Letter to Charlie Elphicke MP, Regarding British Response to Events in the Ukraine


Dear Charlie,

I am writing as your constituent to say that I do not want any hostile response by the British Government to what the Russians are doing in the Ukraine.

We do not understand what is happening in the Ukraine. We have no control over events there. We have no vital interests in the region. As in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and all the other places we have invaded in the past few decades, there is no chance whatever that any intervention we made in the Ukraine would make life better for the ordinary people there.

Above all, the Ukraine is within the Russian sphere of influence. The Russians do have vital interests in the country, and will do whatever is necessary to secure them.

The one interest we have is to avoid a flood of refugees across the eastern border of the European Union. This is best secured by not interfering with Russian efforts to stabilise the Ukraine.

William Hague is mad to go even as far as he has to provoke the Russians. I trust that you will, the next time you see him, draw my concerns to his attention.

Best regards,

Sean

About these ads

16 responses to “Letter to Charlie Elphicke MP, Regarding British Response to Events in the Ukraine

  1. Peter Watson

    Hear Hear

  2. john warren

    My thoughts exactly…

  3. This letter does not refer to “the Crimea” (where Russians are the majority – and which was part of Russia till 1954) it says “the Ukraine”.

    Russians live in other parts of the Ukraine (not just the Crimea) so if MADE UP complaints of Russians being persecuted (no more true that Mr Hitler’s claims that Germans were being persecuted in other parts of Europe – thus giving him a “right” to intervene) justify Mr Putin”s sending in the troops, then he can do so in other parts of the Ukraine (not just the Crimea).

    Mr Putin could also “justify” intervention in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by claiming that Russians are being persecuted in these countries, all three of these Baltic nations could also be claimed to be a “Russian sphere of influence” (which is exactly what Mr Stalin did claim in his deal with Mr Hitler in 1939 – although Lithuania was a disputed case).

    I strongly urge Dr Gabb to replace the words “the Ukraine” with the words “the Crimea” and to remove the words “Russian sphere of influence” – which are a direct threat to Nato allies of the United Kingdom such as Estonia, Latvia. Lithuania and even Poland.

    As for the statement that Mr Putin (“Russia”) is seeking to “stabilise the Ukraine” – that is an obviously false statement (indeed the exact opposite of what Mr Putin is seeking to do) and, therefore, these words should also be removed from the letter.

  4. NATO is the de facto world army, controlled by the cartel of central banks, so obviously UK pulled in (City of London being ground zero for banking criminals in the first place). Ukraine is set to be pillaged by the usual round of loans, “privatisations,” and debt repayments.

  5. I repeat that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are allies (formal allies) of the United Kingdom – a doctrine of a “Russian sphere of influence” that includes all Russians (including those living outside Russia) can not, therefore, be tolerated (after all quite a few Russians live in London).

    As for what Mr Pate says.

    Sir – please do not be misled the Marxoid (NATO being controlled in the interests of the bankers – blah, blah, blah) “libertarianism” of Mr Max Keiser of RT (Russian Television). It is not even proper Marxism (hence “Marxoid”) it is stuff from someone (Max) who will say anything. As for “pillaged” – that will (as always) be Western taxpayers, the Ukrainians have little worth “pillaging” (apart from those military bases that Mr Putin wants because he lacks enough warm water ports)

    If we are to accept the RT view of the world then (for example) the failure of socialism in Venezuela is really an evil American effort to “re colonise” Latin America. And Greece, Spain (and everywhere else) could have unlimited Welfare States if only it was not for the evil “banksters”.

    In reality the credit bubble bankers have enabled the unlimited Welfare States to be carried on LONGER (not less long) than would otherwise be the case – for example all that lovely tax revenue (from loose money Central Bank antics) that Mr Brown got.

    I have opposed credit bubble banking (lending that is not from REAL SAVINGS) for decades. Just as I have opposed Central Banking (the government that stand behind the banks – and encourage them every step of the way) for decades.

    But to pretend (as RT and Max do) that one could have the Moon and Stars if only it was not for the “banksters” is false.

    I repeat the “banksters” actually allow this farce to continue longer (not less long) than it otherwise would.

    But to return to the Ukraine…..

    Let us get a clear distinction between the Crimea (over which Mr Putin might make some claim) and the rest of the Ukraine.

    O.K.?

  6. You have a point Paul but I’m not at all certain it matters in the long run. When I read Sean’s proposed letter, I thought the same way before concluding that it wouldn’t be improved by including what might be construed threats; no matter how subtle.

    Why not just let the Russians get on and look after their own security in the best way they think fit? After all, they did concede much in political terms after lifting their iron curtain.

    Surely there are things more important for the British to be thinking about right now? Our own nation’s monstrous debt level for one. The NHS in serious trouble yet again. Terrorists who seek to destroy us now firmly embedded within our towns and cities. The many and obvious problems associated with ever continuing mass immigration; the financial collapse, of epic proportions, which now threatens every family in the UK the reality of which is being denied by those in power; the corrupted BBC and the threatened break-up of the UK.

