Monday, August 11, 2008


About a year ago, I attended one of the Freedom Association's Freedom in the City talks at which the speaker was the Georgian Ambassador to the UK. A few weeks before, a number of rockets had landed in Georgia and, although no one had accepted responsibility, the ambassador was in no doubt as to their provenance—nor was anyone else, for that matter. The ambassador then proceded to predict, pretty accurately, the events of the past week or so (including the EU's craven lack of balls in answering Russian aggression).

The ambassador very much hoped that Georgia—whose people regard themselves as unique but closer to European than Russian—would be allowed to join NATO, as this might be the only thing that would stop eventual invasion by Russia An Unnamed Power.

Today, the Times reminds us of the result of those deliberations.
Of course, many Nato members will consider how, had Georgia already been a member, they would have had to defend it. Germany will win more support for its argument, which dominated the Nato summit in April, that it would be wrong to offer membership for fear of provoking Russia and while its territory remains in dispute. Alarm at this near-war on Europe’s borders will easily persuade more governments of the need for caution.

The Nato summit was a clash of philosophies about Europe’s future. On one side was President Bush, making one of his best speeches, about the value of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into Nato as an assertion of common principles. On the other was Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, laying out why this should be postponed, perhaps for ever, even at the cost of undermining the pro-Western camp in Georgia. (British officials let it be known that they were on the American side in sympathy, but as the US would not win, they were “on the side of compromise”.)

So, the main reason for not letting Georgia join a military organisation, the members of which pledge to defend one another in the face of aggression, is that the members of NATO might actually have to defend Georgia in the face of military aggression. This is disgusting cowardice and we might have known that it would be led by the fucking Germans. I'll bet the fucking French backed 'em all the way, as well.

Our government, craven little shits that they are, decided to undermine the American position and side with those screaming turds in the EU, because our state lackeys lack balls. What a bunch of bastards.

As soon as Russia started making moves against the Ukraine and Georgia, i.e. well over a year ago, we should have fast-tracked those countries into NATO as a matter of fucking principle. Unfortunately, the only principle that we seem to be adopting these days is that of appeasement, as articulated by Helen Szamuely in her guest-post at Iain Dale's place.
The further you go in appeasement, the more difficult it gets to stop the bully. We can do nothing for Georgia, though the Americans will be able to supply some technical assistance, such as anti-aircraft missiles. Our best hope is that Russia will get bogged down in another Caucasian war and might want out at a not too distant future.

There are other countries to consider. If Georgia is put under Russian control, its duly elected government is dismissed and the nascent democracy is destroyed, who will be the next on Russia’s list? Ukraine? The Baltic States? Eastern Europe? They are all worried and would like some assurance from their allies (I do not include Germany and France or the EU with its common foreign policy among these) that the same fate will not befall them.

It is time to stand up to the bully. Ukraine’s membership of NATO should be speeded up and Russia should be told that those energy agreements may be up for revision sooner than expected. The Kremlin needs to sell oil and gas and, at present, has no other outlet for it. Russia, we are told, is to be applauded for standing up for her interests. Fine. But it is time we stood up for our interests and, in the process, supported our allies.

I entirely agree, but we will not do so. This is firstly because, logistically (with our military forces spread throughout the world and bogged down in the Middle East), we are in no position to make good on any sabre-rattling—and Russia knows this.

Tied to this is the fact that we know that we would receive no support at best, and active opposition at worst, from our cowardly EU allies who, for all their talk of the civilising effect of the EU and all the claptrap talked about the EU as an effective powerbloc, these bloody little cunts have no stomach for making difficult choices. The EU countries would far rather be left to civilise people by means of petty regulations on banana-curvature or the minutiae of insurance contracts than actually stand up for freedom. There are those, of course, who might do even more than imply that the EU might have some fellow-feeling for the old Soviet Union.

The third reason that we will do nothing is because our Foreign Office is led by a screamingly cowardly policy wonk who genuinely believes that no one is playing power-politics anymore.
A few days ago, I was acting as a Fifth Columnist at the Fabian Society Spring Conference—an amusing account of which Trixy has indulged in. Batshit was giving the keynote speech and it was whilst I was listening to the tail end of his encomium to his own ability that I understood why Britain is in such a shitty position in the world.

You see, Batshit seems genuinely to believe that other countries are no longer indulging in "brinksmanship and powerbroking", and that we have some magical world of mutual co-operation; this is, of course, the kind of dangerously naive attitude that could only be held by a particularly stupid Communist.

If all of our negotiations have been made on the basis that other countries are never trying to screw us over for advantage—and this attitude is one that must have been prevalent in the Foreign Office before Batshit arrived there; he could hardly have established this opinion in the few short months that he has been Foreign Secretary—then it is hardly surprising that we always come off worst. We might as well bend over, hold our collective bumcheeks open and wait for the inevitable, painful arse-raping.

But, of course, our government are too craven even to do that: instead, our FO mandarins are standing by and nodding sagely whilst the Georgians get fucked. And, as Helen pointed out, who's next? Whichever state it is, we can be pretty sure that we will still stand by and watch them get fucked too; if we are feeling particularly daring, we may be able to sneak some lube in so that their raping will not be as painful as it might otherwise be, but we will do nothing to stop said violation.

What though, will happen if the Russians decide to target an EU nation? Estonia perhaps? Perhaps there will be a bright side to that for I believe that the EU will do nothing, even then. And then the illusion of the EU powerbloc will be shattered and all will come tumbling down.

And then, maybe, we in Britain might finally be able to take back our collective balls and start standing up for our allies.

Don't hold your breath...


Anonymous said...

"The EU countries would far rather be left to civilise people by means of petty regulations on banana-curvature or the minutiae of insurance contracts than actually stand up for freedom"

The EU has no interest in Freedom, why should it?

Georgia has absolutely nothing to do with me and I intend to keep it that way. I have learned that 99% of the world is corrupt, unjust and cruel. It's enough to keep the wankers from coming up my garden path let alone worrying what is happening a long way away.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know why Russia is always run by lunatics? If Russia's last few leaders had been living in this country they would have spent their days peacefully weaving baskets in an institution somewhere, not stampeding around with the big red nuclear button in one hand and their nuts in the other.

FlipC said...

Mmm so we have a small area that has declared (and voted) on becoming independent from its larger host country and its Russia backing its independence bid!

Sheesh let Georgia into NATO on the proviso that South Ossetia is recognised as an independent country.

Russia can't attack Georgia without a NATO intervention and Georgia can't attack Ossetia without Russian retaliation.

If it turns out to be a Russian ploy to take over then its their own fault for trusting them.

Tomrat said...


Last time I checked I thought the official LPUK line was to withdraw from NATO; why would you be extolling its virtues to others? Whats good for the goose...

Aside from that you are right, as is Helen at EU Ref - the particularly shitty nature of the germs and the surrender monkeies is obscene; I doubt very much their civilians would take much comfort in turning on their gas cookers if it meant burning Georgian remains to do so.

As it stands there is little we can do; i'll be asking my friend upstairs to intercede where he can though...

Devil's Kitchen said...


"Last time I checked I thought the official LPUK line was to withdraw from NATO; why would you be extolling its virtues to others? Whats good for the goose..."

Am I not allowed to have any opinion other than those that LPUK extols now?

Personally, I see a small country being attacked by another country; that small country has asked for aid against that country. We need to work out who the aggressor is, really, but this is no different from a person asking others to help defend his possessions from another person. If we like, we can try to help.

What some in LPUK dislike about NATO is that, under the terms of said treaty, were Georgia actually in NATO, we would be compelled to help.

Personally I don't have too much of a problem with NATO -- or, at least, nowhere near as much of a problem as I have with the EU and UN.


Anonymous said...

Problem is, this whole mess is largely the creation of the west.

When we invaded Kosovo in the name of creating an ethnically-pure Albanian-ruled state, we set a precedent for irredentism. You would have had to have been extremely short-sighted or extremely not to understand that Russia would do in the old Soviet Union exactly what we were doing the old Yugoslavia.

Moreover, by encouraging the Georgians to believe that we would defend them, we pretty much gave Saakashvili carte blanche to invade South Ossetia (and, lest we forget, it was the Georgians, not the Russians, who started this particular round of shooting).

