MY KIND OF PRIME MINISTER

I was watching the News today and they showed Mr Cameron giving his warning to Mr Putin at the G20 Meeting in Australia....very diplomatic, very polite, and very ineffectual. Then they gave a verbal account of what passed between the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and Mr Putin.......

As they met and Putin put out his hand Mr Harper shook it reluctantly saying "Well, I guess I'll shake your hand, but I have only one thing to say to you...you need to get of of Ukraine"
Putin shrugged his shoulders and smiled "I can't do that, we're not in the Ukraine."
Harper looked at him and replied "That's why I didn't want to meet you, I don't like being lied to"

I'd vote for Stephen Harper if he ever changes his nationality and wants to be the British Prime Minister.

 

That is the trouble with British politics - far too much faffing around, and not enough honest (or balls)

 

Aye, shame we are utterly rubbish at saying the truth and making our position crystal clear....

 

That's strange as I was thinking just the opposite We delayed and delayed, trying to stay out of WWI, and did exactly the same thing at the start of WWII with compromise, appeasement and more appeasement until we were forced to declare war. In every case we have always had a run down small, under equipped, military force because the Politicians didn't want the expense.....we seem to be doing the same today.
In the recent actions in the Middle East we weren't exactly keen to go into Iraq or Afghanistan although Tony Blair seemed to want to cuddle up to Bush. Since WWII the British Empire on which the Sun never set disintegrated and we were set on the road to being diminished and to become a second class power Nation. So although we are"powerful" now only in the Banking, financial trading and services we are not powerful in where it matters to Putin in our military capability. So, yes, I agree we are being laughed at right now.....by Putin.

 

We failed at diplomacy because we tried to argue for peace with countries that weren't interested in peace. So we didn't actually resort to force because diplomacy had failed....we initially used it to defend ourselves against invasion. So I'm not quite sure if you're saying we should not have used diplomacy but force straight away to stop being laughed at?? You can't criticise a country trying to use reason first even though there's a risk of being laughed at [as Putin is] or having to use force as in the case of the Falklands.
There are usually only three ways countries communicate with each other, diplomacy, sanctions and force. I for one would advocate diplomacy first, backed up with the knowledge that we have the capability to look an aggressor in the eye knowing we can defend ourselves.
In the days of the Empire and Queen Victoria the whole world was different in politics, trading and military thinking, but the world changed dramatically after WWI and we started to lose power even though we didn't realise at the time. Today's world is completely different even though we seem intent on repeating history an example of which is Putin invading the Crimea and partitioning it while the West and America looked on and did nothing. Now he's keeping us diverted by causing/supporting a civil war in Ukraine which historically has often been the starting point of a war.

 

My apologies, Clueless, I obviously wasn't being diplomatic enough To be honest I think it was due to the negativeness of your remarks that I misunderstood and unfortunately "twisted what you said :

And:

What I was trying point out, which is something you already know, is that there is a logical procedure in communications between countries in a state of tension. I must admit I can only say that we had to use Diplomacy properly from the beginning of WWI as during the Victorian age we were Masters of the World running our vast Empire and we didn't get that Empire through diplomacy
But to be honest with you I can't think of any diplomacy action in the last few decades by any country that has succeeded. Diplomacy seems to serve the purpose of delaying matters but in the end when it fails what is left?? Do we walk away from signed agreements with allies who are being threatened or already invaded?
Some countries only recognise diplomacy as a means of denying what they have been doing, even though it's blatantly obvious to the whole World, showing a contempt for those they are dealing with. In those circumstances no country will succeed in winning the diplomatic argument and will be laughed at by the opposing country.......but that doesn't make the other country weaker, it just advances the stage beyond just talking.
In this day and age, the West has reverted to the slowness of decisive action, making many speeches of many words which in reality say nothing and results in nothing done and that was the philosophy of pre WWI and WWII. I certainly don't advocate the use of force and using Sanctions does have an effect to a degree over time. But after Jaw, Jaw, Jaw, and basically being "straight faced" lied to, [and I am not referring to the present situation with Mr Putin], all we can due is fume, apply Sanctions and be diplomatic.................so we are no worse or better than any other democratic country in success diplomatically. But our deservedly ingrained dislike and distrust of our own Politicians distorts our own view of our capabilities, failure and successes.
Again, my apologies for unintentionally "twisting" what you said.

 

Now that is diplomacy in action!!