Not sure what your point is , are you suggesting Churchill should have attacked Russia , with what , strong language ? I notice that even today the left cannot quite let go of their old affection for the Bear.

Still lucky we have the EU to protect us eh..phew

No, no, no, you stupid boy. I was simply pointing out that if Churchill was impotent then Cameron is a whole lot more impotent, and talking tough means nowt if you can't back it up. It just shows his inexperience.

I hold no brief whatsoever for the greasy toads running Russia on behalf of the oil oligarchs, any more than I do for their US equivalents in the White House. But neither do I for a bunch of Georgian nationalists who want self determination for themselves (quite laudable) but seek to repress and deny those who want the same in South Ossetia.

I think I disagree with you Bob on the history of it all and your conclusion of Churchill's weakness. I've read Michael's account and not sure of his reasoning.

In 1944 Churchill carved up Europe into spheres of influence. France, Spain, Italy, Holland etc into US/UK hands while the Balkans and Romania went to Russia.

Greece was Churchill's conquest as it is by all accounts within the Eastern Med.

History says that the Cold war ended all agreements, however, Churchill (in charge of his own history) claims that Stalin (a Georgian)'never broke his word'.

No one appears to known or understand Churchill's logic in pushing for Greece but my own conclusion (a world authority, I assure you) is that the gateway to India was secured along with a vast proportion of the Med (Western Europe and Africa) surrounding this startegic water.

It is alleged that 90% of all British war effort and output was transported to Egypt. Why? India.

It is because of all of this that I struggle to agree that Churchill was either weak or wrong and I can't see how the 'cold war' weakened our grip on any of thos countries.

Turkey wishes to become a member of the EU (is it European or Asian?)and massive arguments are for and against, based upon Geographical reasons as well as cultural.

Georgia, is even further away and we argue that it should become a member of the EU and NATO.

The encroachment into Russian territory of 'influence'(as Churchill suggested) is being severely tested.

Georgia is a Democracy but slaughters its own people.

Is it wrong to conclude that Russia is playing by the rules and that Churchill was neither weak or wrong?