91Èȱ¬

'It is very curious discovering that the [Cold War] events that shaped my political consciousness are devoid of meaning to so many.'

In one sense Nick, thank god they are!

I take your point about the media's reaction. It seems that every time there is some diplomatic disagreement between Russia and a powerful Western country, or two, IT'S COLD WAR TWO!

Please... it's a storm in a tea cup. No individual country on earth has enough power and influence to challenge the West to another Cold War (yet). As I think Nick has suggested before, Putin is playing to the home crowd.

How did we come to say that the cold war had ended? It all started when Russia was with it's back against the wall caused by Communist dictatorial regime, which resulted in famine, corruption, uncertainty, lack of investment, and when Gorbachev uttered the word PERESTROIKA, the russians thought that overnight their country will transform into the USA. Freedom of speach, investment by companies from capitalist countries like UK, but after decades of erosion of the free mind the russians could not settle for learning to better themselves in a DEMOCRATIC way. People who still had their brain manipulated under the dictatorship of old, started to slow down the process with the excuse that they wanted to trim the bad parts of the capitalist system during transition!
When one gets a president the likes of Putin at the helm, one must have been blind to say that the cold war was over, just because the kremlin were not threatening us with A Bombs.
Where constitutional changes in russia are concerned (and this was an agreement between russia and the USA on the island of Malta), not much has actually changed in russia.
The war was and is still on, only the threats had somewhat stopped for some time.
The main reason for this Nick, is the fact that democracy and freedom of speach as we know it in the west NEVER materialised in russia, especially under Putin!

I agree with Jonathan. This is not a return to another cold war nor is it close to one. This is a measured response to a country that appears to believe it can engage in assasinations on foriegn soil.

What is dissapointing is that some journalists (including some within the 91Èȱ¬) are trying to have us believe it is. This is sensationalism of the worse kind and journalists should concentrate on the facts instead of fostering rumour and innuendo.

If Russia decides to use its vast energy reserves as a weapon (and it has shown it self only too willing) then it could be a very cold war indeed for Britain. Let us all hope that sanity prevails sooner rather than later. The murder in London by radioactive poisoning was of course unnacceptable, and if Putin refuses to cooperate in the quest for justice then we have to assume some measure of Russian state involvement. Frankly, however, the fact that radioactive substances can be smuggled into the UK is much more of a concern to me, given the current terrorist threat from suicidal extremists, than a dispute between two nation states, even if one of them is Russia.

"Sky's normally flawless Adam Boulton" - hmmm. Flawless gems are marked by total transparency... pretty accurate except referring to Boulton as a gem is rather wide of the mark.

Russia is zig-zagging its way towards some form of democracy.

It may not be particularly recognisable to us in 'the West' but given Russian history over the last century, then it could probably be marked as 'reasonable progress'.

I think the 'British' Government is being rather short-sighted in its dealings here.

Russia is very important to us English for all sorts of reasons, not the least being energy supplies.

The pragmatic solution would have been to agree to the Litvenko trial being held in Russia, however imperfect that may be.

Maybe Brown/Millipede have notions of resurrecting some sort of ethical foreign policy.

Fine ... until the lights go out.

It's about time someone stood up to Russia, I for one am sick of seeing someone like Putin swan around international events while we all ignore the many political imprisonments and occasional murders of his opponents, bully’s only respond to strength, therefore it is right that we take a stand.

The Cold War was interesting as a comparison of extreme values and as much as I have sympathy for the Soviets trapped in relative poverty, so the excesses of American decadence evoke a certain amount of sympathy. For Soviet hunger, we have American drug addiction. For Soviet exclusion from commerce, we have American environmental damage. For Soviet equality of the sexes, we have American over-competitiveness. So, as you can see, the picture isn't as black and white as some would suppose.

I was reflecting, today, how the Americans greatly benefited from the "liberated" Mexican territories brimming with oil, and generations of European intellectuals, artists, and factory fodder. The American attitude framed by George Washington and successive Hollywood producers and advertising executives, has been very successful in innovating, exploiting, and dominating many spheres of activity. The ego of feudalism has never been writ so large. I'll give them credit for having gotten away with it for so long.

I've spoken to many people who feel some sense of empathy for the former Soviet states and who respect Vladimir Putin for his clarity of mind, sense of purpose, and keeping on top of a rocky situation. The current spat is unfortunate but opinions of some of their more garrulous Generals and the bigger game being played suggest a more low key and expansive approach is unfolding. The Russians have a lot of domestic intellectual firepower and goodwill among many people in the world. I hope they focus more on that.

The black and white, winners and losers, ultra-competitive game of America, the likes of Boris Johnson, and the various swaggering captains of industry is a tempting strategy but playing the more laid back and long-term game is more certain to accumulate capital. Indeed, transcending this dualism and recognising how everything is connected and how we hurt ourselves when we hurt others, is a more astute and sensible path to follow. Of course, if you're a journalist addicted to razzle dazzle that won't happen will it, Nick?

