TO what do we owe the present hue and cry over Russia? It reached such ludicrous proportions that the tabloids were suggesting that the World Cup would be played to empty stadia, and terrorised by hooligans. But it has a much more serious and sinister content.
From the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 until recently the Western Powers had an almost unlimited ability to intervene with military force to enact regime change anywhere on the planet. From the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s, and the complicity in the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya more recently, no political force was capable of opposing the diktats of the western powers, led by the US.
Syria has changed everything. Though still a shadow of the former USSR, Vladimir Putin's Russia has stabilised politically and economically enough for it to have been able to give sufficient military support to its ally President Assad for Syria to be able to defeat the coalition of jihadis that the west tried to portray as "freedom fighters".
This could not be tolerated. Hence the hue and cry.
I have no idea whether the KGB did or did not poison a superannuated Russian spy any more than I have as to whether President Assad did or did not use poison gas against his own people. I have seen no evidence of either, and await such patiently. But I do remember the "evidence" we were given as to the existence of Saddam's chemical weapons a decade and a half ago, and have a justifiable suspicion that this hue and cry
may provide us with nothing more substantive now, than it did then. And as to Russia "interfering" in the US election, what parallel universe do those making such accusations inhabit? Of course, the US and the EU do not interfere in elections, except possibly in the Ukraine when millions in arms and cash have been given to the right-wing nationalist forces now in power, who overthrew a legitimately elected government that was pro-Russian. One would laugh, if only not to cry at this bare-faced use of double standards.
Ian R Mitchell,
21 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel