Is Liz Truss intending to take the UK to war?

I have never said I was politically detached, but I am detached from the two main parties, so whether either is in power or not, I am able to take a detached view of what they do and I am prepared to both support and attack views held by both parties, without my vision being clouded by an engrained belief that my side is 'good' and the other 'bad'

I also have a built-in tendency to support the underdog in any situation. On GN, where political beliefs are strongly to the left, I will speak up for the minority, who have a view that should be fairly represented and, which, at times. I support. If political views on GN were strongly to the right I would also support the alternative view to the extent that I agreed with it.

I recently did one of those odd quizzes, on GN, or may be YouGov, which assessed my personal political beliefs as currently lying somewhere between Lib Dem and Labour. My score for both was the same, well ahead of my score for affinity with the Conservatives.

M0nica

I am not a Conservative and have never voted for either of the two main parties, so that there is no 'us' about it.

When you are not enmired in big politic parties, it is possible to take a more detached view.

?. I would not call your view detached, it is as political as every other poster. The fact that you claim not to support any of the so called big parties doesn’t mean you are detached, it means that you don’t support them that is all.

However, you certainly do have a view and it is clear from your posts.

The sentence was not personal, but a more general one about many of those on GN who wear their party on their sleeve. Of which you are not one.

M0nica, what is eating you today?

I'm not "enmired in big politic parties" either. Maybe you hadn't noticed.

I am not a Conservative and have never voted for either of the two main parties, so that there is no 'us' about it.

When you are not enmired in big politic parties, it is possible to take a more detached view.

Maybe you should have a look back at previous threads, and see the ones where some of us were praising Truss for getting Nazanin out, even praising Johnson for going to Kyiv.

But that doesn't fit with the "they just hate us" narrative, does it?

Casdon I am no defender of Liz Truss but their are many on GN who would always criticise whoever was Foreign Minister, no matter how good at the job, just because the government and minister are Conservatives.

M0nica

But whitewavemark2, you would always ignore her whatever she did, right or wrong. She is a member of a Conservative government.

Sorry, but you’re not hearing what’s being said Monica, this whole thread is specifically about her personal capabilities and fitness for the role of foreign secretary, not her political allegiance.
I suspect everybody would agree that there have been other previous Tory foreign ministers who would have carried out the role more competently and in whom people would feel much more confident knowing they were on top of the brief and not a loose canon. She scares me.

But whitewavemark2, you would always ignore her whatever she did, right or wrong. She is a member of a Conservative government.

Frankly I can’t see anyone wanting Truss as a spokesperson, for anything, particularly the USA, she is so dreadful.

The Russians of course are aware of her incompetence, just as much as the rest of us, so will only make a fuss of her “statements” if it suits them to do so. Otherwise I suspect they ignore her.

I would.

Nothing to add to that, MOnica. ?

volver

With a few exceptions, nearly everybody on here is agreeing that we need to stop Putin by whatever means are necessary.

Has it occurred to you Lupin that the USA and UK are working very closely together and this outspokeness by Liz Truss might be part of an agreed strategy?

I can't speak for Lupin but I find that to be highly unlikely. At the start of the conflict Truss said that the UK would back people from the UK who wanted to go there and fight. That, of course, would have been illegal under international law and she had to be corrected by the Defence Minister. Before the invasion she told Lavrov to his face that the UK would never accept Russia's claims to Voronezh and Rostov, and had to be told by the Ambassador that they are both part of Russia's sovereign territory.

She has no idea what she is doing, really. She is a liability. This is not politically motivated, its motivated by having an ambitious fool as Foreign Minister.

Yep

A dangerous ambitious fool.

With a few exceptions, nearly everybody on here is agreeing that we need to stop Putin by whatever means are necessary.

Has it occurred to you Lupin that the USA and UK are working very closely together and this outspokeness by Liz Truss might be part of an agreed strategy?

I can't speak for Lupin but I find that to be highly unlikely. At the start of the conflict Truss said that the UK would back people from the UK who wanted to go there and fight. That, of course, would have been illegal under international law and she had to be corrected by the Defence Minister. Before the invasion she told Lavrov to his face that the UK would never accept Russia's claims to Voronezh and Rostov, and had to be told by the Ambassador that they are both part of Russia's sovereign territory.

She has no idea what she is doing, really. She is a liability. This is not politically motivated, its motivated by having an ambitious fool as Foreign Minister.

Brilliant post M0nica

Putin is not remotely interested in saving face. Anyway he is now in a position where face-saving is not possible. Anything less than meeting his original target would be a humiliation to him, in his eyes and the eyes of the world. He is not a reasonable man prepared to negotiate. He is a totally unreasonable man with a megalomaniac nature and a long nurtured mission to rebuild the Soviet Union.

Each day he becomes more like that tinpot dictator in North Korea. But North Korea is a small country, admittedly a small country with a nuclear weapon, but Kim Jong-un knows that to use it will mean the obliteration of his country.

Putin is not a man who will graciously respond to an iron hand in a velvet glove, offering flowers. Neither will he respond to peace keeping forces etc etc That is what the west has been offering him in other countries for the last 20 years, and where has that got us or his unfortunate victims?

Back in the thread, I quoted Martin Niemollers poem. Putin has been using the principle of that poem for many years.

It started with Georgia, in 2008, Russian forces went in to 'defend' Russian nationalists and took over part of the country. In 2014, he occupied Crimea after problems in Ukraine and once again armed and supported Russian nationalists in the Donbas region of the same country.

Belorussia is entirely in the hands of Russia. It has a compliant president who has been really helpful to Putin in the current conflict and you can bet your last penny that should their be any revolt against the current Belorussian administration that Putin would be in their with the big guns and the bombs, leading to a takeover of that country also.

Moldova is next in the list. He has again encouraged rebels in the country and an area called Transnistria is a break away region effectively under Russian control. There have been mystery explosions in key facilities in Transnistria in recent days. It will not take long for Putin to say that he must invade Moldova to 'protect' Transnistria and its Russian inhabitants.

The reason Putin thought he could get away with invading Ukraine is because the West did nothing as he gradually nibbled at all these countries. When nobody did anything except protest and put in a few inadequate sanctions when he took over Crimea, he thought he had got it made.

What is happening in Ukraine today, is the result of supine Western policies when faced with him taking over other countries, region by region, until he felt that nobody would do anything if he invaded the Ukraine.

Had we continued to ignore what he did and be nice to him and suggest peace keepers and just impose sanctions on a few oligarchs, what would he have done next? Moldova, certainly, but how long before he had Estonia, Latvia and Lithunia in his sights?

I wish she would shut up and keep Putin guessing. Is it me not being aware or is America keeping rather silent? Has it occurred to you Lupin that the USA and UK are working very closely together and this outspokeness by Liz Truss might be part of an agreed strategy?

I wish she would shut up and keep Putin guessing. Is it me not being aware or is America keeping rather silent?
Putin is mad, sick and must be deranged. He is a very cruel man. Well that made me feel a bit better. Good job I'm not Lynn Truss.
I have had the feeling from the beginning that it will take the whole of Europe and America to stop Putin and I hope China stays out of it.

Monica (15.07), No of course I don’t think any such thing.
I do think that trying to match aggression with more aggression rarely leads to a good outcome.

A peace-keeping force and proposals that allow Putin to save face have just as much chance of ending the war as sending more and more guns and tanks to cause more and more death and destruction.

volver

Sorry for jumping in earlier MaizieD. Just watching from the sidelines now

No, I was glad of your intervention

Sabre rattling, a definition (note that the Yanks can't spell :

^Saber-rattling Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: overtly and often exaggeratedly threatening actions or statements (such as verbal threats or ostentatious displays of military power) that are meant to intimidate an enemy by suggesting possible use of force but jager insists that north korean saber-rattling was aimed mostly at extorting economic aid from washington, seoul and other governments …^

Talking quietly but carrying a big stick is not at all the same.

Dickens

"Putin may be a monster and a liar and we are right to send aid to the people he oppresses, but a strategist should look beyond insults to assess risks and probabilities on the ground. This moment of maximum danger demands all the judgment and skill that narrowly resolved Cuba in 1962. We should remember then that both sides had to climb down." (The Guardian - Simon Jenkins)

I don't always agree with Jenkins (nor the Guardian editorials come to that), but I think he's right here.

Is Truss a strategist? Or is she playing a dangerous game to, as Jenkins seems to be suggesting, 'excite the electorate'?

^"It is hard to imagine a more delicate and dangerous time for such antics than now. Ukraine is seeing some of the most appalling atrocities since the second world war and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. There is no conceivable excuse for what Putin is doing to his neighbour. But the burning issue is not the awfulness of war. It is what can be done to stop it."^

We should remember then that both sides had to climb down."

If Truss is listening to advice it may be that they are pushing up the hill so that they don't have to come down so far.

Sorry for jumping in earlier MaizieD. Just watching from the sidelines now

M0nica

*MaizieD said: Walk quietly but carry a big stick". I like that better than sabre rattling

I never queried the 'walking quietly' , but the difference if you also carry a big stick, compared with also carrying a sabre remains as I said, a distinction without a difference.

Still completely missing the point, MOnica.

*MaizieD said: Walk quietly but carry a big stick". I like that better than sabre rattling

I never queried the 'walking quietly' , but the difference if you also carry a big stick, compared with also carrying a sabre remains as I said, a distinction without a difference.

"Putin may be a monster and a liar and we are right to send aid to the people he oppresses, but a strategist should look beyond insults to assess risks and probabilities on the ground. This moment of maximum danger demands all the judgment and skill that narrowly resolved Cuba in 1962. We should remember then that both sides had to climb down." (The Guardian - Simon Jenkins)

I don't always agree with Jenkins (nor the Guardian editorials come to that), but I think he's right here.

Is Truss a strategist? Or is she playing a dangerous game to, as Jenkins seems to be suggesting, 'excite the electorate'?

"It is hard to imagine a more delicate and dangerous time for such antics than now. Ukraine is seeing some of the most appalling atrocities since the second world war and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. There is no conceivable excuse for what Putin is doing to his neighbour. But the burning issue is not the awfulness of war. It is what can be done to stop it."

The quote is Roosevelt's description of his "big stick diplomacy" he also described his style of foreign policy as "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis"