From [TBC] To The Polar Lands - Rolling Russia / "Near Abroad" News Thread

apparently Corbyn was ashen faced after getting jeered in parliament the other day, and didn't get much support from his own, either. But I still think that MP's taking bungs from Russian oligarchs is very pertinent and should be called out. But if it is a losing strategy, then perhaps stfu for the time being.

there's no way to tell in the medium term if it's a winning or a losing strategy -- i like that corbyn is unflappable and completely ignores the conventional wisdoms of commentators (which are always about TODAY'S PANIC and generally forgotten in five days time), and in the VERY long-term he's been right over quite a lot of very big things (such as various wars he opposed, or gay rights or whatever)

the idea that the lesson he's learned from this -- a lesson that done reasonably well for him over recent months -- is suddenly in this instance the wrong lesson is entirely possible! but i think he would look a lot less convincing changing tack and being all hilary benn about this situation

I'm sorry, it seems to me Corbyn is completely bungling this moment. He is both calling for dialogue and allowing the Russians to do their own tests of the nerve agent (which, yeah, that'll be a believable result...) while going on the offensive over Russian donations. It seems hypocritical? And also stuck in 2003.

or to put it another way (xp to me), most modern politicians inhabit the space between tactics and strategy, while corbyn largely inhabits the space between strategy and ethics: how this will work out for him here depends on the degree to which the government fuck things up, or i suppose possibly don't fuck things up (but as far as i can see not fucking things up means tacking closer to his line than to sating the yells of the backbenches)

corbyn was of course correct in 2003

And we are not in 2003 anymore

i know reading other people's posts carefully isn't part of your skillset fred but why not try and put my argument together based on what i just wrote

Because it's boring and banal. Sorry.

The idea that somewhat nonsensical statements from Corbyn aren't as bad because it's Corbyn being Corbyn and he is interested in long run things and was right fifteen years ago. It's besides the point of what to do in this specific situation.

OK:
corbs believes that he really doesn't need to "win the day", day after day (this would be tactics): he believes that sticking to his line -- his ethos -- will gradually win him the medium-term argument: the evidence over the past year suggests that to date he's right about this and that this strategy has worked for him (partly of course bcz may's govt has so effectively worked for him). this is why suddenly shrieking "may is a genius and war is now good!" will (a) not actually advance his own cause here and now, and (b) not at all advance his politics. even if he did it, he wouldn't win the day, he'd just hand the win to her

the idea that the lesson he's learned from this… is suddenly in this instance the wrong lesson is entirely possible!

the most boring and banal point of all presumably^^^

A bunch of the Shadow Cabinet are apparently poised to resign over his statement today.

He is right on following proper international / legal processes, though - if only because it gives the Russian government less room to argue it's a stitch-up. iirc there's an obligation to hand over samples in cases where a party to the non-proliferation treaty is accused of a breach and the more eyes on this (UN, EU, etc) the better in making the case.

Fred seeing how many continents he can be wrong on at once.

another really good reason for not judging world events in terms of the very short-term is surely donald trump's approach to, well, everything

Leonid Ragozin on Twitter made the points wrt May's response that you can't "partake in the robbery of Russian people and display outrage at the criminal acts of your business partners in this lucrative enterprise" and "can’t reform Russia without reforming the West as a whole". Looking towards the longer term, it'll be interesting to see how much focus Corbyn puts on that idea.

London is a safe haven / clearing house for ill-gotten wealth from across the world, not just the former Soviet Union, and tbh, it's a cost/benefit that works out massively in our favour. Lobbying cash isn't close to being as big an issue here as it is elsewhere, there's minimal direct impact on politics / foreign policy - other than in the few cases, potentially like this one, that something unexpected flares up (and possibly the impact of house prices in London). It's a virtually risk-free license to print money and it's appallingly immoral. Other than hints at new taxes on non-doms, it's not something Labour has really focused on out of power - and was massively complicit in power.

what does "partake in the robbery of Russian people" refer to exactly? oligarchs transferring money from russia to london?

Yes, absolutely.

iirc there's an obligation to hand over samples in cases where a party to the non-proliferation treaty is accused of a breach and the more eyes on this (UN, EU, etc) the better in making the case.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), 14. marts 2018 17:11 (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The British government says this is wrong.

Leonid Ragozin on Twitter made the points wrt May's response that you can't "partake in the robbery of Russian people and display outrage at the criminal acts of your business partners in this lucrative enterprise" and "can’t reform Russia without reforming the West as a whole". Looking towards the longer term, it'll be interesting to see how much focus Corbyn puts on that idea.

