Everton, USM, Moshiri and Bramley-Moore Dock

Since the first talk of sanctions against Putin's inner-circle, which Usmanov indisputably is, I wondered if the sanctions will cause Moshiri to have to sell up.

The Blues' partnership with Cazoo began in the summer of 2020, with the initial deal expiring this summer. It is understood that the termination of this sponsorship is not connected to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

A Cazoo statement to The Athletic read: "We can confirm that the Cazoo sponsorship of Everton Football Club will not continue after the end of the current season.

There's a lot of work to do for the commercial department in the next few weeks and months.

That we can move to a two-stage financing if we cannot secure the long-term loans is a silver lining but rates are going up no doubt. We do have to consider moving to an asset value building model with players. Perhaps when Moshiri gets in deep, he'll give Robert Tressell a call for some solid advice.

There will be Chinese sponsor problems as well, I suspect, with their move to suppress games because of the display of Ukranian solidarity. We will probably get one of the bigger hits on finances but I think we avoid the trap door and come out a better club. Provided Moshiri's arm's length relationship is enough to avoid further scrutiny.

We get a billionaire in unison with an even richer billionaire. Spend like there is no tomorrow (really not a good phrase under the circumstances), financially worse off with the FFP and worse off on the pitch.

Then sources of income (ie, sponsorship) gets taken away. I've absolutely no concern that we should ditch the Russian sponsorship now or for ever. There are bigger things going on in the world than football right now. It's a big challenge for the club financially going forward.

We are slightly different in as much as Moshiri is the major shareholder and Usmanov is a very beneficial sponsor. Although the investment from Usmanov still couldn't prevent Everton from coming close to transgressing the FFP rules. So now, because Usmanov can't put in any more money, how will this impact on the new stadium and the future transfer spending?

I watched Tuchel's press conference and he said they havent looked at possible summer transfers, but you could tell from his reply that he and Chelsea are very much in limbo and have no idea what position they will be in come the summer. I am sure he is concerned that this might lead to a mass exodus of his players come the summer.

I think it will be very important to see what stance Moshiri takes over the coming weeks, will he want to stay seeing his boss and friend can't have any financial input, and will he still want to fund the ongoing stadium costs going forward.

These are really worrying times and if it comes to Moshiri selling Everton then we may well end up having to sell our best players and maybe if we are forced to do that, maybe Frank would then consider Everton mission impossible without the funds he would need to get us back challenging for honours.

JP Gbamin has played his first two games with CSKA Moscow, a league game at Spartak Moscow last Saturday and a Russian Cup tie with Sochi on Wednesday.

So whoever is paying who for what in that deal -- whether it be in pounds, euros, rubles or dollars -- apparently those funds are still changing hands.

Some folks here were speculating that the loan would be cancelled when the sanctions were imposed.

Nope.

"It might be that Moshiri's comment when he first arrived saying that as long as he is associated with the club money won't be a problem, is accurate. Unfortunately for everyone, the substance, the truth behind that statement is about to be tested to the extreme."

That comment was obviously made in ignorance of what was later to pass in Ukraine. Just when we thought we were on our way to a new stadium...

Would he pull the plug on the stadium? Would that cut his losses? Would that make little sense at this stage (assuming the new stadium would increase revenue)?

And I assume it would be out of the question to try to reduce the BMD building costs by reducing capacity, given the stage we're at with the plans, planning permission, and initial build.

New revenue streams are going to be difficult to obtain given world economic circumstances and the costs of loans are now starting to rise significantly. Is it Liverpool City Council that are guaranteeing £45M or the Merseyside Councils as a whole? If not, I reckon Wirral and Sefton councils could chip in, as they will both benefit by having a World Class stadium built on the Mersey and the tourists it will attract to matches and their spending in those 3 council areas. Still, even if they could, it would be nowhere near enough to fill the black hole that has suddenly appeared.

Only the sale of our best players could fill some of the gap but where does that leave the team and the spending required this summer? Not good.

Even so, my support and I believe the support of all Evertonians for Ukraine and Mykolenko, will never cease. Long live Ukraine.

Add in the medium and longer-term issues around credibility for lenders and moving forward on both the playing and commercial side and it all looks bleak.

Paul – what are your suggestions for the Board? I appreciate we have said before they take no notice but your views would help us all to see if whatever action or inaction is occurring is sensible and appropriate.

Looking from the outside and not knowing exactly the extent of Moshiri's losses, we do indeed seem in a very difficult financial situation. My guess is we will offload some players in the summer.

Also, it would not surprise me if construction on the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock was suspended until the situation in Ukraine is sorted out and Moshiri either looks for a buyer or brings in a partner.

Perhaps Moshiri might look to the US for investors...

On a very tentative and tenuously weak positive note. The best we can hope for is that ;

1) Moshiri has the financial clout safe, secure and clean. He is a massively experienced accountant, so it is a possibility that contingency plans for any eventuality have been always in place. Bear in mind that Usmanov was always strategically at arm's length with regard to official ownership.

2) Moshiri sells up to another multi-billionaire who sees the potential of a new stadium and future revenue streams. Moshiri may well sell at a bargain price if his finances are in need of liquidity or he just wants out.

For fun, The wild card,

3) Moshiri sells it to us fans as a gesture of goodwill. 100,000 shares at a bagga sand each. We'll run the club by consensus.

Paul, you I hereby nominate you Chief Financial Officer.

Moshiri gets his £700 million back, and the other £500 million to finish the stadium, means that I'm staying positive, for the time being.

That's if this war doesn't really escalate, which doesn't look like this is the case, right now.

I wish you were near the mark for the valuation of Everton, but I fear were well short of the £ 1 billion. Chelsea have a ground in a very lucrative area which would be worth probably more than our whole club is worth.

Also they are perennial Champions League qualifiers as well as existing Champions. They have a squad worth maybe 10 times what our squad may be worth. Also, the lure of being in London will be a big attraction to any foreign buyer.

The one intangible at the moment is that Usmanov refutes the claims made against him and threatens to take his case to court. Also, Everton have only suspended their ties with Usmanov's companies and not completely severed any ties with him.

Yes, Chelsea's ground is in an expensive area. But aren't they looking to rebuild? In a currently cramped location? Which will be costly? And presumably no prospects of them moving??

Seems to mean:

- the stadium may not now get built, at least within anticipated timescales.

- the club may well change hands again, which could be for the good or bad.

- recruitment is now even more challenging.

On that last score, we are surely not in a position to add a few decent signings and somehow start competing. We're miles away from that - especially after the (let's be honest) slightly weird acquisitions of Patterson, Mykolenko and Alli.

We have to hunt much harder for, not just value, but quality at low cost – and start shopping in the markets that offer it.

Apparently Joe Biden and his administration has been working on many of the recent sanctions and punishments for Russia since before last Christmas.

Everton FC has been in a state of flux since last summer, and has had the feel of a club about to undergo major changes, whether that is purely the need to reform the management team or preparing the club for sale, something which the lamentably unreliable Richard Keys claimed to be the case quite some time ago.

We'll see how things go in the next few months; it may be the case that we are well and truly screwed, but it'll still be the club we support... unless of course we decide to do otherwise.

Not doing the whole virtue signalling about how people elsewhere have it worse, but we'll survive. Rangers came back, Leeds came back, Man City came back, Aston Villa came back, Nottm Forest are coming back……

Stadiums been a millstone around our neck for a while now; if it doesn't happen, then stamping our feet ain't going to help anyone or anything.

Surely even the Premier League isn't going to impose FFP on a club who didn't foresee this unforeseeable shit, so Moshiri had two options;

1) Find a way of finishing what he started;
2) Find a way of getting someone else to do so instead.

The 3rd option of “fold and walk away” is slim at best. I'd hazard a guess that it's more likely that the Premier League / government seize the asset and sell to highest bidder is more likely. What they maybe should be doing rather than letting Abramovich pocket a billion to take back to Russia.