    So many problems. So many that everyone I talk to have become sick to death of hearing about them.

    Russia is rich, we are poor. They are strong militarily, we are weak militarily and becoming weaker by the day. Our nation is in peril on so many fronts for sure… but not from the Russian government and definitely not from the Russian people. In fact, it would be genuine good news to learn that a pipe line had been connected to their oil and gas reserves – even if only in order to pump up a bit of competition in what is our blatantly rigged market place. We could also talk to them about trading our ‘financial products’ for their gold, platinum and diamond stocks. Now that would be interesting to read about.

    The Russian’s build 5 of the world’s top 10 best fighter jets. Have fast and effective main battle tanks and are the only nation now seriously shooting men into outer space. They have to have some serious missiles placed all over the planet right now just ready and waiting to be fired in the direction of those who’d do them harm… wouldn’t you say? I for one don’t want to line-up with a load of suicidal ducks.

    Just leave ‘em alone to get on with what they feel they have to do.

    Sean Gabb, I hope you didn’t alter the tone or content of your letter!

  7. A doctrine that Mr Putin (“Russia”) has a legitimate “sphere of influence” wherever Russians live is wrong – I repeat there are plenty of Russians in London (as well as in formal British allies such as Estonia, Latvia and Estonia).

    It must be made clear that the Russian government (presently an FSB Mafia group led by Mr Putin) has no right to expand outside Russia,

    If people wish to argue that the Crimea is “really Russia” I am prepared to consider that, But the Ukraine in general is NOT Russia.

    As for Western Europe and the United Kingdom – well some problems are eternal (the NHS is not going to work – no matter how many times the government reorganises the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic) the Welfare State in general is like that (the assumptions it is based on have long been exposed as faulty – they do not work, the problem is “when are the people to be told that these promises of X, Y, Z are impossible”), other problems are different.

    For example why is the new nuclear power station the government in Britain has ordered costing twice as much (both to build and for the power generated) as the same model of nuclear power station being built in Finland?

    TWICE THE PRICE – why?

    It Western Europe is to turn away from Eastern problems (as I think Sean would like) then it must break its energy dependency on Russia.

    So why (for example) is Germany destroying all its nuclear power stations?

    Germany is the largest economy in Europe – and it is making itself dependent on Mr Putin’s good will. This is lunacy.

    As for the Welfare State – in Europe only tiny Liechtenstein seems to have faced to the basic point that it-does-not-work in the long term.

    The Prince assembled the people, bought them all a beer, and explained to them that the promises of the Welfare State were impossible. The people agreed.

    That approach would be rather harder in a country the size of the United Kingdom.

  8. thinkinglibertarian@hushmail.com

    I have written to my MP expressing the same sentiments.

    jan Sent using Hushma

  9. Dear Mr Gabb

    Thank you for your email, and for making your views on this clear.

    There are Foreign office questions today, followed by a statement on Ukraine, and the Government’s position will become clear after that.

    Charlie will certainly make your views known.

    Best wishes

    Alexandra Beard-Gould
    Office of Charlie Elphicke MP
    Member of Parliament for Dover & Deal
    House of Commons
    London SW1A 0AA

  10. My view, FWIW.

    Putin has probably taken the least worst option of taking back the Crimea, which was only “gifted” to Ukraine by Kruschev (a Ukrainian) when they were all one big happy Soviet family. With the US and EU forcing a confrontation in the expectation Russia would be humbled, there were limited alternatives.

    This is another fine American mess, and we can only pray that it doesn’t lead to a full scale war. It is the articulation of the Neoconservative wank fantasy of arbitrary “unipolar” American power. It’s bad enough when they’re wrecking the Middle East; it appears that they now want the same chaos in Europe (with the naive numpties of the EU playing along) and we can’t tolerate that.

    I must admit to an emotional reaction due to the location of this latest bout of Yankee up-fucking. Ukraine is in a significant sense the heart of Europe; it was the site of the first civilisation and urheimat of the Indo-Europeans who spread both West and East and brought us our languages and much of our native culture. This isn’t just any old patch of scrubby desert with a few goats and lots of sand they’re meddling with this time.

    As to just whom the unelected and unaccountable Catherine Ashton thinks she is acting on behalf of, the mind boggles. This was of course the first post-Lisbon attempt to assert the EU as a federal government with international authority. We seriously need to hang the bastards.

  11. Chris Morriss

    The word ‘Sudetenland’ comes to mind I fear,

  12. “The word ‘Sudetenland’ comes to mind I fear,”

    Other than the two situations having nothing in common.

    Especially as the only identifiable Nazis in this are Svoboda and Right Sector.

  13. Blaiming the Americans for this (as I just heard socialist ex Congressman Denis K. do) is silly.

    And the Sudetenland is indeed a good example, Mr Hitler claimed the right to move in where Germans live. Just as Mr Putin claims the right to put troops in places where Russians live.

    Russians also live in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania …… even London.

