Terrorist attack in St Petersburg kills 11

11 people have been killed in a terrorist attack on the metro system in St Petersburg, Russia.

Chechen rebels are suspected to be behind the bomb which exploded on a train between the Sadovaya and Sennaya Ploshchad stations with another found and disarmed near the nearby Ploschad' Vosstaniya station. Whether Chechens actually were behind the attack and whether or not they are linked to ISIS (as many Chechen separatists are) remains to be seen but Russian police have confirmed that it was a terrorist attack.

St Petersburg is Vladimir Putin's home town and he was in the city at the time of the attack.

What the EU's resolution against Russian was really about and why UKIP couldn't support it

The BBC is spinning UKIP voting against an EU resolution condemning "Russian human rights abuses" as UKIP joining forces with nationalist parties to try and defeat the motion.

Here's why UKIP (and presumably other eurosceptic parties) couldn't support the resolution:

• The resolution criticises Russia for trying to compete with the EU in Europe
• Requires EU member states to agree to leave all negotiations with Russia to the EU
• Calls for "deepening of EU integration"
• Calls for more common policy areas
• Calls for more decision making powers for the EU
• Calls for the creation of an EU Energy Union
• Calls for more EU energy legislation to increase "solidarity"
• Calls for an expansion of renewable energy production
• Calls for an EU counter-propaganda programme
• Calls on member states to take action against political parties with links to Russia
• Calls for more funding for EU-approved Russian dissidents
• Calls for a ban on political parties in the EU securing funding from outside the EU

The BBC don't mention any of these things of course.

Ukraine: A Sinister Method To The EU's Madness?

Ever since Nigel Farage's incendiary - and absolutely accurate - allegation during his LBC debate with Nick Clegg that the EU had blood on it's hands over Ukraine, we have had a predictable playground level of response suggesting that it shows that Farage - and by extension probably UKIP - supports Vladimir Putin's regime.

Granted, a few brave souls, most notably James Delingpole, has rallied to Farage's defence and pointed out the idiocy of the EU's actions in trying to bring Ukraine into it's orbit: after all, anyone who knew anything about Russian history and it's paranoia of encirclement would know how it would respond even in the most benign of circumstances, let alone when the country still feels wounded and humiliated after it's defeat in the Cold War.

However, a far more interesting question is: why the hell did the EU do it?

Those fews commentators who have bothered to look at the situation have concluded, perhaps correctly, that it is simply a mixture of vanity and arrogance. The EU's quasi-religious fervour towards the European ideal simply blinded it to the manifest dangers involved.

Another probably equally valid interpretation is the desperate need to keep forward momentum: with progress towards economic and monetary union currently stalled thanks to the grotesque consequences of the Euro, EU grandees may have reckoned that the need for progress in at least one area, enlargement, was paramount unless the whole project would start to slip into reverse. So blindly fanatical is the EU in support of it's goals that it would risk confrontation with Russia just to keep the ideal alive.

All perfectly plausible, but isn't there also a case that some kind of limited confrontation with Russia would suit the EU's purposes extremely well?

The fundamental flaw concerning the European project is, of course, the lack of a common European identity. In the immortal words of Enoch Powell: "Europe can never be a democracy because there is no European demos". 

Sooner or later the EU will have to address this fundamental flaw if the EU is to survive: somehow, we must all begin to think of ourselves as Europeans. A gradual introduction of European propaganda into schools and media may work, but only over the very long term. Instead, wouldn't it be easier to unite the people against a common enemy? It's a very old and successful trick, to be sure: Britain was cemented as a concept, for example, by it's constituent Protestant nations'  common fear of the continent's Roman Catholicism.

Here Russia fits the bill perfectly: it is geographically close, it's regime unquestionably sinister and it is just powerful enough to be seen as threatening but not powerful enough to make antagonising it not worth the candle. Moreover, there is still a widespread fear and hatred of Russia, particularly in the EU's eastern european member states, that stems from the memories of Soviet communism. 

Other potential enemies arguably don't work nearly so well. The far more real threat of militant Islam is simply too dangerous too confront, given the potential for sectarian conflagration that could result in scores of European cities. America is extremely powerful but a liberal democracy which no one seriously imagines has military designs on Europe. China is too geographically distant and is militarily still puny despite it's growing economic clout.

So a Russian bogeyman works best, but could it still really be the case that the EU would be so reckless, and so cynical, to deliberately poke the Russian bear with a stick? 

In life, it is generally best not to believe conspiracy theories, and to suggest that the EU's primary motive for it's idiotic Ukrainian policy was to resurrect the Russian bogeyman may well be going too far. Then again, the construction of the European Union has been a giant conspiracy against the people from the start. One cannot entirely rule out the idea that the EU did factor in the benefits, as well the risks, of provoking Russia into taking action against Ukraine, and moved accordingly.