Western foreign policies over the last ten years have been naive and utterly lacking in forethought - and this was as true under Major and Clinton as under Bush II and Bliar-Broon. We have assumed that Russia would be permanently weak, that the USA would be the permanent global hyperpower, that we could magically re-draw maps to settle centuries-old disputes.

Moreover, when we invaded Kosovo and carved up Serbia (who is not only Russia's close friend and cultural relative but a faithful ally in two world wars - while the Croats and Bosniaks fought on the other side), we humiliated Russia and invited them to do the same to us. Only the very badly-informed would not have understood that whatever we did in Kosovo would be revisited upon us in South Ossetia.

But our countries are run by the badly-informed and western foreign policies have shown all the usual characteristics of statist know-it-all government.

NATO should never have been poking around in Russia's so-called "Near Abroad" because it was always bound to end in tears. It was inevitable that Russia would regain some of its old strength and it was equally inevitable that no-one in NATO would be willing to start World War 3 for the sake of a region that most people couldn't find on a map - and make no mistake: wank as much about "appeasement" as you like; Russia will fight the west for control of the old Soviet Union. So unless you really believe that South Ossetia is a good reason to destroy the planet, let's just accept that this stupid little war is none of our business and that, had our politicians actually had an ounce of nous, we would be no more involved in the politics of Georgia than in those of Chechnya.

Hell, if our politicians had had the wit God gave the common louse, they'd have left Kosovo well enough alone. Neither Kosovo nor South Ossetia nor the whole of the fucking Caucusus is worth the blood of a single British soldier.

John B said...

I'm with Anonymous and Flipc here - the South Ossetians are a Russian-speaking minority who the Georgians treat badly and who want independence, so the Russian action is pretty much fair enough; and for the West to give Georgia *any* signals that we'd back them over South Ossetia or Abkhazia was a really stupid idea.

Anonymous said...

Hey Guys, Love the Blog and love the reader posts, and generally have a great deal of respect for your opinions.......However...

Am I missing the point here? Did I miss some fundemental part in the development of all this or were Georgia, in fact, the aggressors? (honestly, I'm sure I must have missed seems so clear to me and yet this site (that I respect) seems to run contrary to my views).

If Georigia were the aggressors, then why doesn't Russia have the right to come to the aid of its neighbour S. Ossetia ?? And had Georgia been a member of NATO, and then attacked S. Ossetia what should have NATOs reation been? to back them up with military force (basically leading to a NATO sponsored invasion)or the expel them? Do you guys condone NATO lead invasions? If not and you agree that in this scenario Georgia would have been expelled, what is the point of arguing that they should have been given NATO membership ?

If on the otherhand I'm wrong, and it is RUSSIA that started all this by randomly invading Georgia then I agree whole heartedly with this blog.

I have no wish to get flamed (though I'm quite thick skinned and don't really give a fuck if I am) but I am genuinely confused. Everything that I have read indicates that Georgia attacked / invaded S. Ossetia and Russia came to her aid in Iraq / Kuwait vs UN / USA / UK style, and yet its Russia that it painted as the worng doers. Now I'm certainly not 'Pro Russian' and fucking detest the entire idea of comunism / state control of citizens however I DO believe in fair play and hosest dealings. If Georgia attacked S. Ossetia and pissed Russia off then fuck em, what the fuck gives NATO / UN / USA / UK the right to dictate who defends who in the face of agression ??

On a separate subject DK, LOVE the Blog - its become a daily read. Your posts on AGW and the current shower of cunts that we have in Govt are particularly enlightening.

Devil's Kitchen said...

John B,

"for the West to give Georgia *any* signals that we'd back them over South Ossetia or Abkhazia was a really stupid idea."

I agree with you there. To an extent.

"so the Russian action is pretty much fair enough"

But legal? I seem to remember in the Balkans crisis, there was a big debate about whether or not it was a civil war. The idea was, if it was a civil war, we couldn't get involved; if not, then we could. Is that right?

So, if we should not get involved in Ossetia -- which has never been recognised as a separate state, despite declaring itself separate a number of times -- then neither should the Russians.

