I wonder if the figures came from Swiss banks (!) and I would like to see figures for the whole oligarchate. But even more I would like to see a book of photographs of world leaders’ retirement homes (particularly those of Chinese leaders).

In early 2004, the anti-corruption Germany-based NGO Transparency International released a list of what it believes to be the ten most self-enriching leaders in recent years. In order of amount allegedly stolen (in USD), they were:
1.Former Indonesian President Suharto ($15 billion – $35 billion)
2.Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos ($5 billion – $10 billion)
3.Former Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko ($5 billion)
4.Former Nigerian Head of State Sani Abacha ($2 billion – $5 billion)
5.Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević ($1 billion)
6.Former Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier ($300 million – $800 million)
7.Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori ($600 million)
8.Former Cuban President Fulgencio Batista ($300 million)
9.Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko ($114 million – $200 million)
10.Former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán ($100 million)
11.Former Philippine President Joseph Estrada ($78 million – $80 million)

So lets hope the EU is a good influence on Ukraine!

Everywhere, people are wonderful and governments are awful: so, yes, its great to be Russian.
The word Ukraine means ‘border’ and land borders are fraught with problems. Some things are better on one side and some are better on the other side. So the people interchange and have loyalties to both sides. So which side should they belong to? Neither? Both?
In a few centuries time the EU may come to be seen as a great solution to this problem. With its wonderful principle of subsidiarity it could allow all decisions to be taken at the lowest possible level. But the system is not working well yet. Some of the reasons for creating the EU were idealistic and some were base. Then the unelected bureaucrats made a power grab (there is a real comparability with China here).
Re the Ukraine, I like to think that it is the idealistic aspect of the EU which led to Union’s rather mild intervention. Europeans tend to think liberal democracy is better than kleptocratic autocracy so they want Ukrainians to be ‘free’. Big subject. Beyond my knowledge, really.

It is possible to imagine that there is something to be said for being Russian no matter how bad your government and consequently life in your nation might be. (If that is the case.)

The situation in the Ukraine from afar seems less like an expansion of Russia and more like the results of the chaotic fragmentation of the USSR.

The response of the west seems more like a revisiting of WWII and a desire to absorb more territory into Europe?

The EU is struggling with its current member states and arrangement. A period of consolidation would seem more sensible. But of course, Ukraine (minus Crimea) needs a friend and it is sensible given the genesis of this crisis in the EU v Russia question that the EU is now that friend.

Yes the situation even complicates the football!
[ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/crimea-ukraine-football-ultras ]

Russia’s population was expanding when it grew from a small unimportant East European state into the world’s largest country and largest empire. But now its population is falling. Putin is running such an awful society that people don’t want to live there. So I do not see why they should want to expand and I can think of many reasons why, like the other great empires, it should not fragment. But if Siberia regained its independence we might have a new Genghis Khan and it might not be too good for the rest of the world.

It seems like the issue is illustrated by the results of the 2010 election in the Ukraine. Perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the democratic will of all the people in the Ukraine rather than considering whether they are pro-Russia or pro-Europe?

It would be interesting to understand more about the Budapest Memorandum and the Treaty of Catherine the Great with the Turkish government of 1783. Some say that if the Crimea becomes independent it will return to Turkey. Apparently, with the break up of the Soviet Union Turkey acquired this right which it has not acted on?

Perhaps Putin has a more intimate knowledge of the Treaty between Turkey and Russia than the European community does? Maybe he has been pouring over it in his dacha?

A Times correspondent (Matthew Paris) often observes that ‘all politicians go mad after ten years’. I think this has happened to Putin. The poor chap should retire to a dacha with his favourite gymnast.

A similar event occurred in Australia in 1975 when the Prime Minister was sacked by the Governor General. What happened next sparked a constitutional crisis. It was resolved by the Governor General appointing the opposition as a caretaker government and elections being called.

So far the Ukraine has not had elections to legitimate its current government. I am not sure how the situation has been resolved under the Ukraine constitutional arrangements.

We can hope that Putin is wise and does not act in the Ukraine as he has said.

Sorry I do not know. I think Putin’s position is defensible but that his methods are indefensible. A referendum in which you can only vote ‘Yes’ deserves to enter folklore as a RUSSIAN REFERENDUM – and first cousin of the well-known party game, Russian Roulette.

This seems to lend weight to Putin’s position.