Crimea's referendum is neither illegal nor illegitimate

The EU and US have imposed sanctions on Russia for its continued presence in Crimea after somewhere between 93% and 97% of Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia (news reports are inconsistent).

True to form, the EU is unhappy with the result of the referendum and says they have to hold another one that gives people an option of staying in Ukraine and changing nothing. With a turnout of over 80% and more than 90% in favour of joining Russia it's hard to see what difference it would have made other than splitting the few percent that voted to stay in Ukraine with greater autonomy.

The EU and US have declared the result of the referendum illegal and unconstitutional and William Hague has repeated the EU's position as if it were his own. It's true that under Ukrainian law Crimean independence is unconstitutional but once they've declared independence - which they have - Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution no longer applies. If all that was required to stop a country declaring independence was a piece of domestic legislation then no country would become independent again.

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that international law has no "prohibition on declarations of independence" when it was considering the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. There is simply no international law against unilateral declarations of independence and it's this concept of something not being illegal because there's no law against it that confuses the EU who operate under the Roman/Napoleonic legal system where everything is wrong unless the law says it's right rather than the Common Law which says everything is right unless the law says it's wrong.

All the countries (plus the EU) that are describing Crimea's declaration of independence as illegal are motivated by self interest. The EU doesn't want to set a precedent that a country could leave a United States of Europe just because it wanted to, the UK doesn't want to set a precedent that Scotland or England could unilaterally declare independence, Spain with the Basque country, the US with Texas or Hawaii, Italy with Venice or Sicily, France with Corsica, China with Hong Kong or Macau ... need I go on?

The claims that the referendum is invalid because it was conducted under Russian occupation are equally vacuous. Whether the "defence forces" are Crimean or Russian is debatable but a moot point given the fact that they have been welcomed on the streets, there have been no reports of violence in the run-up to the referendum and the huge turnout on Sunday. Clearly those that were put off voting by the presence of these "defence forces" were insignificant in number.

The fact is, the Crimean authorities had de facto control of Crimea, it has a defined territory and population, the Crimean people have a shared history and culture and the Crimean authorities have the machinery of state to be able to conduct international relations. It ticks all the boxes.

If the EU had kept is nose out of Ukrainian affairs none of this would have happened. It was EU empire building that precipitated this whole crisis and in time we will undoubtedly find evidence that the EU sponsored the pro-EU protesters that deposed the elected president. Now that events have played out their inevitable course the EU has nothing to offer Ukraine but some temporary trade deals worth a fraction of what it had with Russia.

The Crimean people have expressed their wishes quite clearly and unequivocally and as uncomfortable as that makes world leaders trying to cling on to their own little empires, we should respect their decision and move on.

Cold War 2

The EU-sponsored coup in Ukraine has taken its inevitable course with a Russian invasion of Crimea.

Russia has had imperialist ambitions since the break-up of the USSR. The CIS was created almost immediately after the USSR broke up and a union of Russia and Belarus was created with the intention of expanding to other former Soviet states. To provide a supply of compliant republics to feed the NewSSR (see what I did there?) Russia changed its policy on breakaway republics - apart from those trying to break away from Russia of course - from ignoring them and letting them sort themselves out to supporting them, including militarily if it suits their agenda.

It is this policy of supporting pro-Russian breakaway states that led it to invade South Ossetia and Abkhazia a few years ago (both of which want to join the NewSSR) and why it has now invaded Crimea. It also helps that the ceding of Crimea to Ukraine during the days of the USSR and the subsequent failure of Russia to reintegrate Crimea immediately after the break-up of the USSR is something that still grates with the Russian people so Putin can expect public support for what he's doing.

The first cold war came about when America's sphere of influence came up against USSR's sphere of influence. The second cold war is just starting and it's the EU expanding into Russia's sphere of influence. It is inevitable and pre-mediated and demonstrates the lengths the EU will go to to expand its empire. And just like in Georgia, the EU will stand impotently on the sidelines telling Russia that they're being naughty whilst doing nothing to help.

There is no doubt that the EU sponsored the coup in Ukraine - we all know it, the Russians know it. Thousands of pro-EU protesters spent weeks in Kiev and someone supplied them with food and made sure their bills were paid while they were waving the ring of stars in the capital.

Crimea will come out of this conflict in the same state as South Ossetia and Abkhazia - recognised by Russia and a handful of the usual suspects as an independent state but officially unofficial. The EU's dream of controlling the gas and oil production in Crimea as well as its strategically important Black Sea port has come to nothing whilst Russia's relations with the west have declined once again. The world is a more dangerous and unpredictable place than it was a few weeks ago and all in the name of Russian and EU imperialism.

