The Football...

[slinger]

Abramovich is seen as Putin's "money man" according to the Panorama special I saw last night. It's worth 29 minutes of your time if you missed it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0014jm8/panorama-roman-abramovichs-dirty-money


Of course, the fact that Johnson is in bed with Lebedev complicates matters too.

[antonio66]

Time to change the thread title.
Hypothetical question, if Trump had still been President, would Russia/Putin still have invaded Ukraine?

[NSNO2021]

We will never know but if Trump had been in charge of America I would be terrified of where it would end up. One old egotistical crackpot with access to nuclear weapons is already one too many, two in opposition to each other doesn't bare thinking about

[Lindsayt]

There seem to be 3 pillars of support for Putin; the military, the apparatchiks, and the oligarchs. I've got no problem with targeting their wealth and freedom if it puts pressure on Putin to stop murdering thousands of innocents. We should have done it straight after he used chemical weapons in Syria.

I think your post is strong on principal but severely lacking in context and proportion.

Principles are the mark of an ethical government.

The press narative is that we are the good guys and Putin is the bad guy.

Therefore our government should be working to higher ethical principles than the Russian government.
Otherwise we lose the high moral ground.

It's so easy for the UK Government and press to spin a story that pulls on emotions. These emotions will cloud judgement when it comes to what's legally, morally and ethically right.

I am fed up of government via pulling emotional strings. I'd much rather have government via logic, sound reasoning, with high moral and ethical principles.
I realise that I may be in a minority in this. So be it.

Opposing murder is a strong ethical principal, but my calculation is not emotional. The West's ethical failing has been to let Putin get away with murder in Syria, Georgia and Chechnya, and turning a blind eye to the proceeds of crime being laundered through the City of London

Restricting the freedom of oligarchs will hurt them and they may then apply pressure on Putin. Oligarchs have been enriched by Putin's actions, in the past, and many, if not all, are (or have been) involved with organised crime. I don't see that they should automatically be protected from feeling the consequence of his actions, now. Pragmatically, they are (some of) the only people that can stop Putin's war, unless NATO engages in direct conflict.

What would be your choice of these options:

Declare war on Russia?
Impose sanctions on those who are known to have close ties with Putin?
Do nothing?

Or, do you think there are other options available? If so, what are they?

Who has Abramovich murdered?

We don't know the exact nature of the relationship between Abramovich and Putin.
If Abramovich has some influence over Putin, then surely it's in our interests to keep Abramovich on our side as much as possible?
And if Abramovich has no influence over Putin, then the UK Government is punishing an innocent man.

Abramovich made his big financial breakthrough under the Yeltsin regime. At a time when Putin was a regional official in St Petersburg.

There are more options than those available.
There's the option of supplying Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, food, medical supplies, fuel, communications equipment, satellite photos at favourable buy now pay later terms.
This is pretty much the standard way that 3rd party countries have supported nations at war for the last 70 years.

History has shown us that tyranny and might usually works in the short term. In the long term it fails.

[savvypaul]

Principles are the mark of an ethical government.

The press narative is that we are the good guys and Putin is the bad guy.

Therefore our government should be working to higher ethical principles than the Russian government.
Otherwise we lose the high moral ground.

It's so easy for the UK Government and press to spin a story that pulls on emotions. These emotions will cloud judgement when it comes to what's legally, morally and ethically right.

I am fed up of government via pulling emotional strings. I'd much rather have government via logic, sound reasoning, with high moral and ethical principles.
I realise that I may be in a minority in this. So be it.

Opposing murder is a strong ethical principal, but my calculation is not emotional. The West's ethical failing has been to let Putin get away with murder in Syria, Georgia and Chechnya, and turning a blind eye to the proceeds of crime being laundered through the City of London

Restricting the freedom of oligarchs will hurt them and they may then apply pressure on Putin. Oligarchs have been enriched by Putin's actions, in the past, and many, if not all, are (or have been) involved with organised crime. I don't see that they should automatically be protected from feeling the consequence of his actions, now. Pragmatically, they are (some of) the only people that can stop Putin's war, unless NATO engages in direct conflict.

What would be your choice of these options:

Declare war on Russia?
Impose sanctions on those who are known to have close ties with Putin?
Do nothing?

Or, do you think there are other options available? If so, what are they?

Who has Abramovich murdered?

We don't know the exact nature of the relationship between Abramovich and Putin.
If Abramovich has some influence over Putin, then surely it's in our interests to keep Abramovich on our side as much as possible?
And if Abramovich has no influence over Putin, then the UK Government is punishing an innocent man.

Abramovich made his big financial breakthrough under the Yeltsin regime. At a time when Putin was a regional official in St Petersburg.

There are more options than those available.
There's the option of supplying Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, food, medical supplies, fuel, communications equipment, satellite photos at favourable buy now pay later terms.
This is pretty much the standard way that 3rd party countries have supported nations at war for the last 70 years.

History has shown us that tyranny and might usually works in the short term. In the long term it fails.

I don't think anyone has accused Abramovich of murder. If he were a murderer, I'd hope that he would be prosecuted and tried for it, rather than merely face financial and travel sanctions.

The oligarchs are an essential part of Putin's 'eco-system', and it's long been an open secret that London is the laundromat for corrupt Russian money. Both Labour and Conservative governments have played their part in turning a blind eye. Keeping oligarchs on our side, in this way, has not achieved influence - we have pocketed the cash, Putin has carried on committing war crimes.

The 'more options' that you list, are already in play, and have arguably helped to create a stalemate - the first stage of coming to the negotiating table.

[savvypaul]

I can't say I'm this guy's biggest fan, but I can't argue with much of this...

[NSNO2021]

Sad but all too true. Politics is beholden to money and none more so than Johnson and his corrupt acolytes. The irony of the Tory press banging on about Boris "channeling" his Churchillian spirit is too much for me. Churchill would I wager have Boris tried for treason and hopefully shot at dawn.