Thatcher would have made sure the Minsk Agreements were upheld, we wouldn’t currently be in this mess. She wouldn’t have shied away from talking to our adversaries, unlike the cowardly politicians we’re currently stuck with. Don’t get me started on the vile females in their midst - Von der Leyen, Baerbock and Kallas, Mrs T would have given them a good dressing down. She must be spinning in her grave.
Don't disagree with anything you say about the Iron Lady in this context, would only add that she was nonetheless a hidebound ideologue in terms of her "free market" economic policies. It cannot be overstated how destructive the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution was in economic terms; it largely hollowed out and destroyed the prosperity of the early post-WWII decades, the Treinte Glorieuse. Thatcher's dreadful role in the imposition of neoliberal economic doctrine from 1980s onwards throughout the West must never be forgotten.
The Russians may once have consider EU membership for Ukraine an acceptable compromise. But Given Von der Leyen's grandiose, bellicose call to "Re-Arm Europe" (a thinly veiled power grab to centralize yet more power in Brussels), not to mention the strident and hostile Russophobia of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, is it not possible, even likely, that Russia may no longer see EU membership for Ukraine in a neutral light?
It's a really good question. Of course the centralising tendencies are nothing new. I don't personally think an EU army will ever happen and, if anything, pressure will grow internally to limit further deepening of institutional competence. Right now, I still think Russia would swallow EU membership if NATO was taken off the table. Russia Ukraine economic relations are practically non existent now so this aspect - which was a big deal in 2014 - is less relevant today.
this is exactly what I am thinking about. In 2014 Russia did not mind Ukraine joining the EU, the situation being different then, though there was already talk about the EU being an extension of NATO. Isn't there a clause in the EU constitution about NATO being militarily involved in Europe?
Now, as you correctly have pointed out, the EU bureaucrats are talking about turning the EU into a military alliance (yes, an attempt at a power grab by von der Lugen. I hope the Europeans can see through this).
I am sure that Russians will not be so laid back anymore about EU membership for Ukraine.
It's shocking how quickly it went. Not so many years ago, the EU (then European Community) was essentially a trading bloc with some additional benefits. It has since morphed into a totally out of control bureaucracy with geopolitical and military ambitions. I suspect the military aspect is a cover for Brussels finally getting the means for direct taxation. This would be the endgame of the process of federalization.
I agree. Totally. I bet von der Lugen is overjoyed over the prospect of laying her paws on all that money. I only pray the Europeans are not that stupid
Interesting interview Ian where most of your answers chimed in with how I thought you might answer. I did, however, focus in on the Salisbury incident question bearing in mind the recent ‘inquest’ into the death of Dawn Sturgess, and the fact that you used undiplomatic language in your answer which surprised me a little. Have you had a chance to look at what happened during that process and what evidence came to light? The official narrative is ridiculous, and does not comprise the full picture by any means. I’ll have a go at answering the question using a diplomatic form of words used in your statement
“I think it was an assassination attempt. It was a rather clumsy assassination attempt. What made them do it? I think there were forces within the state that wanted to spoil the warmer relationship between Britain and Russia that was developing in the run-up to the World Cup in Russia in the summer of 2018” (I suspect that there were other reasons too which may still see the light of day)
Understood Ian - let’s just say that it was a clumsy move and thankfully the Army’s chief nurse just happened to be on hand at that exact moment. I am sure that the culprits will be revealed in due course.
Very interesting interview. I think that unlike the clowns in Westminster & Brussels now, Thatcher would have approached the situation with a crystal clear understanding of the realities of UK's geopolitical weakness in general, and UK/EUs relative weakness vis-a-vis Russia.
In short, she would understand that the UK had a particularly weak hand & zero leverage, and she would build the best position possible based on this harsh reality.
Thatcher would have made sure the Minsk Agreements were upheld, we wouldn’t currently be in this mess. She wouldn’t have shied away from talking to our adversaries, unlike the cowardly politicians we’re currently stuck with. Don’t get me started on the vile females in their midst - Von der Leyen, Baerbock and Kallas, Mrs T would have given them a good dressing down. She must be spinning in her grave.
Indeed! Couldn't agree more.
Don't disagree with anything you say about the Iron Lady in this context, would only add that she was nonetheless a hidebound ideologue in terms of her "free market" economic policies. It cannot be overstated how destructive the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution was in economic terms; it largely hollowed out and destroyed the prosperity of the early post-WWII decades, the Treinte Glorieuse. Thatcher's dreadful role in the imposition of neoliberal economic doctrine from 1980s onwards throughout the West must never be forgotten.
The Russians may once have consider EU membership for Ukraine an acceptable compromise. But Given Von der Leyen's grandiose, bellicose call to "Re-Arm Europe" (a thinly veiled power grab to centralize yet more power in Brussels), not to mention the strident and hostile Russophobia of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, is it not possible, even likely, that Russia may no longer see EU membership for Ukraine in a neutral light?
It's a really good question. Of course the centralising tendencies are nothing new. I don't personally think an EU army will ever happen and, if anything, pressure will grow internally to limit further deepening of institutional competence. Right now, I still think Russia would swallow EU membership if NATO was taken off the table. Russia Ukraine economic relations are practically non existent now so this aspect - which was a big deal in 2014 - is less relevant today.
this is exactly what I am thinking about. In 2014 Russia did not mind Ukraine joining the EU, the situation being different then, though there was already talk about the EU being an extension of NATO. Isn't there a clause in the EU constitution about NATO being militarily involved in Europe?
Now, as you correctly have pointed out, the EU bureaucrats are talking about turning the EU into a military alliance (yes, an attempt at a power grab by von der Lugen. I hope the Europeans can see through this).
I am sure that Russians will not be so laid back anymore about EU membership for Ukraine.
It's shocking how quickly it went. Not so many years ago, the EU (then European Community) was essentially a trading bloc with some additional benefits. It has since morphed into a totally out of control bureaucracy with geopolitical and military ambitions. I suspect the military aspect is a cover for Brussels finally getting the means for direct taxation. This would be the endgame of the process of federalization.
I agree. Totally. I bet von der Lugen is overjoyed over the prospect of laying her paws on all that money. I only pray the Europeans are not that stupid
Interesting interview Ian where most of your answers chimed in with how I thought you might answer. I did, however, focus in on the Salisbury incident question bearing in mind the recent ‘inquest’ into the death of Dawn Sturgess, and the fact that you used undiplomatic language in your answer which surprised me a little. Have you had a chance to look at what happened during that process and what evidence came to light? The official narrative is ridiculous, and does not comprise the full picture by any means. I’ll have a go at answering the question using a diplomatic form of words used in your statement
“I think it was an assassination attempt. It was a rather clumsy assassination attempt. What made them do it? I think there were forces within the state that wanted to spoil the warmer relationship between Britain and Russia that was developing in the run-up to the World Cup in Russia in the summer of 2018” (I suspect that there were other reasons too which may still see the light of day)
Thanks, Captain. Not a lot I can say, as you can imagine, but I made the point above in my memoir which was cleared.
I have always thought it was a clumsy move but, by the same token, the Russians may have felt they were provoked.
Understood Ian - let’s just say that it was a clumsy move and thankfully the Army’s chief nurse just happened to be on hand at that exact moment. I am sure that the culprits will be revealed in due course.
My comment was carefully worded
and where are the Skripals? Why are they kept incommunicado?
Assassinated?
A very interesting, informative and far-ranging interview.
Even the question in the title is intriguing!
Very interesting interview. I think that unlike the clowns in Westminster & Brussels now, Thatcher would have approached the situation with a crystal clear understanding of the realities of UK's geopolitical weakness in general, and UK/EUs relative weakness vis-a-vis Russia.
In short, she would understand that the UK had a particularly weak hand & zero leverage, and she would build the best position possible based on this harsh reality.
I shudder to think.