Skip to main content

Will Ukrainians Protect the Scots?

Is it just me, or does the West's indignance about Putin invading the Crimea reek of hypocrisy in the light of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and countless other invasions and regime changes we've tried to effect during recent decades? And the people we've 'rescued' don't even speak our language, share our cultures or have the faintest idea who we are. And none of them are thanking us now.

The other side of the hypocrisy is exemplified by the Falkland Islands whose inhabitants voted to remain British - despite Argentina, not unreasonably from a purely geographic point of view, claiming territorial sovereignty. So it is OK for the UK to sail half way around the globe to maintain British dominion in far away places, but not OK for Russians to pop next door to protect Russians.

It would seem that at least 96% of Crimeans welcome Putin's invasion if you can trust their referendum... which the West are trying to call illegal. I don't recall being asked if I wanted us to invade Iraq. In fact I do recall 1 million people marching on the streets of London (the largest rally ever in this country) telling Blair not to do it! At least a democratically elected Russian government endorsed using troops to assist Russian speakers in Ukraine. Our own governments seem to be rather less democratic where war is concerned. Not that I'm suggesting Putin's cronies represent a fair society. But there are far worse regimes to worry about. And he does put on a very good Olympic games. But then so did Hitler...

We are about to hold a referendum in Scotland to ask if they want to remain part of the UK or not. It's expected that the majority will vote to stay in the United Kingdom. If this prediction holds true, then we can assume the majority of Scots didn't actually want a referendum at all. But apparently it is 'legal' for a minority of that chunk of land to demand one anyway. So what's wrong with the vast majority of the inhabitants of a chunk of land which happens to have been part of Russia until very recently anyway (arbitrarily given to Ukraine by Khrushchev) voting to welcome their protection? Why on Earth would they want to stay Ukrainian anyway? Russia is vastly wealthier than destitute Ukraine who is also trying to ban the speaking of Russian in order to enforce traditionally right-wing Cossack ways onto a people who have no closer cultural connection with the Ukraine than we do. Do we really want to go to war over this? And if we don't, why should we resist the Russians 'protecting' others who don't want to be ruled by Kiev especially if a bit of sabre-rattling prevents bloodshed.

I was also debating with myself whether to mention the record of Ukrainians in their glee at welcoming in German Nazis to help them clear their country of Jews (the Babi Yar ravine outside Kiev was filled with around 30,000 Jews by Germans and willing Ukrainians). Throughout their history, massacring Jews and other minorities seemed a particularly popular pastime. Whilst children should never be held accountable for the crimes of their parents, there does seem to be a persistent theme in this part of the world for racist violence. And there seems to be plenty of evidence that Tatars, Cossacks and dozens of other local ethnic groups still hate the sight of each other. If that really is the sort of people we are being asked to defend, then not in my name please... Although it could also be argued that they're only ever going to change their attitudes if they are made to feel less defensive about their tribes by becoming amorphously European. But try telling that to the Greeks, and maybe the British... who will be holding a referendum about remaining part of Europe if the Conservatives remain in power (whereas, interestingly, the 'let-the-people-speak' socialist Labour party have ruled out a referendum if they get to power)...

...So here we go again. A chunk of land on the edge of an area called Europe is probably going to be 'legally', we're told, allowed to ask its population whether it wants to remain part of Europe. If we vote to exit Europe, will the Americans wade in to support the French and Germans to force us to remain European? Will we then hope that someone like Russia waves a flag to support our decision? What will the Ukrainian people decide to do to help those of us in the UK who want to remain European? And will they help us protect those Scots who want to remain British? Would they give a damn? Of course not.

At the end of the day, it's all about economics and who has the best get-rich plan for the future. So whoever wins that game, let's hope the people they govern learn to better tolerate their neighbours, abandon petty tribal allegiances, consign meaningless rituals and customs to museums, and all work towards the same goal of making this planet a better long-term bet for our children - no matter what colour flag ends up flying over their heads.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat

The Secrets of Hacker Golf

Social media is awash with professional golfers selling video training courses to help you perfect your swing, gain 50 yards on your drive and cut your handicap. They might help a few desperate souls, but the rest of us hackers already know everything we need to complete a round of golf without worrying the handicap committee or appearing on a competition winner's list. What those pros don't realise is that for us hacking golfers who very occasionally hit shots that if you hadn't seen how they were hit, end up where the pros might have put them, we already know everything we need to know - and more. Unlike pros who know how to time the perfect swing in order to caress a ball 350 yards down the centre of a fairway, we hackers need to assemble a far wider set of skills and know-how to complete 18 holes, about which pros have no comprehension, need, or desire to learn. Here are some of them: Never select your shot until after you've hit it. A variation on this is to alway