Click to expand...

Money laundering and political donations are very different things, whatever the source. I do agree with you that donations are for political (or personal) influence but that is not necessarily a bad thing - unions are an example of political influence with good motives although I appreciate not always - and just because a donation comes from a national of a different country shouldn’t, on its own, give rise to any greater concerns - unless you’re some far right wing nut job who hates anything that’s not white and British (and something tells me that doesn’t describe you!!!).

Until we change the political funding model in the UK we have to accept that money will come from a variety of sources and so long as it is declared and there is no obvious inference of influence (say that when you’ve had a few drinks!) then we have to live with it - of course it is always open to question and should always be so. Personally I would listen to parties being funded by the tax payer but not sure how it would be anything other than maintaining the status quo - let’s say you and I wanted to set up a new political party - and SWP back wanted to fund it from his millions would that be barred? - puts me in mind of FFP and City really.

Global human rights violations and sanctions - I thought was being implemented at an EU level (which is always a bit of a challenge when any country can veto certain lists etc) so not really fair to say the UK could have done it any quicker at least until Brexit, happy to be corrected.
 
BobKowalski said:
I have no issue with the UK stance on Ukraine. Wallace seems to be competent, which is a rarity these days. Clearly, he has no future in the Tory Party.

However the continual reduction of British Army numbers will bite at some point and no amount of spin about the ‘modern cyber soldier‘ is going to put boots on the ground when we most need them.

As for the strategic importance of NATO, again I would agree. But then so was EU membership given Putin is very keen on a divided and conflicted Europe.
Click to expand...

I do agree there will be a breaking point for our armed services and technology won’t be able to bridge capability. Increasing demand and reducing funding is rarely a successful mix.

The Russians are by many accounts very good at disruption - but a bit harder to pin down. I would agree with you that for the very same reasons a fractured Europe is considered good by Russia. Brexit although can’t remotely be put at their doorstep there are questions that I’m not convinced were really answered all that well at the time.
 
mat said:
www.thetimes.co.uk

Boris Johnson defends taking money from Russian oligarchs

Boris Johnson has defended taking money from Russian oligarchs and insisted there is no evidence of Moscow interfering in British politics. Amid continuing scrutiny over Downing Street’s failure to publish a parliamentary report into Russian tampering, the prime minister denied that the delay was li
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
Both UK & US has a history of funding rebel groups in Libya, Iraq, Syria and other places to name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Chinese money certainly does.

Intelligence and Security Committee Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure: The implications for national security Cm 8629 (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Click to expand...

Again this is all about companies with close political influence. Which is completely right - you can’t have companies or individuals with close foreign hostile state ties donating money. But there is zero evidence to say that’s what has happened here - and even if it were the case it has had zero impact on UK strategy towards Russia. The UK would prefer good relations with Russia I’m sure but we aren’t afraid to call them out.

Imagine you moved to France and had some spare cash you wanted to invest in a French political party - would the UK be trying to influence French strategy? No. You might well be on a personal level, but so what? it’s your money and if their policies resonate with you than you’re free to support them. I do appreciate it’s not exactly comparable as when it comes to some regimes like Russia or China the reach of state is somewhat greater and our lot couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery - oh wait this lot probably could just about do that!!
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
And this is why being in NATO and a very active contributor is strategically important to the UK.

No one in their right mind would suggest we go and fight the Russians on our own. But as @SWP's back rightly points out if we stuck just 100 UK troops on the front line - particularly if it was a NATO sanctioned deployment- it would make the Russians battle plans a lot more complex and way beyond the actually military might that 100 troops would bring. Not that I would suggest we should do either, as that’s one miscalculation away from a big mess.
Click to expand...

If we as a country went all North Korea and mobilised troops in the hundreds of thousands the same people would complain about being warmongers etc, we are part of NATO we have become a cog in the machinery of a defence alliance and I for one am happy with that.

God help those who would end up being conscripted if it did kick off, those internet cafes and fancy wine bars would go out of business ;)
 
mexico1970 said:
If we as a country went all North Korea and mobilised troops in the hundreds of thousands the same people would complain about being warmongers etc, we are part of NATO we have become a cog in the machinery of a defence alliance and I for one am happy with that.

God help those who would end up being conscripted if it did kick off, those internet cafes and fancy wine bars would go out of business ;)
Click to expand...
"Top Knot Battalion assemble!"

"Can I wear my go pro during the battle?"

"Will any dairy free options be allowed in the mess?"

"Can I livestream our secret briefings through my you tube channel?"
 
mat said:
"Top Knot Battalion assemble!"

"Can I wear my go pro during the battle?"

"Will any dairy free options be allowed in the mess?"

"Can I livestream our secret briefings through my you tube channel?"
Click to expand...

I used to be like GI Joe when I wore the uniform.

Godfrey would be more like the state of me now, if they call me up they had better do it before I fall asleep after a good meal :)
 
‘Elysée source on N4 meeting : "a difficult meeting, which led to a positive result" ( = a joint statement, for the first time in 2 years) and "signals Russian re-engagement" in the N4 process.

Normandy meeting in Paris has re-confirmed ceasefire, and decided to meet again in Berlin in two weeks and resolve issues related to different interpretations of the Minsk agreements.‘ @Le Monde

‘US/NATO listened to #Russian concerns, then responded with concerns of their own. One of note: Russia should withdraw its forces from #Ukraine, #Georgia, and #Moldova.’ @illrussia

Early days, but not a bad start.
 
Clearly, the UK/US/NATO countries are not going to war with Russia. It's not going to happen. That's not good for anybody. And both sides know it. We're just in the Cold War part II right now.

For that reason alone, I do not think the Russians will invade. I also do not fully understand what they want, though, because they also know they're not going to invade at this point.

I know I'm oversimplifying things at this point but I wish Western leadership would stop fucking around and appeasing. Put a few thousand troops in Ukraine. That'll stop any threat of invasion. Or just put the sanctions on. But stop letting Putin push further and further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top