Kilkrazy wrote: The election has been meddled with at several levels.
1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)
But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.
What did mentioning Trump add to this, beyond opening a door to lock-ville?
godardc wrote: Of course, but now we are in 2018. And just because some country that doesn't even exist anymore did someting wrong and bad 40 years ago, doesn't mean that Russia did it.
- they have no motive
The murdered agent previously flipped on Russia, and revealed the identities of possibly up to 300 Russian agents working abroad. Killing him to discourage other possible agents is an obvious motive.
Pretending this doesn't exist is absurd denialism. Don't waste people's time with that crap.
Why wait 10 years then? If it's about showing agents what happen if you flip to the other side, why dont assassinate him right away? It doesn't come of as show of force if it takes 10 years for the blow to strike!
Take it or leave it, but the argument is being made by some experts that this was specifically done for the Russian elections to generate a higher turnout for Putin. In manufacturing an international crisis by killing a 'traitor' (which is good PR to kill), Putin could use the West attacking 'innocent' Russia (while state media is nudging and winking its hardest) to boost turnout foŕ him. Putin wanted a big mandate again, in part because these elections were basically rubberstamping his position and it looks terrible if only 50% shows up to stamp it. It seems the recent crisis might have helped him get his biggest 'win' yet (well depending on the amount of fraud).
But according to all western outlets the Russian election is a big sham, why manufacture an international crisis to boost yourself in a election that you are going to fake anyway?
I think I'm gonna have to leave it
Well it kinda is because the state media support Putin and there is a host of other issues. But that isn't exactly the point. Yes Putin couldn't realistically lose, but he could win with an embarrasingly small turnout. Which in turn shows less support for Putin from the public, which is terrible for his image. Think of it as the Chinese version of parliament, it still takes all the big decisions, even if its just for show really. That's not to please the West, its a show put on for the domestic audience. While Putin couldn't lose, he still wants an election that is as fair as possible even though he has a finger on the scale. Why? Because its just good for his domestic image if he doesn't have to win by just stuffing ballot boxes, not only that, but he could claim a public mandate.
Putin could really stop pretending, but why would he? Its better with a veneer of honesty than just sham elections. Even the worst dictators care about public opinions. Hell, the Kim family leaders got 'elected'.
But according to all western outlets the Russian election is a big sham, why manufacture an international crisis to boost yourself in a election that you are going to fake anyway?
I think I'm gonna have to leave it
No point in rigging an election if there is a revolution. Even the harshest dictator has to have some way of controlling people. Some people will be controlled through fear, but you always need some that will believe you have legitimacy. Even the Kim family have propaganda promoting them and demonising the rest of the world and they have no real elections and rule with absolute power.
Kilkrazy wrote: To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.
Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.
Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.
Kilkrazy wrote: To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.
Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.
Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.
I don't think Killkrazy meant it like that. I think he meant more that certain types of political leaders always put on shows for their base, regardless if it would help the foreign/domestic policy of a country overall. He didn't seem to imply anything against the US electoral system, just in how certain leaders put up a show.
Kilkrazy wrote: To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.
Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.
Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.
I don't think Killkrazy meant it like that. I think he meant more that certain types of political leaders always put on shows for their base, regardless if it would help the foreign/domestic policy of a country overall. He didn't seem to imply anything against the US electoral system, just in how certain leaders put up a show.
So instead of comparing Putin to a real tin-pot dictator, like he later did, he as a Moderator, opened the door to US politics, getting a jab in, knowing we can't go any further into the discussion.
I didn't mean Trump is a tin-pot dictator. It's only that his was the first name that came into my mind when I thought about national leaders playing to a particular set of their population.
Kilkrazy wrote: I didn't mean Trump is a tin-pot dictator. It's only that his was the first name that came into my mind when I thought about national leaders playing to a particular set of their population.
While that may be true, as your fellow mods informed me, any mention of US politics AT ALL is an unforgivable and immediate auto lock. Even if it would be a relatively minor reference, such as mentioning that Russia's world wide meddling in elections was being unmasked in a series of subpoena's from the Mueller investigation. That was immediately flagged as US politics because of the origin of the information, not it's actual content.
Kilkrazy wrote: The election has been meddled with at several levels.
1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)
But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.
No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.
In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).
Kilkrazy wrote: The election has been meddled with at several levels.
1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)
But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.
No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.
In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves !
You should take your own advice and think things over before you post. Any opponent has to get tacit approval by Putin to run. Meanwhile Putin shuts down the main opposition and has almost full control over the media to glorify him while demolishing his opponents. He gets 70% because 1/3rd of Russians don't even bother showing up and his opponents are as viable as electing toddlers. Its delusional to think France and the US don't do it better.
Those hundreds of foreign assessors? Worthless, as they were handpicked by the Russian government aka Putin. The only opinion that matters is that of the observers of the OSCE:
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/375661
...Michael Georg Link, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “But where the legal framework restricts many fundamental freedoms and the outcome is not in doubt, elections almost lose their purpose..."
Kilkrazy wrote: The election has been meddled with at several levels.
1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)
But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.
No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.
In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).
Election fraud is rife in Russia. Observers are being intimidated and prevented from doing their jobs. There is all sorts of anomalies. The same cannot be said the UK or US. Other countries are not doing the same.
I actually addressed this in the other thread, if you go and look. Ending up in the awkward situation of multi-threading a subject here, might be best to start confining to one. My fun idea was to start playing in the Ukraine. We could even have fun with cyber-attacks and suchlike heading back in their direction. As Putin is so wonderfully demonstrating, there are many ways of subverting and undermining which don't involve actual declarations of war.
What does that actually achieve though by taking action on the soil of another country that likely isn't involved at all? Does that not strain relations with that country? Does that not just give justification to the nonsense that Russia pushes out that we are in some ways doing this ourselves. Does that not affect the Ukrainian population rather than impact . This all assumes that we are better at this than Russia. Whereas we likely have better technical standards we don't have the resources pushed into it that this type of action needs. We'd be trying to fight a battle that we will likely lose at a cyber level. On the other hand perhaps we could put investment into the east of the country to help bring forward the quality of people's lives, turning them against the idea that Russia is better? Win the hearts and minds rather than justify the misinformation that Russia inflicts on them.
As far as information gathering goes I expect our intelligence services to do exactly that. It's their job after all.
The destabilising regimes bit, we do have a habit of doing that as well. Thing is autocratic regimes in the Russian mould are much less vulnerable to these tactics than our own Western governments so why bother?
Actually if you ask any Russian and they will tell you we are already doing it, just by giving the opposition plenty of media airtime and articles of the kind they don't get in Russia proper. Funding political NGOs before Putin banned the practise, etc. Much like this older piece says.
While I've no doubt there's plenty of election fraud in Russia, and while I'm sure Putin has his share of opponents, [Doesn't every politican?] I've not actually seen any real evidence to suggest that given a fair election the Russians wouldn't just elect him anyway.
He seems geninuely popular, and geninuely the most electable of all the candidates. Sure his victory was manufactored, but it doesn't seem particularly necessary it is.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: While I've no doubt there's plenty of election fraud in Russia, and while I'm sure Putin has his share of opponents, [Doesn't every politican?] I've not actually seen any real evidence to suggest that given a fair election the Russians wouldn't just elect him anyway.
I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that Mnangagwa is the best thing since sliced bread in Western media. But most of it is based upon what a few journalists can learn by skimming wikipedia and doing a few google searches for articles other clueless journalists have written.
The sad fact is that in countries where Western media is not generally welcomed, strictly controlled, and somewhat culturally different to the locals, it tends to have serious methodological issues in sourcing accurate material. The BBC, for example, is reduced to quizzing a bare handful of random people on the subject of 'Do you like Putin?' when writing articles on it. It's not exactly statistically solid or indicative of...well, anything really. We do alright when it comes to places that all speak the same language, or have considerable direct links with us, but the minute you need a story from Mongolia, or Tajikistan, or Botswana, there's not much for the journalists to work from.
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.
That wasn’t me. I don’t want to get banned for talking about US politics, or people to think I would make comments like that.
Orlanth wrote: I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.
Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.
Orlanth wrote: I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.
Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.
His victory was assured from the start. What wasn't assured was high voter turnout, and that's what most of the shady stuff was about. What is likely to be Putin's last election (he is getting older and not in as good health as before) couldn't be a meh vote with 50% of the voters showing up, and presto! It shows increased participation from the last time he was elected!
So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink, and people working in government jobs told to prove they voted by taking a selfie etc... but it didn't actually change who was elected. It just looked "better".
Spetulhu wrote: So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink
aha, it was -20C or colder all over most part of Russia on the election day, no surprise ))) this thread is funny reading... such things as first hand experience, broader research or evidence only complicate things, divert attention from attitudes to facts and make world look too complex, so why bother when a few selected news outlets have already made it simple again...eh? )))
Orlanth wrote: I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.
Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.
His victory was assured from the start. What wasn't assured was high voter turnout, and that's what most of the shady stuff was about. What is likely to be Putin's last election (he is getting older and not in as good health as before) couldn't be a meh vote with 50% of the voters showing up, and presto! It shows increased participation from the last time he was elected!
So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink, and people working in government jobs told to prove they voted by taking a selfie etc... but it didn't actually change who was elected. It just looked "better".
Yeah, turnout is mentioned by some as an argument for the nerve gas attack like I brought up last page.
To get back to the main topic, I was initially pleased that Russia had taken the proportionate response of expelling 23 British diplomats to match the 23 Russians chucked out by the UK.
Sadly, though they went beyond that and closed the British Council (a cultural and educational agency) and the consulate in St Petersburg.
This demands a proportionate response from the UK.
That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to the main topic, I was initially pleased that Russia had taken the proportionate response of expelling 23 British diplomats to match the 23 Russians chucked out by the UK.
Sadly, though they went beyond that and closed the British Council (a cultural and educational agency) and the consulate in St Petersburg.
This demands a proportionate response from the UK.
That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.
And therein lies the crux of the problem, and why things will never actually change. Our Government will huff and bluster and make indignant noises and headline grabbing moves like expelling Russian Diplomats, but at the end of the day the allure of Russian money is too strong and we'll return quietly to the status quo.
If Putin really is such a monster and Russia really is the threat that our Government is claiming them to be, then we should should put our money where our mouth is. Cut off diplomatic relations with Russia, close their Embassy, expel any Oligarchs in bed with Putin and put financial sanctions on Russian money passing through the City of London.
But we won't do any of that, because money is more important to us. Money speaks, not principles.
Kilkrazy wrote: The election has been meddled with at several levels.
1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)
But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.
The only viable candidate was prevented from running? Which one? Navalny? Navalny is a joke. He has barely any support in most of Russia. He is one of the only remaining politicians not under control of the secret services, for which he deserves respect, but he is harmless and that is why he is still around. There never were any viable candidates beside Putin. The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.
Also, regarding Navalny, I know the Western media loves him because he is against Putin, but if he were elected president he would not neccesarily be much better than Putin for the West. He isn't any less rabidly nationalistic than other candidates. That is just the nature of contemporary Russian society. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is not nationalist and anti-Western.
To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.
While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.
While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.
Aye. Putin being the only viable candidate is a self-perpetuating cycle that is only going to end when Putin steps down or dies. As long as Putin runs, there will never be a viable other candidate. Putin is popular because he has a history of taking decisive actions. None of his opponents can build on such a history, and because they are so unpopular they do not get the chances to build one, which leads to them not being popular. Add that to the fact that most media support Putin (although there is also media in Russia very critical of Putin, but they are usually less mainstream or popular) and running against Putin in an election is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Election fraud isn't even necessary (it does happen, but out of individual initiative from local officials hoping to score brownie points. Putin knows he does not need fraud to win.)
If Navalny wasn't a viable candidate, Putin wouldn't have bothered to prevent him from running.
That is not valid logic. Him being prevented from running does not mean he is a viable candidate. Him being prevented from running could just as well have nothing to do with his candidacy. Navalny is or has been engaged in a lot of shady business (as all Russian politicians do), and becoming an opponent of the authorities and anti-corruption fighter means he has made lots of powerful enemies, which means that his own past shady dealings often have a tendency to get exposed and brought to court. Navalny being brought to court and thrown in jail for the millionth time could just as well be a grudge from some powerful bureaucrat whose dealings Navalny exposed in the past and have nothing to do with Putin or the elections. Or it could. Maybe Putin did not want to have his nice victory smeared by Navalny shouting nasty allegations. Russian politics are complicated. It is impossible for me or you to say. But that doesn't make Navalny a viable presidential candidate.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.
While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.
Aye. Putin being the only viable candidate is a self-perpetuating cycle that is only going to end when Putin steps down or dies. As long as Putin runs, there will never be a viable other candidate.
Putin is popular because he has a history of taking decisive actions. None of his opponents can build on such a history, and because they are so unpopular they do not get the chances to build one, which leads to them not being popular. Add that to the fact that most media support Putin (although there is also media in Russia very critical of Putin, but they are usually less mainstream or popular) and running against Putin in an election is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Election fraud isn't even necessary (it does happen, but out of individual initiative from local officials hoping to score brownie points. Putin knows he does not need fraud to win.)
I agree completely. I suggest that members don't let factional identities get in their way of their assessment of Putin.
Putin is one of the most dangerous men on the planet today, intelligent, ruthless and resourceful and with stable control of what is fast becoming a thinly veiled Soviet state.
I am under no illusions that if Putin needed to rig elections he would, but he is clever enough not to need to. Were I Russian I would have to think twice before voting for him because he is a danger to global stability, but I am under no illusions that he is a strong leader, and worthy as and of itself to rule Russia. I wouldnt lose sleep knowing he is in charge.
Putin is one of a handful of people alive today worthy of the title of statesman, and I have enormous respect for him. He is however an enemy and I never forger that and most others in the west need to be more aware of him and the threat he poses, but he is no madman as western 'leaders' like to paint their opponents.
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)
Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.
That wasn’t me. I don’t want to get banned for talking about US politics, or people to think I would make comments like that.
If Navalny wasn't a viable candidate, Putin wouldn't have bothered to prevent him from running.
The point of Navalny running isn't to beat Putin, it's to get enough votes to prove he can be beat. Which is why they go after him like this. His threat isn't winning the election but driving on more opposition candidates to run, and more people to vote for them.
ulgurstasta wrote: Why wait 10 years then? If it's about showing agents what happen if you flip to the other side, why dont assassinate him right away? It doesn't come of as show of force if it takes 10 years for the blow to strike!
Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.
But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.
Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.
godardc wrote: They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.
Uh huh.
In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
Oh look, a guy who continually repeats Russian propaganda lines, and who is currently trying to argue Russia just had a fair election*, just happened to bring up, out of the blue, the same old dishonest summary of the Democratic primary process that just happened to be written by Russia as a means to weaponise their DNC hacks.
Weird coincidence.
Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
Yeah, this is copied straight from Putin's first line of propaganda attack 'okay maybe Russian democracy is a con but all the other democracies are cons as well'. That combines with claiming any objective statement that is negative about Russia is anti-Russian, and a plea for open-mindedness or independent thinking to produce a three pronged disinformation campaign.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate Russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).
Oh look, there's those two other lines. How weird that they'd all be here in this post. Almost as if for all the claims of open minded, independent thinking, you have ended up excatly aping the official RUssian line.
*Well, trying to argue it was as fair as other democracies. Anyway you cut it it's a comically stupid claim.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.
I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.
I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.
Sometimes Sebster you are spot on. we shouldnt be courting Russia, but its easy money for some and the lazy answer for certain needs such as gas. our leaders are ever cheap short-termists, and it accounts for a large part as to why Russia holds the modern UK in contempt.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.
I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.
First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.
Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.
Russia would have to be pretty desperate to seek refuge with China. As Sebster mentions, Russia would be the minor power. Not only that, but while Russia and China's interests frequently align on the international level there is little love lost between the two countries. There are more covert signs of this. Like I mentioned earlier, Crimea really bothered China as China is huge on national sovereignity issues. Yet it stayed silent, because it wasn't in China's direct interest to go against it, while providing an interesting case study in regards to an international response. Furthermore China is removing traditional Russian allies in central Asia from Russia's orbit to add to its own.
China knows it holds all the cards. Take natural gas for example, if Russia would loose the West as a buyer China would gain incredible leverage over Russia. Currently the supply of gas to China isn't huge yet as the infrastructure isn't developed that much, mainly beimg focused on Western Russia. But when talks were in progress you could see China twisting the arm of Russia in negotiations, knowing it had the upper hand and a choice of supliers. In reverse Russia has annoyed China with certain moves like internationally supporting Japan and India at times when that went directly against China's interests.
There will never be a Russo-Chinese powerbloc, because China doesn't view Russia as an equal power. Russia and China are allies of convenience, when that is convenient to China. Russia also recognizes this and won't do more than annoy China while China is busy taking apart old Soviet regional ties, because Russia can ill afford one international struggle for 'spheres of influence', let alone another one with China.
Meanwhile the EU is already looking at secondary supply sources. Like mentioned by others, the US is one. But Iran is a major opportunity with huge untapped reserves of natural gas. That's partly the reason why the EU was so supportive of the Iran deal. Getting access to those reserves and setting up trade with the US means being able to (almost) fully eliminate the need for Russian gas.
Iceland is currently working on a way to lay a power cable to Ireland. Once that's in place you can do the same to the UK and France from Ireland and have a nice supply of green energy into mainland europe and the UK. Gotta love geothermal power.
Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.
But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.
Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.
I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.
So the questions stands, why now? Why intentionally provoke the UK and it's allies, what do they have to gain by it? Especially as they are already under sanctions that are hurting them economically.
Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.
But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.
Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.
I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.
So the questions stands, why now? Why intentionally provoke the UK and it's allies, what do they have to gain by it? Especially as they are already under sanctions that are hurting them economically.
Sebster doesn't have his timeline wrong though. You don't seem to be aware of events after 2008. Obama tried to reset relations with Russia between the start of his presidency and Ukraine. The spy swap happened right in the middle of this. So no, it wasn't dead by that time. So the question doesn't exactly stand.
Putin is one of a handful of people alive today worthy of the title of statesman, and I have enormous respect for him. He is however an enemy and I never forger that and most others in the west need to be more aware of him and the threat he poses, but he is no madman as western 'leaders' like to paint their opponents.
This. Absolutely this.
TBH, I couldn't even name a handful. A couple, maybe... But you've expressed my own thoughts on Putin perfectly.
Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?
ulgurstasta wrote: I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.
Umm, a lot changed very quickly after Georgia. That happens when the US changes presidencies.
See that image there? That's the awkward and incredibly misjudged 'reset button' that started the new Obama administration's attempts to rebuild the relationship with Russia. It was in 2009, and afterwards we had Obama then Biden travel to Russia, and then in early 2010 Russia and the US signed New START, reducing their nuclear stockpiles. A couple of months after New START we have the spy swap in which Skripal is released.
So yeah, the swap happened at what was really the peak of recent Russian and American relations. So your idea that relations were as bad then as they are now is false.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?
Aahahahahahaha!
You forget so easily which country has started the most wars, and how many countries get invaded/liberated by said world power.
Especially in the Middle East. And over oil.
It's funny how quickly everybody forgets how many wars the US has instigated.
And don't even get started on the Patriot Act if we want to talk about ignorance of freedoms and national/international law.
Putin is another politician that the media is painting as a threat so the military industrial complex has a reason for its existence.
Putin has been in power for longer than any US leader. Yet we are still lead to believe that an attack or threat is imminent.
Remember what mass media is used for, and it's easy to spot how we're being emotionally manipulated to tow the political line.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?
Aahahahahahaha!
You forget so easily which country has started the most wars, and how many countries get invaded/liberated by said world power.
Especially in the Middle East. And over oil.
It's funny how quickly everybody forgets how many wars the US has instigated.
And don't even get started on the Patriot Act if we want to talk about ignorance of freedoms and national/international law.
Putin is another politician that the media is painting as a threat so the military industrial complex has a reason for its existence.
Putin has been in power for longer than any US leader. Yet we are still lead to believe that an attack or threat is imminent.
Remember what mass media is used for, and it's easy to spot how we're being emotionally manipulated to tow the political line.
I'm sorry, did I say anything about the US? No, but nice attempt at deflection though.
You don't see me lining up to say I respect Bush or calling him a great statesman, yet Putin inexplicably has his fans. Speaking of which, you really think Putin is just another politician? Also who is to believe an attack is imminent? Everybody here understands Putin would never attack the West directly.
You might wanna tone down on RT and the 'mass media manipulation' kool aid.
I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.
Infowars for the right, GlobalResearch for the left. If you want to have a laugh you should check the website, you can find totally unironic "poor little North Korea" pieces. I would say its manipulation, but what they are doing is so obvious I can't believe anyone actually falls for it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.
What alternatives are there?
An Infowars and other 'alternate' news sites do the same thing - emotional manipulate you to react.
All media is the same - it's for emotional manipulation so people call for action.
I'm not a crackpot, or conspiracy theorist. I just don't believe everything I'm told.
It never ceases to amuse me how unique and special some people think reading between the lines and consulting multiple news sources makes them, whilst being convinced that most of the rest of the world are just mindless media led sheeple (of whatever denomination).
If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.