We can blame the Georgians as much as we like (and be partially justified) but this will not end happily. And it will end even less happy if the Russians grab a hold of the pipeline which was built, lest we forget, in order that we might have at least one method of delivery that was not controlled by an increasingly bullish and erratic Russia.

Let's get on with building those nukes, sharpish...


Devil's Kitchen said...


Thanks for your compliments! On this question, the whole thing is a bit of a mess, but the sequence seems to be this...

S. Ossetia has declared itself independent a number of times, but has never been formally recognised as a country in its own right.

The Russians have been playing silly buggers around there for some time. The Georgians have been doing the same.

A few days ago, the Ossetians basically made another bid for independence, backing their demand with Russian-backed militia. The Georgians sent the army to quell the militia.

The point here is that I think that we can allow that the Georgians are allowed to quell rebellion in their own country, which S. Ossetia is.

Russia, however, has no right to cross the border into an independent country and effectively invade some of that country's territory.

As I say, there are parallels with the Balkans. It required us to recognise the Balkan territories as independent countries before we could get involved (IIRC, Germany recognised Bosnia and all hell broke loose).


Anonymous said...

Many thanks DK, thats cleared up my misconceptions about what is going on over there (why can't the fucking press put things so succinctly).

Mark Wadsworth said...

DK, that seems like a fair summary, but why on earth should we get involved?

NATO, like EU, UN etc has become totally detached from reality and is just a glorified talking shop.

John B said...

DK - when was Kosovo recognised as a separate state? I mean, if we're going to recognise our occupation of Kosovo as illegal and send the politicians concerned to the Hague, fair play - otherwise, I'm not sure we've got much moral ground to be criticising the Russians.

And yes, if the Russians invade Georgia proper and gain control of the pipeline, that'll be a Very Bad Thing. I'd be surprised if this action went beyond military humiliation and the annexation of the two Russian territories, though.

Devil's Kitchen said...

John B,

As of February 2008, 45 countries have recognised Kosovo's independence.

However, I believe that the pretext for entering Kosovo was genocide, which obliges the UN to interfere in the afflicted state (this was also the justification for UN intervention in Rwanda).

You are quite correct in that our pretext for getting involved in the Balkans was very, very flimsy (it hinged on whether it was a war of aggression or a civil war). It was a source of long and heated debate, if you recall.


Anonymous said...

DK wrote:
Let's get on with building those nukes, sharpish...

Do you know where large amounts of the world's uranium comes from? Hint: not Wales.

Devil's Kitchen said...


The world's largest supplier of uranium is currently Canada (25%). Other big exporters unlikely to give us gyp are: Australia, South Africa, USA and Portugal.



Dr Evil said...

And which NATO countries would leap to our aid if we were attacked?

The USA and Canada and may be the Netherlands based on the situation in Afghanistan. Our other European partners stay well away from the fighting.

Anonymous said...

DK - ignore the AGW guff in the first 3/4 paras of this page, but read the rest. It's not just current output and demand, but future needs across the world. Is a possible future reliance on Kazakhstan any safer than Russia?

Old Holborn said...

It's getting ugly Patrick

Fidothedog said...

Milicunt/band has always been a coward, I am surprised that it only now being noticed.

Just look at his past activities:

The buck passing re Shambo, rather than acting his passed the buck or rather bullock onto the Welsh Arsembly to deal with.

He was head of Defra at the time and should have ordered the TB reactors destruction as per the rules.

Then the Gillian Gibbons affair over the Mohammed Teddy bear fiasco, where he was no doubt crapping himself at having to call in the Sudanese headchopper and took a whole three days to do so.

A craven of the lowest order, roll on the day he is dragged kicking and screaming like a girl to the gallows to dance his last.

Anonymous said...

Old Holborn said...

Not what you'd hear from the BBC or CNN, but much more in line with what I've been reading in the non-Western media (and although Debka is not always the most reliable of sources, Haaretz have stood up most of the Israeli involvement stories).

IanPJ said...

Perhaps regime change is on the mind of the Russians.

The Georgian Embassy in Estonia is reporting that they have seen Igor Giorgadze.

In Gali district of Abkhazia, Georgia has appeared Igor Giorgadze.

p.s. Most of the Georgian government sites are now working out of embassies or on Blogger.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...