    Also it does not “avoid danger to other men” to tell blatant fibs such as that Mr Putin wants to “stabilise the Ukraine” – which is the exact opposite of what Mr Putin wants to do.

    On the other hand……..

    Mr Putin may have a claim to the Crimea – but it must be made very clear to him that a line has now be drawn, no further than the Crimea.

    It is not a way to “avoid danger” to leave Mr Putin unclear.

    Mr Putin must understand that he must go no further than the Crimea.

    He should not left be in doubt – given the idea that he may go further.

    At a minimum…….

    Military forces should be deployed to the BALTIC STATES (NOT to the Ukraine).

    I think we can all agree that the Baltic States should be VISIBLY defended.

    So that Mr Putin not be left in any state of doubt – given the idea that he can retake areas not far from his home city of St. Petersburg.

    In this way miscalculation (and thus the “danger to other men”) can be avoided.

    A security guarantee without visible deployment of military forces can cause miscalculation – as the Czechs found in 1938 and the Poles found in 1939.

    Again I think we can all agree that military forces should have been visibly deployed to Czechoslovakia in early 1938 – in order to make clear to Mr Hitler (and to the German military) that the containing alliance was real (not a piece of paper).

    The sacrifice of the networks of defences in the Sudetenland was a fatal mistake – but even with this mistake the Panzers actually broke down on the road to Prague (the military need for the Czech factories was one of the basic reasons for going in).

    The successful invasion of the West would not have been possible with the German armed forces in their pre 1938 state. Indeed had Mr Hitler ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia (in the face of Western resistance) the German military would have removed him.

    Mr Chamberlain was greatly in error in his line of policy. He did not remove “the danger to other men” – he made it much worse.

    A similar mistake was made in the run up the First World War.

    Dr Sean Gabb is greatly in error when he implies that the Conservative party favoured a softer line on Imperial German (after offers had been rejected by the Keiser).

    In reality the Conservative party position was that the Liberals had left the Germans in DOUBT – uncertain whether (or not) the British would move against them should they (the Germans) invade Belgium and Northern France.

    Also the nature of the invasion in 1914 is often forgotten.

    Belgium (as well as France) was systematically looted (things that could not be stolen were burned) – even the people (those whom the Germans did not just murder out-of-hand) were used as slave labour (in the First World War – not just the Second World War). The German war objective was to control the northern coast (and resources) of Europe – the next stage would have been to destroy Britain.

    Obviously war was unavoidable AFTER the German invasion of 1914, but the possibility remains that war could have prevented had British forces been deployed BEFORE the German invasion. Thus removing the idea (from the minds of the German elite) that Britain would not fight.

    A similar need is present now.

    Mr Putin must not be left in DOUBT.

    The commitment to the Baltic Nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be made VISIBLE – by the large scale deployment of NATO to these nations (NOT to the Ukraine – it is too late for that).

  14. Replying to the tissue-of-lies that was the German Declaration of War in 1914 (which even had France bombing Bavaria and other falsehoods), the President of France declared that the resistance to Germany would stand for the “Universal Principles” of “Reason, Justice and Liberty”.

    Now leave aside whether France was a perfect representative of any of that (no perfect representative has ever existed), did the German academic-political elite (and academia and the political elite were closer in Germany than in any other nation) believe that “universal principles” of “reason, justice and liberty” even EXISTED?

    The answer is “no they did not”.

    The German academic elite (and so on) was riddled with historicism and moral relativism – with the denial of the idea that universal principles transcended “race”, “class” and “historical period”.

    Not just in 1939 – but even in 1914.

    And that can be seen in the revolting behaviour of the German forces.

    But it does not stop there…..

    Part of the BRITISH intellectual elite was similarly degenerate. Not just the Fabians, but also the Bloomsbury Set, and people such as B. Russell (who later worked for submission to the Nazis in the 1930s “we should invite occupying German troops in for tea” [and the man was not joking] and to the Soviets from the 1950s onwards) and J.M. Keynes (see Hunter-Lewis “Where Keynes Went Wrong” for the links between the “imoralism” of Keynes – and how it ever effects his economics).

    Attitudes among the degenerate part of the British intellectual elite (and the degenerates among the French intellectual elite) towards resistance to Germany were predictable.

    Things such as the introduction of the German edition of Keynes’ “General Theory…..” in 1936 (where J.M. Keynes praises totalitarianism and rejects universal principles of liberty) should have been expected.

    Before any one points it out……..

    I am only too well aware that all the above (historicism, moral relativism – denial of universal principles that transcend “race”, “class” and “historical period”) could be applied to Mr Barack Obama – supposedly “leader of the free world”.

    On the other hand Mr Putin can not really be put into this intellectual group – as he has no real philosophy at all (being basically a Mafia thug – similar to Al Capone).

    The ironies of the present historical situation (which has put people into positions in which they do not really believe) are manifold.

    It has been this way before – for example Mr David Lloyd-George did not really believe in the universal principles of freedom that his country (i.e. those young men, and not so young men) were fighting to defend.