Russian warship comes within 30 miles of Scotland

A Russian warship has come within 30 miles of the Scottish coast, stopping just outside British territorial waters just before Christmas prompting the Royal Navy to send the only available warship left on a 24 hour journey from Portsmouth to intercept it.

Picture: Miliblog

There has been much speculation on what Russia's motives might be but it's almost certainly an escalation of the EU's attempts to extend its borders east into Russia's sphere of influence with the attempts to switch Ukraine's allegiance from Russia to the EU. The EU sees Ukraine as the jewel in the crown of the former Soviet states in eastern Europe and with most of the Russian gas imported into Europe via Ukraine, it is of great strategic importance. Expansion into eastern Europe and Ukraine's vast wealth of natural resources is so important to the EU's empire builders that they're prepared to start a Second Cold War over it.

The Ukrainian president says that Ukraine's interests lie with Russia but its government wants to get its hands on EU money (or more accurately, our money). There have been continuous protests in Kiev organised by the europhile lobby and supported by the EU to try and overthrow the president and start on the disastrous path to EU membership.

The fact that there was only one operational warship available for the whole UK is a bit concerning but of course we can rely on the French loaning us that aircraft carrier if the Russians invade ...

Cyprus told to plan for austerity

A meeting of €urozone finance ministers last week told the Cypriot government that it wasn't doing enough to get emergency aid.

The EU isn't happy with Cyprus for going to the Russians more than once for bailouts rather than submit to the EU's repressive and regressive austerity measures that are attached to a €uro bailout and the terms of any possible bailout will be punishing to send a message to any other €urozone country that is thinking of suckling at another teat.

The Russians were happy to lend €2.5bn to Cyprus a year ago but when they asked for a €5bn loan this year the Russians wanted preferential creditor status which Cyprus was unable to offer as the EU must be the preferential creditor under EU law so they said no.  This means Cyprus must now go to the EU for a bailout unless it can find another rich communist government to lend it some money and pay the price for disloyalty.

It's time to ban loans to €urozone countries

So, Greece has elected a pro-EU, pro-austerity, pro-bailout government again which will soon be implementing even more of the punishing EU-mandated austerity that led to riots earlier this year in return for increasing its crippling national debt. You can't make this stuff up.

Europhile politicians have declared the Greek result as a victory for "Europe" (they mean the EU but they don't acknowledge the existence of a Europe outside of the EU) and for the €uro.  What they refuse to accept, though, is that the result is irrelevant to the future of both the EU and the single currency.  The €uro will fail whether Greece is in it or not.  The Greece-shaped economic black hole in the €urozone is mere pocket money compared to France, Spain and Italy.

Spain is the fourth largest economy in the €urozone and they've just had to go cap in hand to the EU bailout fund to get their banks recapitalised.  The Spanish economy is in such a poor state that the yield on 10 year bonds (kind of like the interest rate on a loan) has tipped over 7% - that's the psychological barrier between moderate risk and high risk and Ireland, Portugal and Greece all crossed that line prior to collapse.  Cyprus, the €urozone country tipped to fall over next, is averaging almost 16% yields on 10 year bonds and has apparently been talking to the Russians about a loan to bail out one of its banks next week.


Spain is currently waiting for €100bn of capitalisation for its banks who have unexpectedly found that having entire towns of half-finished houses, toxic mortgages and billions of €uros of loans to bankrupt countries making up the bulk of their assets means that they might not be able to pay their bills which even more inexplicably seems to be putting institutional investors off the idea of loaning them even more money.  Spain is too big to be bailed out - there isn't enough money in the EU - which is why its banks are being bailed out directly by the EU bailout fund that is only supposed to be used to bail out countries.


Italian 10 year bonds are at just over 6% and we've yet to see the effects of Italian bank BNI freezing customer accounts for a month.  It's reasonable to assume we'll see a run on the bank when it unfreezes the accounts again and it's also reasonable to assume that as happened here with Northern Rock, a run on BNI could very well trigger the virtual collapse of the Italian banking system and force the Italian government to bail out its banks.  The big difference between a bailout of UK banks and a bailout of Italian banks is the cost - the British government is paying 4% interest on 10 year bonds, the Italian government is paying around 6%.  This might not sound like a big difference but it adds 50% onto the Italian government's cost of borrowing compared to the British government.  To put it into context, it cost £850bn to bail out RBS - with a 4% yield, that means the British government would have to pay back an extra £34bn on top of the £850bn in 10 years' time.  If the Italian government had borrowed £850bn at 6% they would be paying back £51bn on top of the £850bn - that's 3 times the GVA of Birmingham.

The €urozone is in terminal decline, UK banks need to call in their €urozone loans and the British government needs to ban any further high risk loans to €urozone countries to protect the economy from over-exposure to the €uro's imminent collapse.