advertisement


Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Audiomisc said:
The Tories allowed this in large part as part of their wish to undermine and weaken the BBC. Plus, of course, them being friends of those nice Russians who pay so much into the Tory party and some of its collaborative MPs, etc.

Once running RT was able to gradually, erm, 'steer' its content. As others have said, many MPs and others across the board appeared on it, but then some stopped as they saw where it was heading, and that it wasn't what they wanted. Curiously, OfCrap hasn't seemed to notice this and still allows RT.
Click to expand...

I believe in boycotting/no-platforming RT. I do not believe in authoritarian censorship. MPs etc who have appeared on it are clearly pricks, even worse if they took money, but in no way should it be banned. My approach of removing links/exposing it as propaganda is the correct one IMHO. I certainly do not want what I am allowed to watch to be dictated by the likes of Boris Johnson, Preti Patel, Liz Truss etc. I do not want to live in an authoritarian state.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Please look at Graph 2, Page 2 of this report from NATO:

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

You will see that most member states did not spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2021 - the median is closer to 1.6%.

ETA - and many who were spending > 2% are Baltic states next door to you-know-who.

If you look at Graph 3 on page 3, you'll see that all bar US, Greece and UK did not spend 2% in 2014, so things have improved (but only a bit) following annexation of the Crimea. Expect the graphs for 2022 to look a bit different.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Only France and eastern Nato flank, as they understand what sits behind border.
 
PsB said:
I’m not a FX expert, but IIUC it can be done easily by executive order. The bank does not have any choice but to comply.
See what happened to Iranian foreign reserves.
Click to expand...
Yes agree, it is possible, but it would be a legal nightmare and involve undermining the whole basis of international banking. Anyway, look what happened to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
 
ks.234 said:
Yes agree, it is possible, but it would be a legal nightmare and involve undermining the whole basis of international banking. Anyway, look what happened to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Click to expand...
I doubt it would be a legal nightmare: just an additional compliance issue for banks.
 
Tony L said:
I believe in boycotting/no-platforming RT. I do not believe in authoritarian censorship. .
Click to expand...

Well, until relatively recently, permission to broadcast factual material in the UK was based on requiring any 'news or comment' to be fair, balanced, and accurate. That got binned when the Tories decided they wanted a system that undermined the BBC and allowed any rich mates to do what they fancied. So they now expect the BBC/ITV/Ch4 to behave by the old rules, but others can do what they want to pay for.

Thus we get a system based on what someone is willing to pay to have up told. Bliss for the Tories, and a key part of their ability to hold power.

Our problems will only get worse as that continues to thrive.

Remind me: Whatever happened to Leveson 2?...
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Well, until relatively recently, permission to broadcast factual material in the UK was based on requiring any 'news or comment' to be fair, balanced, and accurate. That got binned when the Tories decided they wanted a system that undermined the BBC and allowed any rich mates to do what they fancied. So they now expect the BBC/ITV/Ch4 to behave by the old rules, but others can do what they want to pay for.
Click to expand...

Really? When did this change?
 
matthewr said:
Except the issue with the report is not the redactions but rather scope. It literally didn't look at Russian influence in UK politics.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the report but according to the Guardian, the main points of the report are:[2]

  • UK government failed to investigate evidence of successful interference in democratic processes
  • ‘Credible open-source commentary’ suggesting Russia sought to influence Scottish independence referendum
  • Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’
  • Links between Russian elite and UK politics
  • Intelligence community ‘took its eye off the ball’ on Russia
  • UK’s paper-and-pencil voting system makes direct interference harder
  • Defending UK’s democratic processes is a ‘hot potato’
  • Errors in Salisbury poisoning and weapons watchdog hack do not diminish Moscow threat
  • New legislation needed to replace outdated spy laws.
The report describes the United Kingdom as one of Russia's "top targets" and said it is "seen as central to the Western anti-Russian lobby".

Since the government had not authorised any investigation into the matter, the committee found no evidence that Russian interference had affected the Brexit referendum.
 
I’m wondering if descriptions of “Russian irregulars” entering the city are actually Ukrainians from the east of the country under Russian direction?
 
cooky1257 said:
Perhaps while Germany and the rest of NATO increase their defence spending they would all be better off spending more removing any dependence on Russian gas and oil.
Click to expand...

I watched his speech and he did say they will start to increase investment to reduce dependence on gas and oil.

Better late than never, I suppose.
 
ks.234 said:
Since the government had not authorised any investigation into the matter, the committee found no evidence that Russian interference had affected the Brexit referendum.
Click to expand...

Yes. The report's scope was restricted ahead of time.
 
matthewr said:
You can freeze assets and stop people spending them, but you cannot seize them. Well of course the government can do anything but once you start undermining the rule of law in regard to your banking and finance systems, you basically screw yourself much worse than any sanctions ever could. Modern economies are all based on the belief that governments won't do this without a legal basis and even where they pass specific laws (e.g. unexplained wealth orders) it's harder than you might think without screwing everything else up.
Click to expand...

Governments around the world have spent the last forty years making asset seizure, or even value impairment, effectively impossible through combinations of domestic law, international treaty and ISDR mechanisms.

They have succeeded to the point that we now have to constantly tip toe round things. A couple of examples: after the Fukushima nuclear accident Germany canned its planned nuclear programme and the Swedish company that had been slated to build it immediately sued them for lost future profits on the various builds. Similar things happened in Australia and in Latin America with plain packaging rules on tobacco products, Philip Morris sued many governments for impairment to its brand value created by their anti smoking laws. These cases are "heard" in independent "off shore" courts (ISDR) staffed by international corporate lawyers pulled in on temporary secondment. Such arrangements have become routine components of nearly all modern trade deals.

The range of things electorates and individual governments are theoretically able to decide really has shrunk massively and much of this was done with zero public debate.

Had a fraction of that effort been applied to making war effectively impossible (not actually as hard as we're led to believe) then Putin would never have set out down the path he's travelled,
 
FMgahzIXEAAt9IA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top