The West Should Reflect Carefully Before Condemning Putin

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia

I love my country. However, I have to say the current attacks on Putin show a lack of understanding of the factors that led to the recent conflict. The West has failed to understand the Russian perspective and as a consequence fuelled a fire that was always going to get lit. The Ukraine situation is, to the Russians, something like a combination of the Cuban Missile crisis with the Irish Troubles. The West failed to recognise this, and carried on in provocative acts whilst ultimately failing to put in place the military force needed to pay the cheques its diplomatic approach wrote.

I live in the United Kingdom, or to give it the full official name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a region on the tip of Ireland that is run by the UK. The rest has its own government independent of the UK, an EU state in its own right? Why? Well, the people of Northern Ireland are historically a mix of Protestant and Catholic Christians. They have a history of vicious, genocidal, religious conflict and the Protestant side wanted to be part of historically Protestant UK. The Catholic side, the IRA, tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher in 1984. A peace process later led to a ceasefire. This type of situation is not uncommon. The territory of the Saar Basin moved from French occupation to German rule after a referendum in 1935.

Western leaders see themselves as paragons of democracy. Some Russian and Chinese people see us a bunch of hubris-ridden imbeciles who gave the world Isis after we overthrew Saddam Hussein’s government in the Iraq war and failed to manage the aftermath. Waves of refugees from other countries where the West has gotten involved (for example, Syria) have then destabilised European nations and contributed to, for example, Brexit. Added to that, of course there has historically been a great conflict and suspicion between the US and Russia.

The Ukraine is a divided country with two eastern provinces bordering Russia, containing a number of people that want to be independent from Ukraine. Rebels have set up their own states, now recognised by Russia. These are the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. The same situation exists with Crimea. Ukraine has sought to continue to occupy these territories and also sought help from NATO – the traditional enemies of the USSR.

So to the Russians, they feel a bit like we might feel if (southern) Ireland invaded Northern Ireland and let Saddam Hussein station Scud missiles there pointed at London. War was inevitable and foreseeable. Worse, having encouraged the Ukrainian government we have failed to offer military support. The West needs to radically reconsider its strategy.

[UPDATE – 12 April 2022] – I feel I should update this article. There are a number of allegations of brutality by Russian soldiers, rapes and murders, coming out of Ukraine which, if true, are abhorrent and unacceptable. However, that only reinforces the point that by fanning the flames of a partly racial / ethnic conflict without a clear risk assessment and strategy, the West has let down the people of Ukraine.

Share Button

Smith v Baker: Judgement Update

BakerRestrained

Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn over her allegations against John Hemming. She agreed to lifelong restraint for her allegations against me.

The latest judgement in the turgid saga of Smith v Baker is out on BAILII. As readers will remember, I sued Esther Baker and most of her defence, as well as much of the counterclaim, has been struck out. She settled in a lifetime restraining agreement – a Tomlin Order, and I am still receiving my costs back in monthly instalments via High Court Enforcement Officers (High Court bailiffs basically). Some of the counterclaim limps on. There has been a favourable judgement on meaning. Judgement here.

By way of explanation, there is often a dispute in libel claims about meaning. The Claimant wants the court to find there were really damaging claims. The Defendant, that the claims held weaker meanings, or to find meanings that are easier to defend as Truth, Honest Opinion and so forth. So in this case the judge had a pre-trial held by written submissions, to decide meaning, what were allegations of meaning and fact, and what was defamatory at common law (i.e. what might be harmful).

Baker wanted some strong meanings. She did not get the. For example, about publication 1 (still up here) – one meaning she wanted was to say she was violent,

Continue reading

Share Button