Neither Five Nor Three - why dogmatists don't like arithmetic. Etc.

Mr ‘John Toe’ , using the ‘er’, opening usually favoured by people pretending to be tentative while stating the blazingly obvious, tumbles headlong into a deep pit.

 

I assume he is responding to my statement that :’Such an enormous transfer of territory from one power to another as took place between Russia and the EU after 1989 is, as far as I know, unknown in history, except as the result of humiliating defeat in actual war.  I simply cannot think of another example of such an event having taken place without such a defeat. ‘

 

 

He writes: ’Err, what about the dismantling of the British Empire Hitchens? And you give moral equivalency to a tyrannical dictatorship and democracies, fatally undermining your arguments.’

 

Well, yes, what about the British Empire, Hitchens? First of all, its dismantling was not a transfer from one power to another. Each constituent part of it became a sovereign nation. None of these parts, to my knowledge, joined any other empire or became provinces or possessions of another rival empire. Even poor put-upon Canada still has an enforced border under its own control, a currency, a legal system and its own foreign policy, all distinct from the USA.  No member of the EU boasts all of these, and some boast none of them at all. 

Secondly, it is quite possible to argue (and I often do) that the collapse of the British empire was indeed due to a humiliating defeat, specifically, the surrender to the Japanese at Singapore in early 1942, after which Britain ceased forever to be a credible military or political power in Asia. More subtly, one could also argue that Britain’s defeat in 1940 at the hands of Germany, while leaving our home islands unoccupied and technically still at war, left us so weakened in the eyes of the world, and so subjected to the wishes to the USA for ever after, that we could not hope to maintain the empire we had. As for our national bankruptcy in 1916...

 

This of course raises the other question, of it being a different kind of empire. Having the good fortune to be defended by several crucial miles of deep sea, Britain has not in modern times acquired territory for defensive purposes, as most continental powers have done and still do. In fact the British empire was always a defensive burden, requiring the maintenance of an enormous navy to keep hold of it.  The only possessions we have which are in any way comparable to Russia’s glacis territories (or Germany’s) are Scotland, Wales and Ireland, which had to be secured by English power to prevent our continental enemies from using them as bases from which to harry and destabilise us, as they have many times tried to do.

 

It could be argued that England is now losing these territories, and it could equally be argued that they are passing under the control of a rival power, the EU. And it could be argued, and is by me, that this state of affairs is the result of defeats. Alas for our understanding, these defeats (the War of National Bankruptcy (1914-1918) and the War of Submission to the USA (1939-45), plus the Surrender to the IRA of 1998) are still viewed in this country as triumphs. This could only be so in a world where arithmetic had been largely forgotten as a skill. Arithmetic is also vital in understanding the Russo-Ukraine question, as I showed in an earlier posting. But people don’t like it, because it mucks up their dogmas.

 

As A.E. Housman memorably and correctly stated: ‘To think that two and two are four, and neither five nor three, the heart of man hath long been sore – and long is like to be.’

 

The power of propaganda is beautifully illustrated in a posting form ‘Elaine’, who has become the leading spokesperson of soppy conventional wisdom on this site:

 

 ‘ Mr. Bunker If it was really a conflict between NATO and Russia then the logical compromise would be that Ukraine agree to never join NATO. They offered back in March after the annexation of Crimea. Why didn't Russia pursue that? I actually think Mark Jaremko's theory makes sense; that what they really fear is not just a prosperous Ukraine but one with better governance, because then their own corrupt system of governance is threatened.’

 

I must admit I cannot recall any offer from Ukraine to ‘never’ join NATO. This may be my fault. I am not encyclopaedic, or even Wikipaedic. Who made this offer? To whom? What was the wording of it?

I was able to find this http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html statement by Andriy Deschytsia, acting Foreign Minister of the putschist Kiev regime which seems to me to be a sort of non-committal ‘we have no plans to do so’ statement of the kind politicians make to gull the simple-minded. The naïve will think ‘no plans’ means ‘ we aren’t going to do it’. What it actually means is ‘We’d like to do this, but currently have no plans to do so formally drawn up, but we might later’. These formulations are intended to quiet speculation which is unwelcome to the politician involved, and should be treated with care. Please read the Interfax-Ukraine report of what Mr Deschytsia actually said:

 

 

"We are considering all options regarding the strengthening of our security and collective security. But we must stick to the existing legislation of Ukraine," he said at a press conference in Kyiv on Saturday.

The official noted that in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation Ukraine is a non-aligned state.

"But the issue whether to change this legislation depends on the Ukrainian parliament. The program of the new Ukrainian government does not contain the intention of becoming a member of NATO," he said.

Deschytsia added that Ukraine supports an intensive dialogue with NATO and is discussing different forms and ways of cooperation.’

 

I can well imagine some gullible western media organisation reporting this to suggest a pledge ‘never’ to join, But it plainly is no such thing. Note, however, this confirmation (from a  Ukrainian putschist source, not from some Putinite coven) of my repeated contention that Ukraine is(or rather was until it signed the EU association agreement which contains clearly political and military clauses) a non-aligned state.

 

Anyway, NATO has said NATO membership is an option, and the new Ukrainian government now says it’s a ‘priority’ http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-parliament-coalition-agreement/26703123.html

 

It was Mr Yanukovych who in 2010 said Ukraine was not aligned – a status the new government seems determined to overthrow http://itar-tass.com/en/world/747206

 

I plan to return to the NATO issue in another post. But why do people think, after the experience of such countries as Bulgaria, and Romania (to name a few) that EU membership automatically brings an end to corruption, or provides economic prosperity? If that's so, what are all thse Poles, Bulgars and Romanians doing in Britain? 

 

In the meantime, I note the contribution from Mr ‘Paul M’, who courageously declares from behind this pseudonym: ‘Mr Hitchens stop trying to deflect the appalling behaviour of the press towards Christopher Jefferies onto the police. You no doubt failed to defend him because you agreed with your journalist pals.’

 

I cannot prove that this isn’t so, you’ll have to take my word for it. It hadn’t occurred to me that I would need to prove that I had behaved badly.  Interesting question - was it morally worse for me lazily to believe the rubbish advanced against Mr Jefferies after the murder, or *not* to believe it and to chicken-heartedly say nothing in public, which is what I actually did?

 Even so, it is true that the press has been severely punished for what it did, by large payments which will certainly deter this sort of behaviour again and, in two cases by severe condemnation for contempt of court. A general slide, both by media pushing the boundaries of the presumption of innocence, and by judges feebly failing to enforce them, was halted by this case. The police, on the other hand, have not in any way been similarly chastened and I think it important to point this out. It seemed to me to be one of the lessons of the dramatised account of the case  to which I was referring.

 

In answer to Mr ‘P’, whose quarrel with me has now become so obscure that I don’t know what it is, and I suspect he doesn’t either (since he knows all my facts are correct). It seems to have something to do with Wikipedia's interpretation of Ukraine's desire to join Ukraine (which Mr P thinks has the status of holy writ) , versus mine, though this isn't even an issue for me.  

 

I've only ever stated, as is borne out by facts beyond doubt, that for Ukraine to cease to be non-aligned to and associate with the EU is a major political and diplomatic change, to the advantage of the EU and the disadvantage of Russia, and to expect Russia not to care is plain stupid. I've also maintained, and shown it be the case, that intervention by EU and US politicians, and the lavishing of EU largesse, preceded this move and could reasonably be seen to be part of the casue of it. And finally that the change, when it took place, was achieved through lawless violence and lawless breaches of constitutional rules. 

 

I have never said the EU’s expansion is ‘malevolent’. German expansion eastwards, as long as Germany exists, is a natural phenomenon which will continue as long as it is unrestrained by other forces. You might as well describe the Matterhorn as ‘malevolent’. Of course it's not.

 

It would be silly to climb the Matterhorn in shorts and a t-shirt on a winter's night, but you couldn't blame the mountain for what followed, only the silly people who ignored obvous dangers. 

 

The outcome of EU expansion itno Ukraine through the Association Agreement will undoubtedly be, and is already proving to be, highly dangerous, as it raises existential questions for Russia, which is also a natural phenomenon and currently has ‘no plans’ voluntarily to dissolve itself.

 

What puzzles me is why people such as Mr ‘P’ do not see that it would be wiser to restrain it, as NATO did when it was a proper alliance. The even deeper mystery is why anyone in Britain thinks that EU eastward expansion is something this country needs to or should support. What’s in it for us?