My belief is that we should send and land a man on Mars before the Ruskies do it first.

Gary

What is GB playing at? Putin may be posturing to his home crowd, but he also has the ability to disrupt energy supplies to the EU, and he will almost certainly do this.

Why do politicians have to play the tough act? I'm not saying that we roll over and play dead to Putin, but there is no way the Russians are going to extradite anyone to the UK.

This is no laughing matter and certainly there's no room for nostalgia about ten minute warnings and the like.

We have done the right thing and must await their response

Did you hear that reply from Moscow Nick? So behind all the rhetoric, what Moscow is saying between the lines, We are now one of the main providers of energy to the EU coutries (not UK - thank God) and the fact that Britain will be seeking EU consensus to the UK measures against russia, will put these EU countries in a precarious position.
And to put it bluntly Nick, the russians are saying that we will hold the EU countries that we supply with energy, to ransom, if they agree with UK measures!
Communism as we never forgot it, is lifting it's head again.

He's only been PM three weeks and already Gordon Brown has been faced with some big tests - and passed them all with flying colours.

Britain was backed into a corner and has been forced to act. Miliband had no choice but to expel these diplomats.

The UK needs to demonstrate that we won't just be walked over by any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Now a George, maybe. But that's a different matter..

To compare Russia today with the Soviet Union and call the diplomatic tensions between Russia and Britain or the US comparable to the cold war is ludicrous. Those who grew up after the USSR's demise or have forgotten history should be reminded that the USSR was a messianic state whose goal was to impose its political and economic systems and control on all of humanity. As a power with a vast nuclear arsenal and large well equipped conventional military, it was a threat to the entire world. Nothing even remotely comparable exists today. It is a strange truth of the bizarre logic of nuclear weapons that although the US and Russia don't have any quarrel even remotely justifying the remaining nuclear arsenals they have aimed at each other, neither side can step down for fear of being vulnerable to the other. The worst conceivabl consequences of the difficulties between Russia and Britain are insignificant in comparison to what could have resulted from the cold war.

Charles E Hardwidte #11, you've got it quite wrong on many accounts. The cold war was a case of extreme differences of views of society all right, communist tyranny versus capitalist democracy. Now that the USSR is gone, few who experienced it would agree that there was much merit in communism, just those who lost their generous pensions for work they never did. Only demagogues like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and their desparately poor followers looking for any ray of hope for a better life cling to it. There is no "Soviet hunger" because there is no Soviet Union and I don't see any sign of mass starvation in Russia. Drug addiction is not just an American problem it is a worldwide problem and Europe suffers along with everyone else. Russians are not excluded from commerce, in fact they are doing quite well in it with exports of oil and gas and could bleed Europe dry if prices continue to escalate. There is environmental damage all over the world, nowhere more so than in former Communist countries including the former USSR (Chernobyl is just one example) its satellites states in the Warsaw pact, and China. Europe is hardly immune. Meanwhile the USA has gone a long way to cleaing up its own environment at great expense. I'll bet there are a higher percentage of women in executive positions in both private industry and in government in the US than in most other nations including the former USSR. Our next President may be a woman. At the time of the wars in which Texas and the southwestern US became part of the US, there were few except indigenous Native American tribes living there whose connection with and allegience to Mexico was no stronger than to the US. In fact most Mexicans living in that territory were in small towns built around Catholic missionaries. The Alamo was a missionary. The oil under that land was predominantly in Texas. America never has been a feudal nation, it was a capitalist country from the very start. However, Europe in general and Britain in particular were feudal states and you can still see vestages of it in the Aristocracy and Monarchy.

The political problem of Russia today is a war between oligarchs who were allowed to steal most of the assets of the USSR after its demise making it a "kleptocracy" with the tacit understanding that they stay out of politics so as not to use their money to buy political power and the KGB since the oligarchs have reneged on their promise and now want political influence as well. Whichever side wins, the Russian people lose.

'He also has the ability to disrupt energy supplies to the UK'

Does he? How?

All a bit silly: Here we are expelling 4 Russian diplomats while giving sanctuary to countless Chechen terrorists and Russian 'mafia' types.

Get some sense of proportion. This is a spat - no a cold war.

Now what is expelling Russian diplomats actually going to achieve...? apart from headlines?

Apart from expulsions from Russia?

A UK trial ?

Nope.

So it's all political flag waving and flimflam..

If the political commentators would draw back and post some calm thinking... but of course harsh reality is the Government does not want them to.

And before anyone says we have to stand up for the rule of law etc... just remember the BAE bribery fiasco..

This is just politics.

The difference is; this is about oil. Forty years ago, it was about military power.