Whatever will be, will be… but whilst there's 40,000 Evertonians lined up for every game, and another few hundred thousand buying their kit and tops, we'll be okay. One way or the other.

"I'd hazard a guess that it's more likely that the Premier League or Government seize the asset and sell to highest bidder is more likely."

What, the Premier League could seize Goodison?! The government could seize Goodison? And BMD?!

On what basis?!

VAR have the power to review past interviews with chairman and seize their assets if they don't like what they see.

As such, the people with the purse strings, their advisors, and their accountants could very likely have been readying the ground for this. No pun intended re the stadium.

I just can't see how a financial player of such magnitude didn't have Plan B set up with his pal, Moshiri. It's not like Putin's maniac manoeverings were a surprise.

We'll be fine.

The eventual regeneration will be so massive that its long-term stability will be ensured. And Russia, like all pariah states, will eventually come back into the fold.

Money always talks.

The Premier League does not have the standing unless there is a clause in their shareholder contracts with clubs.

I think the UK Government does have legislation that would allow them to take over the assets in a caretaker capacity, managing the assets to prevent depreciation. The ICC has recognized the UK law and so could be used as a vehicle to seize assets should cause be found.

And why would they be interested in protecting EFC assets from depreciation? I see no reason for the UK Government to be able to argue it should seize EFC assets.

"There is another take on all of this doom and gloom: what if Moshiri and Usmanov were well aware about what was coming, not the actual outbreak of war, but the sanctions bandwagon rolling into town?"

I would agree, this was likely, and Moshiri made contingency plans. As we've seen, his disengaging from Usmanov was immediate.

Still wondering how his personal fortune is or will be affected.

I'm not going to lay out a case for the UK Government prosecution.

I'm just stating that I believe the vehicle exists under international law to seize assets of certain Specially Designated Nationals who run afoul of the ICC or UK law. The management of the assets following seizure is done to avoid the assets just decaying in value while the case proceeds.

I think the process may be to freeze assets as a case is deemed pursuable then seize the assets as the case is presented and then settle up upon adjudication.

The seized assets could be returned to the defendant which is the reason the Government acts as fiduciary.

I'm not an international lawyer and might be out on a limb.

At this point you've got some "arms length transactions" [US legal term not sure if a similar concept is in play in UK, I would think so] that could play in Moshiri's and Everton's favor.

Are they separate enough from the SDN or are they a controlled asset by the SDN? That is probably the first step in figuring out if assets are just ringfenced or if there is legitimate separation of the entities running the club and the SDN.

TW is a large community. I'm sure someone better educated on this is holding out and possibly having a laugh at the amateurs.

He was the one who found Moshiri and convinced him to sink his fortune into this club. He knew the background of Moshiri and Usmanov at Arsenal, so should have foreseen this was possible.

If he had held on, he could have sold to the Saudis rather than them buy Newcastle. It is all his fault.

The air already feels cleaner. Atletico Madrid and Bilbao, those sort of clubs are the model because they are authentic. That shitty little scrap in the cup last night and Lampard's early management show signs that we are embarking on the right, difficult journey.

I don't want our club to be about the money and being run by rich buffoons. If we have to abandon the stadium, so be it. Let's hunker down, be canny and be true to ourselves.

I have always been of the opinion that Everton 's ownership and control was set up from the start of the takeover, so as to be able to deal with the authorities and that is what is happening now.

As for finances the situation has changed, but it has also changed for the main protagonists in that finance. They will have to change and hopefully Everton will develop into the main outlet for monies, as all other outlets are closed off.

Collectively we could all end up holding our noses as the situation is sorted.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I believe "Let's hunker down, be canny and be true to ourselves" is a direct quote from Lampard's pregame pep talk before the Man City game.

I like it.

Way before Kenwright sold us out to them, they were easily identifiable as ruthless pillagers who'd made their money from unconscionable greed to the massive cost of the still impoverished Russian people. (Kenwright previously having massively and publicly promoted Chris Samuelson to the fan-base as a viable conduit to another bent Russian oligarch's illicit £billions, showing without argument that Kenwright was a knowing, wholly self-serving, conniving bastard when it came to our club's welfare.)

The oligarchs began under Yeltsin in the '90s but they immediately realised that Putin conniving to seize power in 2000 meant they had to become even more craven towards him to sustain their already fabulous wealth, and to continue to be dishonest in the hope of creating even more illicit wealth for themselves. Those were Putin's terms.

They almost all chose the latter option (one who didn't spent 10 years in Russian cells as a consequence and lost "his" wealth).

Given the innate deviousness of Usmanov and his puppet Moshiri, I'm sadly confident that the window-dressing of the here and now regarding Everton with USM 'suspension' etc etc is a mere token gesture towards whatever they imagine 'accountable integrity' might mean.

Our boardroom floats or sinks with them in their self chosen slime.

With regards to a couple of responses.

I too think we are in a different situation to Chelsea as the connection with Usmanov was less direct than theirs with Abramovich. We clearly now have a sponsorship void in funds rather than direct ownership.

Whilst I agree, we are nowhere near Chelsea's value, we are an attractive proposition for an investor or sponsor with the stadium plans and vision.

Chelsea are constrained with the current stadium. As impressive as it is compared to the barren Stamford Bridge I visited in the 1980s, they have little (if any) room for expansion, so a stadium move appears their only option. Or stay where they are.

We have to bear in mind that investors often take on potential rather than a finished article. Even if they develop and then sell onto someone else. From my recollection, that's what happened with Chelsea (Matthew Harding??) and also with Man City. Before the Sheiks invested in City, the corrupt Thailand politician had already raised them a level? Likewise, Chelsea had been progressing on and off the pitch before Abramovich pushed them over the line?

It may not be Moshiri who takes us to the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock and into Europe, but someone will. I personally hope it is Moshiri. I believe he believes in his project and I quite like him. His failing is keeping the people around him in place at board level and being ill-advised by people who apparently know football and Everton. Maybe now, given the circumstances and the suspension of ties to Usmanov, he actually has an opportunity to grasp full ownership.

I know it's a play with words, but I do take note of the use of 'suspended' versus 'cancelled' or 'terminated'. I might be over-analysing, but the language is telling. Suspension isn't permanent.

Let's see how this plays out. It's not like we're never going to do business with Russia again. Once Putin fails, the sanctions will be relieved and we'll all be friends again. And I do believe that Putin will fail. Despite having the 9 lives of a cat in terms of staying in power for as long as he has, this is his 10th and final one.

Sadly this was probably always the case but, with the previous backing from the ridiculously wealthy Usmanov, you could see a way forward. Clearly this is no longer the case and Mr Moshiri will have some immediate and longer-term financial problems to solve. Sadly there is nothing we or our weak Board can do and our immediate financial future is in his hands.

In the overall terrible situation that this totally unnecessary war has created, the future of Everton Football Club is of little consequence. We all have to hope and perhaps pray that the war ends soon; however, as of today, that looks unlikely. In the circumstances, all we can do is perform with dignity and offer our help and support to all those who are suffering. To its credit to date, the club have been exemplary in their actions.

For the team, it has to be business as usual and, from now until the end of the season, every game and every result will be critical. Now more than ever, we will need to retain our Premier League status and the pressure on Frank and the team will be unremitting.

The loss of Usmanov and his cash may well be a negative to Everton but possibly there will be someone out there who wants to waste his money on the ego trip of owning a Premier League club.

We can only hope whoever comes in, should Moshiri bail out, isn't duped by allowing The World's Greatest Evertonian to remain in place and banishes him to his own boys pen in the corner of Gwladys Street.

Mind you, Kenwright buying a season ticket will be the only money he's ever put into the club.

With the war, sanctions and sponsorship losses, it's not just the stadium construction that's going to end, its the end of the road for Moshiri, its just a matter of time and losses he is willing to take, but there is no other option than a sale of the club.

If Moshiri does try to hang on to the train set like his predecessor, then expect major player sales in the summer. If relegation doesn't happen this season, it will next. It's total and utter incompetence that's led to this point.

The loss of sponsorship and revenue will probably delay the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, especially if the funding has yet to be secured. We will never get sponsorship deals like the ones Moshiri secured from his mate Usmanov.

It all smacks of money laundering. Moshiri washing Usmanov's dirty money.

The fact that Moshiri was Usmanov's accountant means that they must have discussed financial matters in great detail.

The Premier League is full of dirty money and corrupt club owners. Anywhere where big money changes hands, criminals are not far away. These people have not amassed mind-blowing fortunes by being kind and considerate.

27 May 1992 was the day football died.

Depending on one's perspective, of course. 😎

The issue with politics, business and football has been greed and dirty money regardless of where it comes from. Suddenly we don't like or want to be associated with Russian money even though until 2 weeks ago, we gladly dined at the table.

I don't wish to appease, make excuses for out of order behaviour or sound controversial. I've been to enough conflict torn places in my life to respect rights to freedom and standing up to aggression, often at the cost of life or limb.

But our collective hypocrisy is in question. In the '80s, it was the Soviet Union. Over the decades, we supported Iran then Iraq, then we didn't like Iran anymore. We turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, even Israel's questionable "robust" approach. We talk about China. And just that –talk with little action.

Right now, the pantomime villain is rightfully Putin's Russia, but there are many other actors out there whose money we don't turn our noses up at. We (the public) are being sucked into the outrage that our politicians and media want us to drink from.

Apologies. No offence meant. I know where I stand.

Do you think that could catch on as the Everton crowd anthem.

Or will it be John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance if and when the war is over.

Putin is rumoured to love The Beatles.

Once we maintain our Premier League status I have great hopes that we will move in the right direction with the current manager. The new stadium should help put us on a completely different financial footing.

Be it the USSR in Afghanistan, NATO in Afghanistan, NATO in Iraq, and today Russia in Ukraine to name but a few of the more recent conflicts, not many of the above incursions proved successful in the long run and I doubt if the current one will prove any different.

The big difference with the current conflict is its closeness to us all both geographically and by the exceptional coverage being provided by the journalists on the ground.

With your military background you have probably seen more than many, and I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the hypocrisy of our Government.

We quite happily ignore Israel taking more and more Palestine land without any rebuke. We turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia killing many women and children with their indiscriminate bombing of Yemen.

The Westminster Russian Forum, which was previously the Conservative Friends of Russia, which lobbied for Russian funding of Conservative MPs is being wound up. But not one of these donors are on the sanction list. It seems quite common knowledge that the Prime Minister's wife was instrumental in setting up this group.

Danny, I am sure with your military background you will have seen how over the last 10 years we have massively reduced our armed services, along with the Dutch who up to a few months ago were going to decommission all of its remaining tanks, and the Germans had been planning to do the same with many of their fighter aircraft.

Just back in October, when Boris Johnson appeared at a defence select committee told Tobias Ellwood that the days of tanks rolling into neighbouring countries was a thing of the past.

So with many Western Countries demilitarising no doubt Putin looked at this as a sign of weakness and I also think that a lot of Russian money poured into the Vote Leave campaign as Putin thought this would destabilise the Western alliance.

Rant over – back to football issues from now on.

How would it look if, after doing that at Government insistence or suggestion, they looked to further inflict restrictions on Everton Football Club? Like it or not, and look as hard as you want, but there is no further official connection to anything or anyone against whom sanctions have been levied.

We really need now to approach those bodies that can inflict points deductions and the like that our case is treated with sympathy or those same rules are suspended for the duration of the present situation.

On the bright side, we do have a very competent accountant almost at the helm.

A simple google search revealed this article reporting UN Condemnation of the Soviets, including China (as I understand the report).

Overwhelming UN Vote Condemns Soviets

A second search recalls the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics by more than 60 nations – including Communist China.

6 Times the Olympics Were Boycotted

Honestly, it is hard to invest in each and everyone of these. It's human nature; we have limits and we pick our causes. Look how many decades it took us to wake up to Apartheid in South Africa.

However, this invasion is a game-changer on a historic level. For some reason, we thought the days of such a mass military invasion were over. Yes, there were "annexations" of the Crimea and in Georgia but such a huge casualty-causing invasion to take over a nation of 40 million people in one of the largest nations in Europe was almost unthinkable.

This is not just a bad act on a scale of 1-10 that deems being compared to what has gone on previously, this is a whole new threat to world order.

Not only does this invasion threaten to wipe a nation of 40 million off the map, it is a show-down between the two types of governmental systems (democracy and autocracy).

What we also have now is also a conflict between the most powerful nations on earth with Europe, North America and much of the rest of the world lining up against Russia and her allies/client-states. This is one where you have to pick a side. The stakes are too big.

Germany has been praised in the last few days for doubling it's Defence Budget.

Well, a certain very unpopular President had been calling them out for years for under-investment and contribution to NATO.

This move is symbolic but will paper over the cracks. It wasn't too long ago that Europes largest country by population only had about 6 tanks and several aircraft that were combat effective. Their military is pretty ineffective, so the move being lauded by the media is simply them playing catch up. A bit like investing in a Tier 4 football club to try and get them up to a decent standard.

The only European forces that can pack a punch are the UK and France. The latter when they choose to do so; they are notoriously selective in the fights they choose.

It's also quite well documented that the current UK Government has been caught with its pants down and snouts in the trough – and even with the sanctions being announced, they are allowing those sanctioned plenty of time to move their ill-gotten gains to safer havens.

I would imagine Usmanov and Co have plenty of cash safely stashed away; Londongrad is not the money laundering capital of the world for nothing.

Of course a quick sale is not an option as we hover above the relegation zone, and the situation regarding our new stadium. Short term is we must stay up because I don't think any of the analysis in the article has imagined the doomsday scenario of us going down.

The more the rest of the World come out and do things to stifle Russia, the better. Sports is one way of punishing them but it cannot do it alone. Many other sanctions need to be done. The ordinary people of Russia are not to blame. They are all scared of speaking out against this corrupt, abhorrent character Putin.

Just a pity the Chinese don't say or do anything.

If I lived in Taiwan, I'd be looking over my shoulder. Sleepy Joe is only half awake and if he can see anything it will be Ukrainian (or is it Iranian?) orientated.

I hope his advisers are on the ball... and somebody is ready with the 25th amendment thing, though his replacement doesn't fill me with too much hope either. But at least she's not borderline gaga.

If that psycho Putin really is a Beatles fan it's a shame his favourite song is "I Wanna Hold Your Land" as far as I'm concerned.

Putin is and always was a man without a scrap of conscience or humanity. When in 1999 he was a relatively unknown Russian Prime Minister, hoping to succeed his thoroughly corrupt President backer, Yeltsin, in the top job, there was a series of major bombings at night in working-class apartment blocks in several lesser Russian cities. Hundreds were killed and more maimed in these atrocities.

He and Yeltsin blamed Chechniks and immediately invaded their territory, killing and maiming thousands more and destroying their land, but never managing to convict one single Chechnik of the atrocities.

Meanwhile a straight KGB investigator had taken it upon himself to investigate those atrocities. He was arrested and sent down for 2 years by Putin. His evidence pointed towards Yeltsin and Putin as the culprits. On his release, he restarted his investigation, and got arrested again, with another 2 years in pokey.

Whilst this was going on, that self-serving liar, Blair, was publicly hugging Putin, now the President on account of Russia's "fabulous" decimation of the Chechins. And so began the prostitution of Londongrad to any vile billionaire cock that wanted sating – expanded way more when Cameron, May then Johnson occupied No 10.

All of this has been publicly reported for years, and way before Usmanov's glove-puppet was selected by Kenwright as the ideal man to take our club to new heights – becoming a mega-millionaire himself in the process, of course.

The words "An' If Yer Know Yer 'Istory" seem wholly sick in these circumstances.

Great post, were you in the RAF?

Isn't the great majority of that money owed by the football club to the major shareholder?

Trumpie and his coterie of cowards are still cheering Putin on today, continuing a rich tradition of Republican bootlicking. Remember Bush? "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be straightforward and trustworthy."

Obama and Biden knew better. They took no crap from Putin, and no backward steps. And Biden is handling this appalling situation with fortitude, a characteristic utterly lacking in his predecessor. He wasn't my first choice for president either, but there's nobody I'd rather have in charge in this situation.

One more thing. It's a conservative mantra right now that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still president. Well, he wouldn't. Putin had no reason to invade when he had a groveling fanboy in the White House doing everything he could to subvert Ukraine's democracy himself, while also sabotaging NATO and Allied relations at every turn. Putin saw Biden reversing that damage, re-engaging with NATO and cleaning up our relationship with Ukraine. And so he launched -- out of fear of a strengthening West, not any perception of weakening.

China has said something, unfortunately. Xi is supporting Putin and wants his people to do the same. China is bombarding its citizens with pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine propaganda about Putin trying to defeat fascism. All actual news coverage of the invasion is blocked or tightly filtered in China.

A lot in what you say but might one of Putin's aims be to show that NATO really won't take up arms to defend you so not a lot of point joining that sort of defence pact? And I suppose you have to ask isn't that the sort of thing that set off WW1?

And how many countries that were trading with Russia before this invasion have totally ceased and what would be the point when it would in any case come through the back door of China?

Sorry but that is absolute bollocks and you had the cheek to call Derek's post dim.

NATO is established as a defensive alliance to protect the 30 countries who form its membership. Unfortunately, its purpose is not to defend countries outside the alliance despite all our anger at what is occurring in Ukraine.

Russia interfered in the US presidential election, but Trump refused to condemn it. Instead, he spent his presidency flattering and pandering to Putin. The results of which are seen today. If I was an American, I would have regarded his behaviour as a national humiliation.

And of course, Trump actually planned to withdraw the US from NATO if he got his second term. Watching Republicans and Fox News trying to argue away Putin's barbarity demonstrates how morally distorted they have become.

I have been mulling over my own perspective and could not help feeling that this whole "chase an oligarch" smacks of being seen to be doing something rather than doing something that's needed.

Smacking oligarchs may give some a self-righteous justification, but it's not new, blind eyes have been turned away for 20 years. It won't make a smidgen of difference to Putin and his personal war. All the West is doing is being seen to be doing something but not getting involved.

But here is the problem, the sanctions that hurt the people are designed to put pressure on Putin; again, he doesn't give a toss about that, but sending arms to Ukraine, cutting off economic export funds will really bite, hence why Putin has warned that its tantamount to declaring war on Russia and he has a point.

But it was his gamble, the pretence of a special military operation has given way to indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilians.

If he continues, which I think he will, the risk of escalation will increase; if he uses chemical or thermal bombings indiscriminately, I fear the West will have no choice. If they don't, then Putin will know NATO is weak and he will continue to acquire former colonies one by one.

The only way to stop a bully is to call him out. Instead, we have mass wringing of hands and rhetoric. We are fast coming to a trigger point. Failing to stand up will invalidate NATO forever, it's fast becoming too late for Ukraine, but expansion is Putin's aim, unpopular as it may be but he has to be stopped.

NATO isn't obligated here because Ukraine isn't a member. However, Ukraine took the first definitive steps towards NATO membership in 2019 when the democratically elected government amended their Constitution. Trump's own lawyer and campaign guru had both been in Ukraine working with Russian spies and pro-Putin politicians to subvert the government (and dig up dirt on the Biden family). And when the US ambassador to Ukraine found out what they were up to, Trump fired her.

In 2019 Trump blocked all military aid from the US to Ukraine and made the fateful blackmail phone call to President Zelenskyy that eventually resulted in Trump's impeachment. Trump's own national security policy expert for Russia testified before Congress that Trump was deliberately supporting Russia's objective of undercutting Ukraine's democracy and political stability.

As for the China "backdoor", I'm no expert but I think that's not really possible. China does buy a lot of Russian oil and natural gas, for example, and they will certainly continue to do so. But they're not going to buy more than they need at sky-high prices just to support Putin, and they couldn't export it elsewhere on Russia's behalf.

Forget NATO for a moment, the rise of a dictator of such size, strength and belligerence is a threat to all states irrespective of the red herring that NATO is.

This is a military game of chicken or Tzu Sun, the art of War. It's dangerous but leaving Ukraine high and dry against a vastly superior and indiscriminate force smacks of politics, not strength.

That is kind of a first step to joining NATO and has resulted in many joint military exercises over the past decade or two. But we held off and kept them (Ukraine) at arm's length.

Where the West has fallen short (in my humble opinion), is that it kept Ukraine in limbo because of being fearful of upsetting the Russian bear, as they knew that would be provocative.

To use a Scouse term - shithouse.

Ukraine is a pawn in the game. The West won't commit like they have with other former Soviet states and satellites. And for Russia, it's a red line.

Despite the 'after the horse has bolted' outrage, we have no obligation other than to express our outrage.

If we had been that concerned, we'd have acted sooner and ignored Russian concerns. But we didn't.

Danny #91, yes but there was another element -- Ukraine went back and forth a couple of times after those early overtures, as new presidents took office. Ukraine didn't officially declare intent to join NATO and the EU until 2019. And Trump immediately committed to sabotaging them.

After decades of throwing his weight around, eg, Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Salisbury, murdering his own people etc… Putin has walked into a trap like a rat hungry for cheese.

Ukraine will be his Afghanistan. He will flatten the cities. Kill thousands of innocents. Install a puppet government etc… but like Afghanistan, the West will feed the insurgency and bleed him, and Russia, dry.

Sanctions, economic collapse plus body bags will see, hopefully, the end of this murderous thug and his kleptocracy.

We should've stood up to this maniac years ago but better late than never.

I'd be concerned at the risk of being too simplistic about Nato and Article 5. Your domino theory can't be discounted, but Nato remains a huge deterrent, which is what it has been put in place for.

Unfortunately, Putin is an extreme risk, it goes without saying, and now he is laying the groundwork for claiming the West has provoked him into escalating the war to ever more dangerous levels.

Also Danny, your claims about what the West should or shouldn't have done. The history of Ukraine is incredibly complex, the East-West power play that has been going on for many years defies such simplistic platitudes, I fear.

The West are increasingly turning the screw, while Putin shows no sign of backing down. These are extremely dangerous times.

This will be a long game. Which won't help 24/7 news who want to sort it out tomorrow.

My point is we have been submissive to Putin for decades. There is almost little point expressing outrage and despair at something we have ignored literally for decades. We took our eye off the ball so to speak.

As for Europe, the current President was a former German Defence Minister who issued the German Army with brush shafts rather than guns and then accused the German Army of poor leadership, which seriously pissed them off. She was shuffled off to Europe soon after that. Her competence has not imposed and is as happy as a pig in shit with outrage, clapping and beaming in the European Parliament. There is no way a United European force will get involved; Britain is heading in the other direction anyway. America is still America First, even under Biden.

This is the reason why Russian connections have invested readily in the UK. Some have been lucky enough to have a ready-made stooge in place to front their offshore financial manoverings. At Everton, they will be able to continue with impunity and more adaptable legal offshore manovering.

Ukraine will be a TV news cycle for most of us. The Chelsea sale will go through, to be controlled by a god knows who Swiss consortium and Usmanov will rearrange his finances as preplanned to keep his projects going, as he tries to get his yacht back.

This tragedy has so many comparisons to Europe in the 1930s. Surely we have learnt our lessons. Never again?

Trump is an absolute cunt. No-one knows what mighta, shudda, cudda… but to praise the war-mongering Democrats as being a force for good is just as stupid as saying Trump should come back.

The explosions would lead to radiation 'fallout' affecting life throughout the earth, not just in northern Europe, including the UK. So the war is not going to end with a victor, but with many losers.

Did Biden hand the initiative on energy to Putin on Day 1 in office by cancelling one pipeline that days later Putin got this going again that had been stopped by Trump's sanctions?

Did Putin start amassing troops on Ukraine's border in March last year just months into Biden's presidency?

Have NATO countries met their obligations in terms of defence spending?

Why did Germany put most of their energy in the hands of the Russians whilst paying them fortunes at the same time?

All called out by Trump, so hardly the actions of someone supporting Putin, but hey ho, if people want to believe the Clintons, good luck with that future.

Sadly, there are many things, people and countries who have played a part in all this. One thing's for sure: not one of them really give a damn about any of us and, whilst we all argue the toss, the poor people of Ukraine are suffering.

It's a nuanced situation and with significant dangers. There has been significant external influence on Ukrainian domestic politics for many years, but especially so for the last 15. It was only just over 12years ago pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych was elected, and a mere 8 since he was forced into exile following the Revolution of Dignity.

Yanukovych's attempts to reject closer ties with Europe and the EU in favour of closer relations with Putin and Russia was enormously unpopular among the Ukrianian population and led to his ouster. His removal was followed by a flood of nationalistic fervour and lead to an immensely different national parliament flowing from the 2014 elections. Yanukovych was sentenced to 13 years in prison in absentia for high treason in 2019.

Ukrainian politics had changed enormously by then however. In 2014, Ukraine formally renounced it's non-aligned status and the then President, Petro Poroshenko, promised a referendum on Nato membership.

By 2017, the Ukrainian government had formalized in law Nato membership as a foreign policy goal. By 2018, Nato had accepted Ukraine as an aspiring member and, in 2019, a 331-54 vote in parliament approved changes to the Ukrainian constitution allowing EU and Nato membership.

A long-term and concerted international lobbying action by last year was starting to bear fruit. The Lithuanian and Latvian foreign ministers both called for Nato to formally offer Ukraine a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to join the alliance. In June, the Ukrainian and Nato forces conducted joint exercises later condemned by the Kremlin.

Significant lobbying had occurred across the Atlantic as well – not least of all with the Biden family, oddly enough – culminating in what was probably, as far as the Russians were concerned, the final straw.

In January of this year, there was a Republican proposal for the GUARD act, which would have recognised the Ukraine as a NATO Plus country. This would have enabled a fast and large flow of American arms and military tech to the Ukrainians.

January and February saw the Ukrainian parliament pass a constitutional amendment that made both EU and Nato membership a constitutionally mandated goal for the nation. President Zelensky told the parliament that he was hoping for a MAP from Nato by 2023.

The Russians were never going to allow the strategically important Ukraine to just become a Natobase and missile field. Even the previous status quo of Ukraine effectively acting as a buffer state to spare the Russian army an enormous frontier to protect was only barely tolerable.

The loss of influence in the Ukrainian political process, the seemingly inevitable elevation to Nato – and perhaps EU – membership and the relative weakness of the West led Putin to take his chance before it disappeared. And here we are.

This has been a long unfolding series of events, and with a tragic outcome for the Ukrainian population. EU members raiding their respective defense budgets to pay for other things definitely has played a role.

Brexit and the first real fragmentation of the EU as an institution deserves a mention. Lack of national let alone pan-European leadership is an issue. Too many Western countries and their leaders have abrogated their responsibilities.

There have been a huge number of inter related and variable factors that have lead to now. But Trump and his disastrous foreign policy regime deserve a special shout out of their own.

There's a reason none of his predecessors since before FDR took the populist isolationist route Trump did. They knew it would be ruinous for American leadership of the free world. They knew it would embolden and enable rebel states, madmen and dictators.

Trump didn't care. His preference for individualism as opposed to collectivism, his indifference to US allies, his ignorance of global geo-politics and his pivot to isolationism caused much of this mess.

Under his reign as president, the US retreating from it's role of leader of the free world caused a vacuum. One that is being filled by the likes of Putin and Xi and will likely continue to be so filled.

My sympathies are with of course, the Ukrainian people. They have done nothing but express their desire to be associated with the EU and Nato.

For rejecting the Ukrainians' democratic right to freedom of association, Putin should be rightly condemned. He is a murderer and a scoundrel. But his opportunism is a consequence of him being afforded opportunity.

The leaders of the free world must work together, more collaboratively and far more urgently, to prevent the next Ukraine. A world where dictatorships and rogue nuclear states pursue an expansionist foreign policy is not a world anyone wishes to see.

I think we have had enough of Trump but I have to disagree with Mike and others regarding Biden. Granted, I see him from a distance but he inspires no confidence. The chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal was an embarrassment.

I don't think it is smart to be saying that tolerance might be given to small incursions into Ukraine. For Putin, that's a green light.

And I know it's only optics, but the sight of a very old man squinting at an autocue fills me with no more confidence than the orange haired one.

It astonishes me the US can't do better than this.

In your opinion, that is; and it's all about opinions, yours, mine. But you've out-done yourself in #92, plus the 'Whataboutery' Re Trump at the end. Trump & Putin – 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Lucky Christine @ 93; has put you right much more eloquently than Mr Derek – terribly nice, but dim – ever could... you're not related to that Jon Snow bloke are you? Because Jon Snow, you – well you probably know how that saying goes, not being dim like me.

Mike, I have some admiration for you... not that I have met you, but I've read enough on here to get a good idea that your not a tosser, so don't take it personal.

But really, Pax Americana, leaders of the free world etc. My arse.

1956 – Hungary; 1961 – Bay of Pigs, probably the Prague Spring and others, for all I know – all the way via Saigon, to Reagan not backing his greatest friend, Thatcher, on The Falklands (the rights and wrongs of which are yet another debate – IMO, if the Argies had asked nicely, at that time, the UK Government would have probably paid them to take them over) in 1982, because they thought it couldn't be done... on to the discraceful Kabul capitulation last year.

But it's all about opinions. If we turn discussion into nasty argument, then divided we make Putin's job easier and this will lead to Ukraine going under and when he gets to the border – with the bit between his teeth and a seeming clear road – will he stop.

The only thing that may stop him in the short term, is if somebody in Moscow decides he's really, really, lost the plot and he is retired due to 'ill health' in the alleged old Russian manner of a bullet in the back of the neck.

By the time the West gets its political and logistical arse in gear, who knows how far west they reach – should they wish.

And, if you know your history, back when the West did have a big army on the ground in West Germany, the (only) plan was for us to use tactical nukes to slow down the red advance until arses and logistics were brought over the Atlantic to the UK, then on to the mainland.

Peace Brother.

Edit... Q: Why Ukraine? My (part) answer – The Russians are historically keen on 'Buffer States'.

And John Bolton is about as partisan Republican as it's possible to be. That should give you an example of the scale of Trump's irresponsibility. The guy got elected on the basis he would run America less like a country and more like a business – and international relations was one area where he was allowed to cause the most damage using this concept. A country is not a business.

Becoming the first American president to meet a North Korean leader as an example, accomplished precisely nothing. Indeed, it did the opposite and gave the North Korean madman legitimacy and a propaganda victory. Trump was a disaster for foreign policy and the standing of the United States.

"1956 – Hungary; 1961 – Bay of Pigs, probably the Prague Spring and others, for all I know – all the way via Saigon, to Reagan not backing his greatest friend, Thatcher, on The Falklands (the rights and wrongs of which are yet another debate... IMO, if the Argies had asked nicely, at that time, the UK Government would have probably paid them to take them over) in 1982, because they thought it couldn't be done... on to the discraceful Kabul capitulation last year."

I note you also conveniently left out the projection of American military power – not its use but mere projection – during the Regan administration that lead to the breakdown of the Soviet Union. And democratic freedom for hundreds of millions across Europe.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the so called peace dividend which propelled the world economy through the nineties began – that is through reduced spending on defense.

Skipping through 30 years of history on some anti-US rant does the subject little or no justice whatsoever. Sustained European peace and prosperity owes much to American generosity of spirit. To pretend otherwise reveals one as either partisan or fool or both.

I'm entirely sure, BTW, the reason Putin attacked Ukraine in part is because they are not yet a member of Nato. All of the other countries directly neighbouring are Nato members or Russian aligned already. The chances of him going any further west than that I would put down at only marginally above zero. You'd have to be Derek Nice-but-dim to not grasp that.

I understand everyone has their own style amd that's cool but ultimately you want to get your intended message across. Without insult, I have to say the conclusion of your argument is not clear.

And if it is super-long, please remind the reader where you are driving. I know it is a football forum but people are making the effort to read your opinion; please make it clear.

Putin is acting less from a position of Russian strength than actual Western weakness. Nobody wants to live in a world where rogue states and dictators are pushing expansionism.

And many of our leaders and recent leaders in the West have largely enabled and allowed most of this to blithely happen.

Some of these choices come with tradeoffs so state your preferred approach to the situation you are complaining about.

A symbolic gesture that looks good after the event. If they were that concerned, why didn't they act sooner?

The timeline to Putin's 'military operation' can go as far back as you want it to. For brevity, I'll start with the ending of WWII. This link to a Vladamir Pozner seminar at Yale University (with thanks to Jim Lloyd for posting it) covers events very well.

Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin

The Iron Curtain fell and on that side of the divide most sovereign states came under Soviet influence and became part of the Warsaw Pact. On t'other side, the US funded Marshall Plan worked wonders in rebuilding shattered nations, gave birth to Nato and ultimately the EU.

The Cold War became a given, until domestic and international events saw the collapse and break up of the USSR. The Warsaw Pact evaporated. Yeltsin offered an olive branch to the West. There was a chance to offer Marshall Plan II, to reward eastern European states with incentives which had the potential to rebuild broken or dated infrastructure as happened to western Europe in Marshall Plan I; to offer genuine democracy; to move away from militaristic sabre rattling by both sides. A better, fairer world for all with common interests.

The West didn't take up that option. Instead, they went all Old Testament. As 'victors' they rubbed it in and continued to rebuke and humiliate what could legitimately be considered a great nation, a great empire.

Out of this was borne a pallid, little-known KGB operative by the name of Vladamir Putin. BBC and Channel 4 produced an insightful 3-episode documentary on the man. It's possible to view it here:

Putin: A Russian Spy Story

Both the Pozner video and the Channel 4 Putin biog cover his rise to power very well. Why he is who he is. Why he acts as he does. He is one ruthless bastard. Yet he too, initially, raised with the West the possibility of Russia joining Nato. He was rebuffed, but simultaneously saw the slow creep of Nato influence approaching ever-close to Russia's borders.

Events in Ukraine in 2014 are extremely relevant to today's war. There was a genuine protest against not only corruption, but far more on the popular desire by the majority of Ukrainians to forge closer ties with the EU which the then President Yanukovych – a Putin acolyte – simply vetoed.

The Maidan Revolution, with 1000s occupying the public square in central Kyiv in the depths of winter, commenced. They resisted police brutality, death and Yanukovych was forced into calling an early election but faced impeachment instead and immediately fled to Moscow, where he remains to this day. Putin and Moscow didn't like this.

It was on a knife edge even then, whether Russia would invade Ukraine and restore what they considered 'natural order'. As it was, Putin satisfied himself with taking Crimea with barely a shot fired in anger in a couple of days, with nothing like the same scale of indignation from the West we see today. The confusion in the Eastern states of Donetsk and Luhansk commenced. This was all done in 3-4 months, by March 2014.

The Channel 4 Putin biog makes some interesting observations of this time. Russia was staging the Winter Olympics in Sochi (where they had the secret dope-fixing lab which got them banned from future games). It was intended to be a global showpiece for Putin to strut at... and instead, Ukraine stole the headlines. It angered Putin. Deeply.

This is a very vengeful man. Yes, there is deeper geopolitics at play then believing he has fabricated this war because he felt humiliated back in 2014. But events in that year contribute greatly to what we see today.

In reference to the West's own dubious acts of imperialism and the domestic policies of Ukraine, none of that justifies Putin's illegal war of aggression on Ukraine. That the West has quite clearly acted in similar ways themselves does not in any way legitimize Putin's actions this last week.

Whilst it appears Putin displays psychopathic tendencies, he is not a 'mad man' in the sense that he is irrational, or out of control. Psychopaths are often highly intelligent, highly rational, highly controlling, but totally lacking in empathy, regret or remorse for the consequences of their words or acts.

They are often high-achievers, rising to positions of power and influence. A Forbes study, for example, showed between 4-12% of CEOs at mega companies have psychopathic tendencies.

Like Saddam Hussein, Putin is a super-narcist. A megalomaniac. A hard, cold, calculating dictator who, like most dictators, keeps himself in power through a reign of terror over his opponents. Be it the oligarchs or political opponents, or even the people.

He is murderously revengeful. So for him, there is a certain 'rationale' as to why he has moved in on Ukraine now. Of course, that rationale neither justifies nor legitimizes his invasion.

His own self-declared intention was to 'protect' the Russian-speaking natives of Donetsk and Luhansk. Fine. They both adjoin Russia's western border. With his overwhelming military might, it could have been as swift and as (largely) bloodless as his occupation of Crimea in 2014, with similar diplomatic consequences and limited response by Ukraine. A 'tut-tutting' and mild sanctions by the West which would evaporate with time.

But he hasn't done that, has he? The whole world has been put on alert and impacted by events. He is clearly attempting a complete annexation of the entire country of Ukraine, regime change, an installation of a puppet government and eventually re-absorbing the country back into Russia (or a new USSR). Every utterance by him and his ministers have been total lies. A complete distortion of the truth.

Again, the Channel 4 biog explains very well – in the words of first-hand witnesses – why Putin acts as he does.

An independent sovereign nation of 40 million people should not, at the snap of his fingers, have their lives threatened and completely turned on their heads, as happened barely a week ago, on the whim of one man, possibly seeking to seal his place in history.

Well, Putin has achieved that all right. But probably not in the manner that he imagined.

Personally, I believe Putin has already lost. But he cannot admit to that yet, can he? He, Russia, they have no chance of 'winning' this. None.

Yep. In the worst-case scenario, they may occupy large parts of Ukraine, including even Kyiv. They may overthrow the government and install their own puppet. But they will never, ever break the resistance of the Ukrainians. And overwhelmingly, the rest of the world is on their side.

Ukraine is huge. A 40 million population... Russia cannot control every nook and cranny of the country. They have totally, but totally, lost the hearts and minds of Ukrainians who now absolutely despise the Russian war machine and its Commander-in-Chief.

Should it come to it, the Russian occupiers will be constantly harrassed by guerrila warfare, never mind continuing to be a global pariah. It may take a long time, but this is going to ultimately hurt Russian and Russians more than it hurts Ukraine and Ukrainians.

His invasion has strengthened Western resolve. The Nato alliance reinforced. Both the EU and Germany making historic political tide swings in their budgeting and beefing up of its military. The sanctions are biting deep and the domestic situation in Russia can only deteriorate further.

The truth about the scale of the invasion is being witheld from most Russians with an iron glove control of what the media can report. As this link shows, Ukrainian adult children are calling their parents in Russia about the horror and scale of the conflict... and their own parents laughing it off, disbelieving them:

Parents in Russia Disbelief Their Own Children Living Under Siege in Ukraine

Everything Putin has uttered in recent weeks has proven to be out-and-out lies. Yesterday, in a staged tea and tiffin with Aeroflot air hostesses, he said he had no intention of imposing martial law in Russia. Based on his track record this year, I'll give it a month.

Off TW in exchanges with friends, I've described events as the tree being shaken, but oft times we don't know where the fruit will fall.

Right now, the bad apples of Putin and Russia are gathering a whole harvest of bruised and rotten fruit.

And youre willing to claim symbolism as they selectively ship weapons to the warfront?

Do you think the fighters, uh excuse me, 'performers' are just going to wave them around in some pantomime soldier cheerleader routine?

Putin is vermin but, in his mind, and most of the people of Russia's minds, Ukraine is a province of their own country, excellent at producing tractors and as a grain basket.

I can't see him stopping and negotiating until "his province" is restored under his control. If the West is not actually going to fight, then sabre-rattling is pathetic. Economic sanctions against the Russian people and oligarchs may have some effect, equally it may not.

Then will come the problem of actual Nato states in the Baltic. Sabre-rattling only works if you've got a sword you can use in your scabbard. Biden will be distracted by the desired isolationism of the American people. Monroe's doctrine since 1945 has been interpreted as only fight wars that are a long way away from America and then lose ignominiously: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Where does this leave Everton? Will Calvert-Lewin stay? Who'll build the stadium? Who'll pay for the stadium? Will the season actually be completed?

The "Sleepy Joe" sobriquet and the comment about his mental acuity are Trumpie-copyrighted. Only his admirers use them. If you're not actually amongst 'em, so be it, but you're using the lingo.

Like "Kabul capitulation"... most Americans think we didn't belong there and needed to get the fuck out before one more of our soldiers died pointlessly.

And it's not "whataboutery" to point out that the current US president is, in every way, a massive improvement on his bright orange predecessor.

I can't respond to much else of your post... I don't know anything about the US responses to The Falklands War or Hungary in 1956, and I don't know who Jon Snow is. But Peace On, and amen, bro.

Mark #104,

Biden has always come off that way, partly due to a speech impediment and partly because he's so openly sentimental. No, he's not the least bit inspirational.

But he's a tough, knowledgeable old bird who is impossible to intimidate, always puts his country first, and is the least likely politician in America to lose his head in a crisis. That's why he demolished Trump, and that's why he's making the right decisions re Putin.

Christine #93,

Putin has always carefully targeted areas with a heavily Russian population. I don't see him moving on to countries like Poland -- he'd get his head handed to him. And if he coveted reconquering the Baltic states, I think he'd have gone for it already.

Colin #94,

I wouldn't credit the US, UK and EU one bit for trapping Putin -- we ain't that smart -- but I agree with your view of the eventual outcome.

Putin has also blundered in another way. He has actually succeeded in uniting the world (sans China) against him. The Swiss have abandoned their financial neutrality and Nato skeptics Finland and Sweden are now seriously considering joining. That's extraordinary.

I mean, what a successful first year, Joe, way to go.

At least he's there to protect Hunter.

As for Hunter, give me a break. Your big orange hero turned the White House into the most shameless nepotism-fest America has ever seen. Jared and Ivanka got offices in the White House and banked somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 million, 10-20 times what they'd been making before.

Jared got a $500M real estate bailout from one of his many private business meetings inside the West Wing.

Ivanka accepted three tranches of trademark payola from China.

Donnie Boy spent a half-million taxpayer dollars squiring his huge contingent around India to sell (or so he boasted) $100 million worth of Trump condos, and took taxpayer-paid romantic trips with Kissy Kimberly.

And Lil' Puppy Eric took the Fifth more than 500 times in his tax fraud deposition.

And you're off on Hunter Freakin' Biden? Pfah.

We have a president whose word can be believed, and the White House is no longer a payola palace for friends and family. That in itself is a spectacular improvement.

Trump would've joined in the Russian invasion if his coup attempt had succeeded alongside his KGB handler.

Mike can quote all he wants about the Trumps but unfortunately there's an equal quote for the Bidens, Clintons and Pelosis. I did say earlier, none of them, and I mean none of them give a toss about us.

Unfortunately for your arguments, Putin did not invade when Trump was President, that might not fit your narrative but it's true.

Hunter Biden is a corrupt disgraceful human being and I don't get what that has to do with the Trumps, other than people whose only argument is to slag off people who don't agree with them.

Too much watching CNN, I suspect.

If Putin invaded because he thought Biden was weak, it's been proven that he was wrong as any human can be. Biden and the West have united and rallied like we haven't seen since maybe the Berlin airlift. On the day of the invasion, no-one predicted the level of punishment that has been doled out to Russia so far. I am proud of what has been achieved and like most I want more which we know is coming. Some of these things take time.

Like some people in the US and around the world, Putin underestimated the strength, resolve and abilities of Biden and other western leaders and he is finding out that this may be the biggest mistake he has made in his lifetime.

He is a morally corrupt, vile, racist pig of a man who is a traitor to his own country. Hopefully, he and Putin will share a cell in Guantanamo Bay one day.

"I was watching the invasion on TV and said 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine as independent. Oh, that's wonderful.

"Here's a guy who's very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.

“But here's a guy that says, you know, ‘I'm gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent' – he used the word ‘independent' – ‘and we're gonna go out and we're gonna go in and we're gonna help keep peace.' You gotta say that's pretty savvy.”

Over the weekend at a Republican rally Trump proposed a marvelous solution to the conflict:

"The US should put Chinese flags on jets and bomb the shit out of Russia. And then we say, China did it, we didn't do it, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch."

Now why didn't Biden, the EU and NATO come up with such an inspired solution?

How the world is missing the wisdom of this self-declared 'very stable genius.'

The greatest genius the world has known. The man has an IQ "next to none".

But despite that and the "this week" heroics of their defence budget "increase" (read that as addressing the years of neglect), it was only a month ago that the Royal Air Force had to fly the long way around because a supposed close ally who we supported with over 60,000 troops stationed on their territory directly facing the Soviets for over 50 years, denied us the ability to fly over their air space to deliver troops and weapons to Ukraine.

Talk about trying to look to be seen to do something after the event. EU and Europe that.

I realize it's in Nato but is small and could be invaded fairly quickly. Would Britain the USA and France truly start WWIII to liberate Latvia? Honestly I doubt it.

I'm not advocating that but I suspect that's how it would play out versus if he attacked one of the more established European nations. And a lot in the Baltics are concerned Putin thinks so too...

Plus Finland and Sweden are just across the water from the Baltic states, and any such move would likely drive both those countries into Nato.

I don't think the bastard is completely out of his tree.

"to stop killing these people" and suggested that a deal could be struck with Russia to stop the fighting.

"We're watching a holocaust. We're watching something that I've never seen before, the way that they're going to go in — they're blowing up buildings with children, with women, with professionals, with people — think of just people," Trump said.

"They're blowing up indiscriminately, they're just shooting massive missiles and rockets into these buildings and everybody is dying​."

Do you believe the accurate comments I quoted - one of them within hours of the conflict starting in gushing praise of Putin, the other a full week on when the full bloodiness of Putin's military machine was evident to all - are Presidential, statesmanlike, insightful, credible, or helpful? Do you believe they serve the best interests of 40 million Ukrainians living in terror, or even the best interests of the nation he led just over a year ago?

Personally, I found them exceedingly irresponsible, primarily concerned with self-promotion as defined pretty much his entire 4-year-term as POTUS.

I literally laid out the last 15 years and multiple moments to whisk Ukraine into the West's fold. Opportunities to engage, my goodness. How about making Ukraine a Nato Plus country in 2014 when they renounced their non-aligned status? How about offering Ukraine a Nato MAP in 2017 or 2018?

Germany has almost had a policy of appeasement towards Russia for most of the last 15 years. Doubling defense spending, strong>8 years following the annexation of Crimea, is analogous to closing a stable door many months after the horse has bolted.

The Ukrainians overthrew their pro-Russian president and made their feelings clear where their future lay 8 years ago as well. They want to be part of the EU. They want to be part of Nato. They want democratic freedoms and freedom of association. They do not want to be a Russian satellite or vassal state.

There are those who may think otherwise but Trump would have done nothing either. His isolationist rhetoric and systematic undermining of the United States' historical allies are a huge reason why the Ukrainians are so thoroughly isolated.

Trump abdicated leadership of the free world. He made the free world demonstrably weaker. And now the despots and madmen can fill that void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The inevitability of Nato membership for Ukraine allied with the weakness of the West is what lead Putin to take his chance now. The comparatively weak response by the free world will probably embolden non-democratic states who covet territorial expansion. Restoring US pre-eminence and Western military strength will take many years of diligent work. We have entered a dangerous pocket of modern history.

I am only jesting but it wouldn't surprise me if the builders of BMD aren't owned and financed by an oligarch – which one, I couldn't tell you as my head is spinning and I'm going to lie down.

But never underestimate the greedy and none are greedier than the Conservative and Unionist Party they'd sell their mothers' body parts for the right price.

I think it goes to show, extremes on either side of the political spectrum are exactly that; extremism.

UK conservatism, US democrats. Really, they are moderates slightly left or right of the needle. It's when you get fascists or left-wing radicals that you have trouble. And those two groups have more in common than they care to agree on. They are extremists.

Most of us are moderate normal people.

"It's when you get fascists or left-wing radicals that you have trouble. And those two groups have more in common than they care to agree on."

Interestingly, the horseshoe theory sees the left-right political spectrum not as a straight-line continuum but as a horse-shoe shaped spectrum from extreme left to extreme right, with the two extremes having certain features in common, notably a tendency to authoritarianism.

The are various examples of people who have moved from being relatively extreme left, for example, to relatively extreme right. Examples include the Mail on Sunday journalist Peter Hitchens, once a member of the International Socialists (that morphed into the Socialist Workers' Party). Elizabeth Warren moved in the opposite direction.

Exactly Brent. Do as I say, not as I do.

Like the Liberal message at the last General Election. Regardless of anyone's view, what right did they have to tell the British population they were all naughty stupid people and they (the Liberal Party) could just ignore a democratic vote?

Sometimes the Liberals are the most extreme. They're fine as long as you agree with them, but disagree and they turn nasty.

I've used it before, but to quote George Orwell; all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Another good example is Mussolini. He was editor of the left-wing socialist newspaper until he was kicked out for supporting Italy's entry in WW1 and he formed the Fascist party.

The business links between Russia and these other countries is a very complex web of interdependency, and there's no evidence that the current protests, or indeed sanctions, or increased sanctions, will change that fact.

Both Russia and China have gradually got themselves into the position of leverage as far as business relationships go. Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas is just one example, and there are myriad others that in combination underline this interlinked set of arrangements that cannot be broken easily or quickly.

And of course many in 'the West' would not wish them to be, even some of those who are expressing outrage. Such is politics, and the sad fact that ultimately it's only ordinary people who will suffer due to this conflict, not the elites who make their billions. As is the case in all such conflicts.

USA boycotted the Moscow Olympics, Thatcher made all UK olympic atheletes fund themselves and tried to get all UK companies with contracts in Russia to cancel them.

However I don't recall any worldwide condemnation of USA occupation of Afghanistan?

USA puts missiles in Turkey capable of reaching Moscow, so Russia puts similar missiles in Cuba.

Only this time Russia are serious about not having missiles on their doorstep first.

"Gone With The Wind"

Bill Kenwright helped us out by very wisely slamming the door in the face of Man City's owner Sheikh Mansour and bringing in Moshiri, a bean counter with no football or business smarts and strong connections to some of the worlds most corrupt, violent and despotic individuals.

Don't worry, we'll solve all our problems and make a fortune with Bill's next blockbuster production above.

Putin is a completely different character and has a different pyschology than those Soviet era leaders.

Leaving aside Stalin, no Soviet leader was ever more powerful than the politburo, his decisions would have been reviewed by a group of rational individuals around him, not the sycophants Putin has around him.

Putin owns and terrorizes the body politic and all branches of Government, this makes him so dangerous considering their nuclear capability.

Excellent article, thanks.

So I assume your implication is that Moshiri has "strong connections" to Putin? Plural? What are they besides their mutual associate Usmanov? What direct interaction between Putin and Moshiri has ever been documented?

And who are "some of the worlds most corrupt, violent and despotic individuals" you refer to besides Putin?

The imagined connections in post 151 might be compared with some FACTS relating to our loveable, and more successful, neighbour across Stanley Park. Their main sponsor, Standard Chartered Bank, has a record of sanctions violations dating back over 20 years, and they have been penalised for them a number of times by regulators in the UK and US. The violations are of sanctions against Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and several other countries. Thus, LFC's main sponsor is a repeat offender, and an apparently unapologetic one. And they remain emlazoned on the LFC players' shirts, still trading and scheming.

People need to get their facts straight, and in perspective, before criticising Everton's associations, especially when the criticism employs pure speculation.

“I believe that such a decision is unfair, and the reasons employed to justify the sanctions are a set of false and defamatory allegations damaging my honor, dignity, and business reputation.

“I will use all legal means to protect my honor and reputation.”

That's all I could find on a cursory search, if there is more than he said there let's see it because that ain't cutting it. In fact the Official Journal of the European Union responded by establishing Usmanov was named as a “pro-Kremlin oligarch with particularly close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin”.

Further they add “(Usmanov) has been referred to as one of Vladimir Putin's favourite oligarchs. He is considered to be one of Russia's businessmen-officials, who were entrusted with servicing financial flows, but their positions depend on the will of the President.”

The report also said that Usmanov “actively supported materially or financially Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine” and “actively supported the Russian government's policies of destabilisation of Ukraine”.

So this is the Official Journal of the European Union. Care to go toe to toe with them on that? Would you be willing to release some of your research on this matter? Moshiri was the right hand man of that guy. That is possibly enough distance to be unencumbered by sanctions but it wasn't exactly an easy walk away there. If he survived scrutiny there were obviously some serious questions.

Hello Mike,

Are you working overtime on this one?

I can't say whether he has or hasn't met Putin or established contact, but I do know he has very stong connections to what many would agree is a despicable individual named Alisher Usmanov. Usmanov who has very strong connections to what might be an individual that will go on to rank alongside Hitler and Stalin or perhaps worse? The total annihilator of the planet?

Moshiri has spent years in the Russian 'elite' business sphere and I feel sure Usmanov isn't the only "Russian" he knows, he seems like an agreable sort of person, but that means nothing to me, history is replete with individuals who have been able to face the world with the most pleasant of veneers, but within? Over this side of the pond we have an establishment that just doesn't care where the money is coming from, this is why Russians call London Londongrad.

You couldn't make money in Russia when Moshiri made his without getting your hands dirty.

My observations about Moshiri's connections were towards the Russian elite in general and yes this does include Putin. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Moshiri has been to a Kremlin business/industry soiree as chairman of USM a large Russian company and established contact with Putin, it's not an entirely unreasonable, but it's not what I was alluding to.

Usmanov, have a read of these Craig Murray articles:

Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist

Russian Journalist Murders, and Gazprom

The colourful life of football's latest oligarch – Alisher Usmanov

Russian Oligarch Connected To Kaupthing With Numerous Dubious Connections

“If I Were Navalny I'd Be Taking Serious Precautions For My Own Personal Security”

Sanctions on these Oligarchs are commendable and I hope they work. I may be wrong but these sanctions were put on them in the hope that they affected their finances hard, they would pressure Putin to stop the war in Ukraine.

Usmanov today is the same person when Moshiri became owner, he said he was not interested in buying a football club but will help his friend Moshiri if he needed it.

Nobody complained at the time about his company sponsoring Finch Farm or the naming rights on the new ground, but now trying to paint Moshiri with the same brush.

Usmanov should come out and say that he does not support Putin in this war and ask him to stop. After that, we can say thank you, but you are not welcome back here.

There is no evidence Moshiri has "strong connections" to Putin -- the link through Usmanov is secondhand and speculative. I know of no published accounts of direct interaction between Moshiri -- a British citizen since childhood -- and Putin.

Also, you accused Moshiri of similar strong connections to multiple "corrupt, violent and despotic individuals", which means not just Putin but others as well. Who do you mean?

Finally, regarding your post #157, I have never read a single report (and I looked assiduously) regarding any allegations that Moshiri made dirty money. You're obviously a good link-finder, per your response to Stan, so can you find a link to any reported account that Moshiri has ever been even slightly suspected of illegal activity?

Without those facts, all we have is unsupported speculation, innuendo and guilt by association.