London is a safe haven / clearing house for ill-gotten wealth from across the world, not just the former Soviet Union, and tbh, it's a cost/benefit that works out massively in our favour. Lobbying cash isn't close to being as big an issue here as it is elsewhere, there's minimal direct impact on politics / foreign policy - other than in the few cases, potentially like this one, that something unexpected flares up (and possibly the impact of house prices in London). It's a virtually risk-free license to print money and it's appallingly immoral. Other than hints at new taxes on non-doms, it's not something Labour has really focused on out of power - and was massively complicit in power.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), 14. marts 2018 17:47 (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This I agree with completely, and it would be great if Corbyn pursued this point going forward. But right now he seems to be undermining it with his other responses. You can't both find the situation so dire that it calls for the kind of reforms that needs to be put in place, while also alluding to it maybe being a governmental lie.

The position is that there's overwhelming evidence that it was either a state-sanctioned attack or that Russia has lost control of some of its stock and, either way, the onus is on Russia to respond and, at the same time, there should be a full, comprehensive and transparent investigation. That seems entirely proper. The rationale for May's position (which, again, is that it's "highly likely" that the Russian government was involved, not conclusively proven) is at least partly based on inference. Corbyn's call to "follow the evidence" doesn't imply that it's a government lie, just that the case would benefit from being strengthened.

counterpoint from an unexpected corner:

I can’t believe that Putin is so stupid ( which he isn’t ) as to kill on the streets in The UK. The timing is ridiculous !
Let’s give him the sample he’s asking for as it’s plausible that it’s a plot to smear him and Moscow before the Worlld Cup !! Please be careful @theresa_may

— Peter Stringfellow (@PJStringfellow) March 13, 2018

lol

My secret identity revealed at last.

based on my own experience in the closely related field of, like, life, each time i think "naw i don't need to check that, it's probably the way i think it is" i am 100% wrong every time

Here is the statement from Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman about his stance on Russia - via PA pic.twitter.com/VESaFCZo2T

— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) March 14, 2018

Corbyns spokesman definitely implies that the government is lying.

And as ShariVari says, it's not really a difficult question whether or not Russia is to blame. If it's Novichok, they are to blame. They either did this, or lost control. It's nothing like 2003.

https://www.thecanary.co/global/2018/03/15/new-evidence-left-theresa-mays-russian-spy-story-tatters/

no that shit doesn't necessarily exist and if it does can be made in a garage pron. garridge.

but its a Canary link!

In other news, Ukrainian domestic politics is still 0_o.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-savchenko-terror-plot-accusations/29101770.html

The “Ukrainian Joan of Arc” Nadezhda Savchenko, who was hailed by the international media as a potential future President and garlanded with accolades by Poroshenko when she was released from Russian prison has:

a) been accused of plotting a coup / to massacre the Ukrainian parliament
b) accused (possibly accidentally) the Speaker of the Rada of orchestrating false flag sniper killings during the Maidan protests

The exit polls suggest Project 70/70 (Putin winning 70% of the vote from a 70% turnout) has fallen short of the mark. It’s currently looking like 72% vote share from what would be considered a disappointing 59% turnout, despite the prospect of discounted buckwheat at polling stations.

I find such blatant electoral blackmail completely bulgur tbh.

*snort*

Good luck rossiyskaya federatsiya

I find such blatant electoral blackmail completely bulgur tbh.

― calzino, Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:46 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you spelt that funny

A video is now being shown in Ukraine's parliament of MP Nadia Savchenko talking with alleged co-conspirators - she's talking about killing the country's President and other leaders in parliament...

— Jonah Fisher (@JonahFisherBBC) March 22, 2018

Savchenko currently chuckling to herself, sitting in parliament, as the video of her describing where to put the grenades is being played. The whole thing is very odd.

In other news, Kommersant, RBK, Ekho, Dozd and RTVi, some of Russia’s leading press orgs, are boycotting all future coverage of the Russian parliament after an MP who’d essentially admitted to sexually harrassing three women was cleared by the ethics board.

Is it significant or unusual that so many press orgs are boycotting, or par for the course?

Absolutely unprecedented afaict.

That's insane about the terrorist/coup plot. She's ... anti-Russian, pro Ukraine independence? So she wanted to blow up a bunch of Russian gov't proxies?

She’s a fierce Ukrainian nationalist but beyond that, it’s not entirely clear what she is up to. Her position is that politicians are weak / cowardly and that a military coup to clear the decks, possibly followed by some kind of military rule, would get the country back on track.

I don’t think she views the government as a Russian proxy, just the wrong kind of Ukrainians. Inevitably other Ukrainian nationalists who back the government are accusing her of being a Russian plant, etc.

Savchenko has been stripped of her immunity and arrested now.

On a more positive note, Ryanair has announced it is going to start flying to Kyiv Borispil this year. A previous agreement had fallen through under pressure from the Ukrainian state airline. It will be interesting to see how much uptake there is. It’s seen as a symbolic victory for those pushing for closer integration with Europe. Hopefully it can boost tourism beyond stag groups and sex pests, etc.

The Russian media boycott now has 22 participants including, rather strangely, Spetznaz Rossii - an outlet that appears to mostly cover commandos / special forces and related news. It isn’t just the usual list of liberal / opposition places.

On a related note, a male journalist has accused Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the far-right leader and presidential candidate, of groping him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/03/29/its-time-to-go-after-vladimir-putins-money-in-the-west/

Fine article on what could be done, that should dovetail with wishes for better financial regulation quite nicely.

This is great:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43797176

Russia banned Telegram on the basis that it’s widely used by terrorists and the owners wouldn’t share encryption keys with the government. In trying to block it, the internet censor Roskomnadzor has managed to accidentally block four million IP addresses, including their own. Somehow they have also managed to accidentally unblock all the sites that they had previously made inaccessible over the years. The peak may have been when they accidentally blocked one of RT’s stations at the exact point the head of Roskomnadzor was giving an interview.

There's no thread for Armenia, but this seems to be significant here as well: Another pro-Russian leader resigns after popular protests: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/04/23/armenian-prime-minister-resigns-after-large-scale-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc452bc43fa1

Armenia is the main Russian ally in Caucasus, right?

His resigning statement is really... something: https://armenpress.am/eng/news/931126.html

Armenia is politically closer to Russia than Georgia and Azerbaijan are but this isn't really Ukraine Part 2. There's debate over whether Armenia should stay in the Eurasian Union or aim for a closer relationship with the EU, and the protest leaders like Pashinyan are generally on the pro-EU side, but the core drive behind the protests over the last two years have been economic and constitutional, rather than being particularly focused on foreign policy.

There's a pretty strong suspicion, supported by Zakharova posting a fairly welcoming message on Facebook, that Russia used their leverage to get him to resign. The assumption is probably that he, personally, was a lighting-rod for protests but the core support for the ruling party remains strong enough to ride out any challenges.

Thanks! But can foreign policy and economic issues be separated with a country like Armenia? The Eurasian Union doesn't seem to have payed off for Armenia.

The argument that Pashinyan makes is that, economically, Armenia would be better off if it had opted for a trade deal with the EU instead but it's not particularly clear that there has been any significant impact one way or the other on the main flashpoint - which is the price of electricity. There's certainly some pro-EU sentiment in the country but it's nothing like the scale in Ukraine - Pashinyan's bloc got less than 8% at the last election and he was trounced in the Yerevan mayoral vote last year iirc.

Armenia has decent export ties to Germany and Bulgaria but it's a very small economy and can't trade with any of its bordering countries other than Georgia, really, and there's a massive reliance on imports from Russia. There could potentially be an upside to closer EU links but, presented as a binary, the Eurasian Union arguably makes more sense, at least in the medium term.

Georgia has more leeway as they've managed to diversify away from reliance on Russia by trading with Turkey, which isn't an option for Armenia.

And for Armenia there's also the problem with Nagorno-Karabakh and the hostilities with oil rich Azerbaijan. It makes sense for Armenia to be close to Russia, sure. But membership of the Eurasian Union can't look too good right now to Moldova, Tadjikistan, etc.

Tajikistan will probably move closer to the Eurasian Union but stop short of full membership. Moldova has done the same recently - opt for Observer status instead of joining. They both have alternative options but it’s worth remembering how important remittances from immigrants working in Russia are to both economies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/armenias-revolution-enters-new-stage-as-russia-begins-to-take-notice/2018/04/26/028f0fac-4957-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_story.html?utm_term=.6445e712d9e7

It looks like there is now a non-negligible chance that the new PM might not come from the ruling party - which would require a few government members to vote against their parliamentary bloc.

If that happened, the new PM is most likely to come from the oil oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan’s party. Tsarukyan has always had fairly close ties to the senior leadership within the government though.