Even the "one assassination" doesn't pass the smell test. It seems that Litvinenko incompetently managed to poison himself. The idea that the Russians could find no better way of getting rid of him than with extremely dangerous polonium is absurd. But everything about the trial was fixed by the Russia-hating UK establishment. The same applies to the "Novichok" nonsense. Who would use weapons of mass destruction to kill one obscure ex-spy?
Isn't the Western attitude to Russia and Mr Putin personally very much like that of mediaeval Christians to the Devil and the forces of evil? It's emotionally understandable, but intellectually absurd.
The belief that "dictators" are naturally bellicose and democracies peaceful is absolute rubbish.
Athens, touted as the first European democracy, became about as continually aggressive as the USA - as soon as it became a democracy. It went on being more and more aggressive, like a political mad dog, until it attacked Syracuse - the other great democracy of the Greek world. Finally Sparta, which whatever it was certainly wasn't a democracy, defeated Athens and occupied the city, forcing the Athenians to break down their own Long Walls.
A dictator, tyrant, or any other type of monarch, has a vested interest in the health of his country. Provided he is reasonably competent and has competent advisers, such a person can do a great deal of good. Although our own Queen Elizabeth II had no executive or legislative power, I think most people would agree that she was a powerful force for good throughout her reign. Mr Putin's long rule since 2000 has coincided with immense improvements in Russia's prosperity, security, and civilisation. In "democratic" nations, governments of different parties keep chopping and changing, blaming one another, and causing division.
I would like to challenge Lord Skidelsky's suggestion that, after regaining Ukraine, Russia would want to reabsorb other ex-Soviet nations. The Russians were very happy for Ukraine to be independent until the Americans started using it to attack Russia. They also did that in Georgia, where the Americans were also stirring up trouble. But they didn't stay in Georgia. All the Russians whose opinions I know say that they wouldn't take the Baltics or the -stans at any price. Those peripheral areas where a drain on Russia's wealth, not an asset. And their people tend to be unpleasantly anti-Russian.
Even the "one assassination" doesn't pass the smell test. It seems that Litvinenko incompetently managed to poison himself. The idea that the Russians could find no better way of getting rid of him than with extremely dangerous polonium is absurd. But everything about the trial was fixed by the Russia-hating UK establishment. The same applies to the "Novichok" nonsense. Who would use weapons of mass destruction to kill one obscure ex-spy?
Isn't the Western attitude to Russia and Mr Putin personally very much like that of mediaeval Christians to the Devil and the forces of evil? It's emotionally understandable, but intellectually absurd.
The belief that "dictators" are naturally bellicose and democracies peaceful is absolute rubbish.
Athens, touted as the first European democracy, became about as continually aggressive as the USA - as soon as it became a democracy. It went on being more and more aggressive, like a political mad dog, until it attacked Syracuse - the other great democracy of the Greek world. Finally Sparta, which whatever it was certainly wasn't a democracy, defeated Athens and occupied the city, forcing the Athenians to break down their own Long Walls.
A dictator, tyrant, or any other type of monarch, has a vested interest in the health of his country. Provided he is reasonably competent and has competent advisers, such a person can do a great deal of good. Although our own Queen Elizabeth II had no executive or legislative power, I think most people would agree that she was a powerful force for good throughout her reign. Mr Putin's long rule since 2000 has coincided with immense improvements in Russia's prosperity, security, and civilisation. In "democratic" nations, governments of different parties keep chopping and changing, blaming one another, and causing division.
I would like to challenge Lord Skidelsky's suggestion that, after regaining Ukraine, Russia would want to reabsorb other ex-Soviet nations. The Russians were very happy for Ukraine to be independent until the Americans started using it to attack Russia. They also did that in Georgia, where the Americans were also stirring up trouble. But they didn't stay in Georgia. All the Russians whose opinions I know say that they wouldn't take the Baltics or the -stans at any price. Those peripheral areas where a drain on Russia's wealth, not an asset. And their people tend to be unpleasantly anti-Russian.