Corbyn's in a spot of bother here, isn't he?

[Monty92]

At their first chance since the election, a large number of senior members of the Labour party are explicitly trying to damage Corbyn.

It's one thing to have the right wing media trying to discredit you, but when senior figures in your own party are doing it it's much harder to shrug off as a conspiracy.

[Peter]

At their first chance since the election, a large number of senior members of the Labour party are explicitly trying to damage Corbyn.

It's one thing to have the right wing media trying to discredit you, but when senior figures in your own party are doing it it's much harder to shrug off as a conspiracy.

They have been trying to damage him since the very start. His hold on the Labour Party has never included several senior cliques in the PLP. THis is nothing new.

I think the bigger question is whether the material is damaging. THe whole Israelthing is a murky area that the great mass of British people dont fully understand- me included.

[Burney]

At their first chance since the election, a large number of senior members of the Labour party are explicitly trying to damage Corbyn.

It's one thing to have the right wing media trying to discredit you, but when senior figures in your own party are doing it it's much harder to shrug off as a conspiracy.

I think having The British Board of Jewish Deputies actually protesting against the Labour leader is so off-the-fvcking-scale unprecedented that even the cowards in the PLP realise they're going to have to do something. Corbyn's office are running scared, certainly.

My favourites are all the lefties using the anti-semitic trope of complaining that it's all a conspiracy by the 'Pro-Israel Lobby' to undermine Corbyn. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. :hehe:

[Burney]

They have been trying to damage him since the very start. His hold on the Labour Party has never included several senior cliques in the PLP. THis is nothing new.

I think the bigger question is whether the material is damaging. THe whole Israelthing is a murky area that the great mass of British people dont fully understand- me included.

This isn't about 'the whole Israel thing', though. This is about raw, visceral, Jew-baiting anti-semitism.

[Peter]

I think having The British Board of Jewish Deputies actually protesting against the Labour leader is so off-the-fvcking-scale unprecedented that even the cowards in the PLP realise they're going to have to do something. Corbyn's office are running scared, certainly.

My favourites are all the lefties using the anti-semitic trope of complaining that it's all a conspiracy by the 'Pro-Israel Lobby' to undermine Corbyn. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. :hehe:

But it is!!

Bloody zionists....

[Peter]

This isn't about 'the whole Israel thing', though. This is about raw, visceral, Jew-baiting anti-semitism.

I am not too convinced of that. THere is a long tradition of opposition to Israel in the british left. There is precisely no tradition of 'Jew-baiting anti semitism'....

What we are really seeing is the old hard left inability/unwillingness to moderate its view or prepare it for public consumption.

In short, they are political cretins.

[Burney]

But it is!!

Bloody zionists....

They're banging on about the Rothschilds bleeding the workers white and international banking conspiracies, p. It's the same script - virtually to the letter - as it was nearly a century ago.

[Sir C]

I am not too convinced of that. THere is a long tradition of opposition to Israel in the british left. There is precisely no tradition of 'Jew-baiting anti semitism'....

What we are really seeing is the old hard left inability/unwillingness to moderate its view or prepare it for public consumption.

In short, they are political cretins.

Eh? They're mad for the hook-nosed Rothschild banking conspirass theories, man!

[Peter]

They're banging on about the Rothschilds bleeding the workers white and international banking conspiracies, p. It's the same script - virtually to the letter - as it was nearly a century ago.

Its a hard sell, I grant you. :)

[Burney]

I am not too convinced of that. THere is a long tradition of opposition to Israel in the british left. There is precisely no tradition of 'Jew-baiting anti semitism'....

What we are really seeing is the old hard left inability/unwillingness to moderate its view or prepare it for public consumption.

In short, they are political cretins.

I'm sorry, p, but the above statement is so outrageously, jaw-droppingly untrue that I'm going to have to have a little lie down.

[eastgermanautos]

At their first chance since the election, a large number of senior members of the Labour party are explicitly trying to damage Corbyn.

It's one thing to have the right wing media trying to discredit you, but when senior figures in your own party are doing it it's much harder to shrug off as a conspiracy.

I always am interested when someone gets caught out, having failed to realize when a certain event is different than the ones that came before. I mean, I know you people went in for this silly Brexit, and you are paying the price. But the one thing you can't be accused of being is internationalists. You ran for the hills, you're hiding out in your hobbit holes. Thus, the Russians have nothing on you and you're not part of their narrative. It's just one country hitting out at another country. Not that I know much about the Corbyn, apart from his dumb beard. But he's gotta go down for this.

[Sir C]

I always am interested when someone gets caught out, having failed to realize when a certain event is different than the ones that came before. I mean, I know you people went in for this silly Brexit, and you are paying the price. But the one thing you can't be accused of being is internationalists. You ran for the hills, you're hiding out in your hobbit holes. Thus, the Russians have nothing on you and you're not part of their narrative. It's just one country hitting out at another country. Not that I know much about the Corbyn, apart from his dumb beard. But he's gotta go down for this.

Out of interest, what is the connection between Brexit, Putin and enthusiastic jew-bashing, exactly?

[Burney]

Out of interest, what is the connection between Brexit, Putin and enthusiastic jew-bashing, exactly?

I've no idea what he's on about here at all. I'm also curious as to how he's arrived at the conclusion that a country that is a key member of the UN, is the world biggest financial hub and contributes one eighth of all the foreign aid spent on the planet isn't 'internationalist', but there we are.

[Peter]

I've no idea what he's on about here at all. I'm also curious as to how he's arrived at the conclusion that a country that is a key member of the UN, is the world biggest financial hub and contributes one eighth of all the foreign aid spent on the planet isn't 'internationalist', but there we are.

THe problem is actually that we have always been internationalist- we have just never been interested in Europe because it has always been a time-consuming and expensive pain in the arse. It still is.

[Sir C]

I've no idea what he's on about here at all. I'm also curious as to how he's arrived at the conclusion that a country that is a key member of the UN, is the world biggest financial hub and contributes one eighth of all the foreign aid spent on the planet isn't 'internationalist', but there we are.

With respect to ega, he is American, and therefore has little understanding or knowledge of events outside his backyard in Buttfúck, Nowhere.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

THe problem is actually that we have always been internationalist- we have just never been interested in Europe because it has always been a time-consuming and expensive pain in the arse. It still is.

Silly me. And there was me thinking that GB foreign policy since the Reformation had been primarily European concerned with not letting all the Channel Ports fall into enemy hands and with not letting one power dominate the continent. And had spent much of our time, blood and treasure preventing these two outcomes simply because Europe was so interesting to us.

Spent the week before last with uni walking round the battlefields and cemeteries around Ypres. Lot of dead Britishers for an area we're not interested in.

We acquired an empire in an absence of a fit of mind simply to challenge the Papist Dagos and then limit the power of the Froggie Bourbons.

But no. No interest in Europe. None at all.

[Burney]

Silly me. And there was me thinking that GB foreign policy since the Reformation had been primarily European concerned with not letting all the Channel Ports fall into enemy hands and with not letting one power dominate the continent. And had spent much of our time, blood and treasure preventing these two outcomes simply because Europe was so interesting to us.

Spent the week before last with uni walking round the battlefields and cemeteries around Ypres. Lot of dead Britishers for an area we're not interested in.

We acquired an empire in an absence of a fit of mind simply to challenge the Papist Dagos and then limit the power of the Froggie Bourbons.

But no. No interest in Europe. None at all.

But that's it exactly, you see? Europe is a place we have to deal with because of its tedious geographical proximity and its inhabitants' even more tedious tendency to start wars into which we get sucked. Post-reformation (ie when we started to get Imperial ideas), however, we're not actually interested in the place, we simply have to protect ourselves from it and its ghastly inhabitants. P is quite right that it is a time consuming and expensive pain in the arse, though.

[Peter]

Silly me. And there was me thinking that GB foreign policy since the Reformation had been primarily European concerned with not letting all the Channel Ports fall into enemy hands and with not letting one power dominate the continent. And had spent much of our time, blood and treasure preventing these two outcomes simply because Europe was so interesting to us.

Spent the week before last with uni walking round the battlefields and cemeteries around Ypres. Lot of dead Britishers for an area we're not interested in.

We acquired an empire in an absence of a fit of mind simply to challenge the Papist Dagos and then limit the power of the Froggie Bourbons.

But no. No interest in Europe. None at all.

Ah. I see. Sarcasm. How quaint.

Foreign policy since '**** knows when' has been aimed at avoiding any european entanglement that we could. Of course we couldnt allow one power to dominate europe and the prevention of that has explained all of our major forays into europe- the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars. THe onlytimes, incidentally, that we have prepared a mass land army, which costs a ****ing fortune.

From at leastthe 18th century onwards our foreign goals and interests lay outside europe. I have precisely no idea what your sentence about empire means but if you are in any way suggesting that the goal of this was to snub or protect ourselves from the french, dutch or any of the other european powers then you have dramatically missed the point.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Ah. I see. Sarcasm. How quaint.

Foreign policy since '**** knows when' has been aimed at avoiding any european entanglement that we could. Of course we couldnt allow one power to dominate europe and the prevention of that has explained all of our major forays into europe- the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars. THe onlytimes, incidentally, that we have prepared a mass land army, which costs a ****ing fortune.

From at least the 18th century onwards our foreign goals and interests lay outside europe. I have precisely no idea what your sentence about empire means but if you are in any way suggesting that the goal of this was to snub or protect ourselves from the french, dutch or any of the other european powers then you have dramatically missed the point.

Utter *******s.

First English army into the Heart of Europe? Blenheim, 1704. In the War of the Spanish Succession, 1702-14.

Whether Fr and Spain united was vital to our national security.

As was who took over as Emperor, in the War of the Austrian Succession 1740-8, when a GB king became the last to lead his troops into battle, George II at Dettingen.

But we actually started that war a year early, just giving the Dagos a slapping in what was known as the War of Jenkins Ear. See? That being interested in Europe. If you cut off even one RN ear, we spend blood and treasure so you don't think we're not interested.

7 Years War. 1756-1763. Again. This was to put the nail effectively into the coffin of Fr Bourbon dominance that we'd started with the War of the League of Augsburg/War of the English Succession after the Glorious Rev. 1689-1697.

So all those wars from 1689-1763 were to cut down Louis XIV to size and then to replace Louis XV as top dog in Europe.

The next war was also a European one. The Septic Traitors War 1776-1783. This was another Anglo-French war for European supremacy, just fought abroad, and unfortunately we lost that round.

But the Frogs bankrupted themselves leading to the revolutions and then the Fr Rev and the Napoleonic Wars which, with a tiny break or two go from 1793-1815.

So all our wars from 1688-1815 were about Europe. Fact.

{Btw, I'm not taking the piss or being selective. That's what a history course at any level would say.}

[Peter]

Utter *******s.

First English army into the Heart of Europe? Blenheim, 1704. In the War of the Spanish Succession, 1702-14.

Whether Fr and Spain united was vital to our national security.

As was who took over as Emperor, in the War of the Austrian Succession 1740-8, when a GB king became the last to lead his troops into battle, George II at Dettingen.

But we actually started that war a year early, just giving the Dagos a slapping in what was known as the War of Jenkins Ear. See? That being interested in Europe. If you cut off even one RN ear, we spend blood and treasure so you don't think we're not interested.

7 Years War. 1756-1763. Again. This was to put the nail effectively into the coffin of Fr Bourbon dominance that we'd started with the War of the League of Augsburg/War of the English Succession after the Glorious Rev. 1689-1697.

So all those wars from 1689-1763 were to cut down Louis XIV to size and then to replace Louis XV as top dog in Europe.

The next war was also a European one. The Septic Traitors War 1776-1783. This was another Anglo-French war for European supremacy, just fought abroad, and unfortunately we lost that round.

But the Frogs bankrupted themselves leading to the revolutions and then the Fr Rev and the Napoleonic Wars which, with a tiny break or two go from 1793-1815.

So all our wars from 1688-1815 were about Europe. Fact.

{Btw, I'm not taking the piss or being selective. That's what a history course at any level would say.}

A history course at any level would present the American War of Independence as a war between britain and france that just happened to be fought abroad? Really???

Mine didnt. The one where I work Doesnt. I would have serious issues with any course that did to be honest- it is nonsense.

You are talking about wars. I explained in the last post that we have always had to go to war in europe for our own protection. It wasnt fun, or deliberate but a necessity. Our interests always lay further afield. The reaction to the Anglo-FRench war that just happened to be fought in America was a huge investment in our affairs in the East. Within 40 years we had developed significant basesinNorthern Malaysia, eastern India and finallySingapore. Why then? Because Britain relied on trade through its colonies and overseas possessions. THe century also saw the crown takeformal possession of the East India Company and create its largest ever army on the indian subcontinent.

in every part of those developments those on the frontline were restricted by the EastIndia Companyin India and London from irritating the Dutch or the French. Francis Light was forbidden from taking over Penang for fear of annoying the Dutch. SimilarlyRaffles was hugelyrebuked forestrablishing a port at Singapore for fear it would annoy the Dutch. Far from wanting to rub their nose in it theoverriding fear was having to deal with the *******s.

Come the 20th century and our global empire was destroyed by ****ing europe again- rampaging germans charging around annoying the French and generally being rather unpleasant.

Nobody is saying we havent spent centuries having to intervene there. The point is we didnt want to. If for no other reason than there is no money in it and the wars are long and expensive,primarily because the opposition tend to be armed.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

A history course at any level would present the American War of Independence as a war between britain and france that just happened to be fought abroad? Really???

Mine didnt. The one where I work Doesnt. I would have serious issues with any course that did to be honest- it is nonsense.

You are talking about wars. I explained in the last post that we have always had to go to war in europe for our own protection. It wasnt fun, or deliberate but a necessity. Our interests always lay further afield. The reaction to the Anglo-FRench war that just happened to be fought in America was a huge investment in our affairs in the East. Within 40 years we had developed significant basesinNorthern Malaysia, eastern India and finallySingapore. Why then? Because Britain relied on trade through its colonies and overseas possessions. THe century also saw the crown takeformal possession of the East India Company and create its largest ever army on the indian subcontinent.

in every part of those developments those on the frontline were restricted by the EastIndia Companyin India and London from irritating the Dutch or the French. Francis Light was forbidden from taking over Penang for fear of annoying the Dutch. SimilarlyRaffles was hugelyrebuked forestrablishing a port at Singapore for fear it would annoy the Dutch. Far from wanting to rub their nose in it theoverriding fear was having to deal with the *******s.

Come the 20th century and our global empire was destroyed by ****ing europe again- rampaging germans charging around annoying the French and generally being rather unpleasant.

Nobody is saying we havent spent centuries having to intervene there. The point is we didnt want to. If for no other reason than there is no money in it and the wars are long and expensive,primarily because the opposition tend to be armed.

1. I took issue with you saying C18th and you now list loads of C19th things. Eg Singapore, founded in 1820 by the EIC as a free trade port, Raj taking over from EIC 1858 after Mutiny etc

And the Dutch EIC, the VOC, went broke in the 1790s, so I fail to see how that was constraining our C19th colonialism.

Imo, you are confusing the C19th Imperialism of the Pax Britannica in the century after Waterloo with how were got there which was the C17th European warfare, known as the 2nd Hundred Years War of 1688-1815.

This post 1815 period allowed us to consolidate India, by 1821 only Sind and Punjab were outside the Subsidiary Alliance system, and we got both those in the 1840s.

As all our Eu rivals had been ****ed, we could allow free trade. As I say, Singapore was set up as a free trade port.

This turn away from C17th mercantilism is shown by the fact that we allow all the rest of Eu to join us in carving up China. Why, when we fought to stop others in India? Because, post 1815, the other Eu powers were not a threat.

This also explain the informal, free trade empire in places like Argentina, where it was what would now be called {wrongly} neo-lib or Washington Consensus imperialism.

We were so dominant, militarily and economically, that we didn't have to exclude rivals.

So yes, that's post 1815.

But you said most of the C18th and that's wrong.

The C18th was the 2nd Hundred Years War between GB and FR that was about Eu supremacy. Early mercantilist colonialism meant that these wars got fought beyond the EU theatre from 1750 onwards, but it was still about dominating Europe.

It was our victory in the C18th wars that allowed the C19th Victorian colonial and informal free trade expansion you talk about.

But that only happened because we took such an interest in Europe that instead of being able to cobble together a defensive coalition like in the old days, we were the top dog.

So sorry. C18th primarily was about our role in Europe. C19th wasn't, but C18th was. All the colonies then were just side shows to the main event. A bit like WW1 come to think about it.

[Burney]

1. I took issue with you saying C18th and you now list loads of C19th things. Eg Singapore, founded in 1820 by the EIC as a free trade port, Raj taking over from EIC 1858 after Mutiny etc

And the Dutch EIC, the VOC, went broke in the 1790s, so I fail to see how that was constraining our C19th colonialism.

Imo, you are confusing the C19th Imperialism of the Pax Britannica in the century after Waterloo with how were got there which was the C17th European warfare, known as the 2nd Hundred Years War of 1688-1815.

This post 1815 period allowed us to consolidate India, by 1821 only Sind and Punjab were outside the Subsidiary Alliance system, and we got both those in the 1840s.

As all our Eu rivals had been ****ed, we could allow free trade. As I say, Singapore was set up as a free trade port.

This turn away from C17th mercantilism is shown by the fact that we allow all the rest of Eu to join us in carving up China. Why, when we fought to stop others in India? Because, post 1815, the other Eu powers were not a threat.

This also explain the informal, free trade empire in places like Argentina, where it was what would now be called {wrongly} neo-lib or Washington Consensus imperialism.

We were so dominant, militarily and economically, that we didn't have to exclude rivals.

So yes, that's post 1815.

But you said most of the C18th and that's wrong.

The C18th was the 2nd Hundred Years War between GB and FR that was about Eu supremacy. Early mercantilist colonialism meant that these wars got fought beyond the EU theatre from 1750 onwards, but it was still about dominating Europe.

It was our victory in the C18th wars that allowed the C19th Victorian colonial and informal free trade expansion you talk about.

But that only happened because we took such an interest in Europe that instead of being able to cobble together a defensive coalition like in the old days, we were the top dog.

So sorry. C18th primarily was about our role in Europe. C19th wasn't, but C18th was. All the colonies then were just side shows to the main event. A bit like WW1 come to think about it.

My understanding of p's initial point was that, as far as Britain is concerned, Europe is always a problem rather than an opportunity. Our opportunities lie elsewhere.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

My understanding of p's initial point was that, as far as Britain is concerned, Europe is always a problem rather than an opportunity. Our opportunities lie elsewhere.

As you know full well, and can see full well from my post above, we had to take an interest in Eu to dominate so we could then dominate the globe.

My issue with P is:


From at least the 18th century onwards our foreign goals and interests lay outside europe.

No. He's mixing up post 1815 with the 1700s. The Colonial expansion after Waterloo was down to the Pax Britannica stemming from us wining the 2nd Hundred Years War.

Our C18th FP goals were all about catching up with then overtaking France as Europe's top dog.

[Sir C]

As you know full well, and can see full well from my post above, we had to take an interest in Eu to dominate so we could then dominate the globe.

My issue with P is:


From at least the 18th century onwards our foreign goals and interests lay outside europe.

No. He's mixing up post 1815 with the 1700s. The Colonial expansion after Waterloo was down to the Pax Britannica stemming from us wining the 2nd Hundred Years War.

Our C18th FP goals were all about catching up with then overtaking France as Europe's top dog.

Chill, dude. It's a hundred years this way or the other. Like, who's counting, man?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Chill, dude. It's a hundred years this way or the other. Like, who's counting, man?

:) Fair play. Dylan from the Magic Roundabout sprang to mind.

[Sir C]

:) Fair play. Dylan from the Magic Roundabout sprang to mind.

:thumbup: :smokin:

[Peter]

1. I took issue with you saying C18th and you now list loads of C19th things. Eg Singapore, founded in 1820 by the EIC as a free trade port, Raj taking over from EIC 1858 after Mutiny etc

And the Dutch EIC, the VOC, went broke in the 1790s, so I fail to see how that was constraining our C19th colonialism.

Imo, you are confusing the C19th Imperialism of the Pax Britannica in the century after Waterloo with how were got there which was the C17th European warfare, known as the 2nd Hundred Years War of 1688-1815.

This post 1815 period allowed us to consolidate India, by 1821 only Sind and Punjab were outside the Subsidiary Alliance system, and we got both those in the 1840s.

As all our Eu rivals had been ****ed, we could allow free trade. As I say, Singapore was set up as a free trade port.

This turn away from C17th mercantilism is shown by the fact that we allow all the rest of Eu to join us in carving up China. Why, when we fought to stop others in India? Because, post 1815, the other Eu powers were not a threat.

This also explain the informal, free trade empire in places like Argentina, where it was what would now be called {wrongly} neo-lib or Washington Consensus imperialism.

We were so dominant, militarily and economically, that we didn't have to exclude rivals.

So yes, that's post 1815.

But you said most of the C18th and that's wrong.

The C18th was the 2nd Hundred Years War between GB and FR that was about Eu supremacy. Early mercantilist colonialism meant that these wars got fought beyond the EU theatre from 1750 onwards, but it was still about dominating Europe.

It was our victory in the C18th wars that allowed the C19th Victorian colonial and informal free trade expansion you talk about.

But that only happened because we took such an interest in Europe that instead of being able to cobble together a defensive coalition like in the old days, we were the top dog.

So sorry. C18th primarily was about our role in Europe. C19th wasn't, but C18th was. All the colonies then were just side shows to the main event. A bit like WW1 come to think about it.

No, in fact I referenced one 19th century event- Singapore. THe early possessions in East India, PEnang, the American War- all 18th century.

You can quibble over this but even you are accepting that from the 19th century onwards we avoided Europe as much as possible. That Is more than 200 years- enough to be getting on with isnt it? And as I have said, fighting wars in Europe were always a necessity more than a day out.

[Peter]

As you know full well, and can see full well from my post above, we had to take an interest in Eu to dominate so we could then dominate the globe.

My issue with P is:


From at least the 18th century onwards our foreign goals and interests lay outside europe.

No. He's mixing up post 1815 with the 1700s. The Colonial expansion after Waterloo was down to the Pax Britannica stemming from us wining the 2nd Hundred Years War.

Our C18th FP goals were all about catching up with then overtaking France as Europe's top dog.

Well, ok. THen again you did start by talking about Ypres but now seem to be accepting that we had turned our attention away from Europe a hundred years earlier. I felt the classy thing to do was not draw attention to such level of detail but if we are going to get hung up on one line, dude.... :)

[eastgermanautos]

Utter *******s.

First English army into the Heart of Europe? Blenheim, 1704. In the War of the Spanish Succession, 1702-14.

Whether Fr and Spain united was vital to our national security.

As was who took over as Emperor, in the War of the Austrian Succession 1740-8, when a GB king became the last to lead his troops into battle, George II at Dettingen.

But we actually started that war a year early, just giving the Dagos a slapping in what was known as the War of Jenkins Ear. See? That being interested in Europe. If you cut off even one RN ear, we spend blood and treasure so you don't think we're not interested.

7 Years War. 1756-1763. Again. This was to put the nail effectively into the coffin of Fr Bourbon dominance that we'd started with the War of the League of Augsburg/War of the English Succession after the Glorious Rev. 1689-1697.

So all those wars from 1689-1763 were to cut down Louis XIV to size and then to replace Louis XV as top dog in Europe.

The next war was also a European one. The Septic Traitors War 1776-1783. This was another Anglo-French war for European supremacy, just fought abroad, and unfortunately we lost that round.

But the Frogs bankrupted themselves leading to the revolutions and then the Fr Rev and the Napoleonic Wars which, with a tiny break or two go from 1793-1815.

So all our wars from 1688-1815 were about Europe. Fact.

{Btw, I'm not taking the piss or being selective. That's what a history course at any level would say.}

Excuse me, Agincourt your dicks. Aggressivist lumpens, imposing your awful food on others.

[Peter]

Excuse me, Agincourt your dicks. Aggressivist lumpens, imposing your awful food on others.


Ah, there you are. I just wanted to say this was all your fault! :)

[eastgermanautos]

Out of interest, what is the connection between Brexit, Putin and enthusiastic jew-bashing, exactly?

Sorry for the confusion, I meant globalism rather than internationalism. Globalism is the term of derision used by jewbashing and other rightist groups. Well, a lot of folks. Putin's movement is nationalist, xenophobic, aimed at combating the ill effects of globalism, of which the fall of the Soviet Union is held to have been one.

Brexit, you took a page out of Putin's book -- albeit not an important page. More like acknowledgements or table of contents in the beginning. Foreword.

The point being, you are approaching being allies. Therefore, when Putin comes after you it looks bad. Gratuitous, unnecessary, bullying.