Ketara wrote: It never ceases to amuse me how unique and special some people think reading between the lines and consulting multiple news sources makes them, whilst being convinced that most of the rest of the world are just mindless media led sheeple (of whatever denomination).
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.
First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.
Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.
Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests. Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.
Kilkrazy wrote: We covered the difference between Infowars etc and NY Times at some length in another thread fairly recently.
Is it really worth revisiting it again so soon?
While it may seem like a Sisyphean task for those participating, I believe this discussion should always be had, at least for the short term.
The discussion is not to convince the other side, but to sway the anonymous reader, and on a global site like this that reader is always changing. (Even as some of us stay the same )
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.
First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.
Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.
Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.
Wait what? How is the US already starting to struggle keeping up with China? Even in the best of estimates for China it won't achieve parity with the US for another few decades. It will be decades more to actually move beyond the level of relative parity if that is even going to happen of course.
As for Russian advanced military tech. I highly doubt that is so attractive, seeing as last time China got advanced Russian tech they simply copied it and started manufacturing it for themselves. Going forward the technology gap is going to weigh more favourably towards China. Where it counts most for China, the navy, Russia is sorely lacking. So really, all that Russia realistically can offer in the future is a resource market. Army wise China can do fine on its own.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.
First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.
Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.
Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.
Wait what? How is the US already starting to struggle keeping up with China? Even in the best of estimates for China it won't achieve parity with the US for another few decades. It will be decades more to actually move beyond the level of relative parity if that is even going to happen of course.
As for Russian advanced military tech. I highly doubt that is so attractive, seeing as last time China got advanced Russian tech they simply copied it and started manufacturing it for themselves. Going forward the technology gap is going to weigh more favourably towards China. Where it counts most for China, the navy, Russia is sorely lacking. So really, all that Russia realistically can offer in the future is a resource market. Army wise China can do fine on its own.
The benefits of a partnership with Russia are extremely obvious for China. Saying that China can do fine on its own army-wise is ridiculous. The US can do fine on its own army-wise, but it still likes to have military allies. There is no such thing as 'enough power'. Russia happens to have the second-strongest military in the world with a massive military-industrial complex that is still lightyears ahead of China's still developing military industry. Russian assistance would be a massive boost in advancing up their own military-industrial complex, with the Russian military forces at their side they would instantly skip ahead of the US and NATO in terms of military power, they would gain increased access to a lot of the raw resources that China really needs, and they would get increased access to a not insignificant market for Chinese products. It would propel them to number one world power status much faster, and allow them to challenge the US' hegemony much more confidently.
You say that Russia is lacking in the naval department, but it says enough that the entire Chinese navy is based on copied Russian technology. You are self-contradictory. You say you doubt that advanced Russian technology is attractive to China while in the same sentence acknowledging that China bases its technology on Russian technology. Obviously having access to more of those technologies and being able to make use of them without having to illegally copy it is very attractive. China has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from drawing Russia into its sphere of influence, and has been pretty willing to increase cooperation. It is Russia that is reluctant to cooperate with China, as it stands to lose a lot. But if the West were to sever contact and cooperation with Russia, Russia will not have much of a choice. And bringing this back on topic and to my original point, that is why the UK should not sever ties with Russia too much. It needs too keep open dialogue and eventually lift sanctions and increase trade and cooperation with Russia. An isolated Russia being driven into the arms of China is a scary Russia. A Russia that is well-integrated and enjoys good relations with the West on the other hand is much less scary and won't do any dangerous, desperate things. And you don't want the world's second-most powerful military and largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction do anything desperate.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.
Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.
I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.
Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.
I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.
You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.
Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.
I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.
You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.
I think that all media, not just Western media is there to manipulate people's emotions and opinions.
And yes it's all used as propaganda in all countries and all media outlets.
Do you honestly think that mass media is not meant to prey on your emotions to get you to buy the next big thing, belive that some group is worse than another?
Like I said, ALL media is meant to manipulate how you feel for one reason or another.
It ALL makes you tow the political line that it presents. Infowars and other independent media included.
Here's a bit of food for thought relating to the subject:
If you honestly believe that any media presents 100% unbiased truth that isn't meant to manipulate you in some way, we're just going to be going around in circles.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.
Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.
I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.
You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.
I think that all media, not just Western media is there to manipulate people's emotions and opinions.
And yes it's all used as propaganda in all countries and all media outlets.
Do you honestly think that mass media is not meant to prey on your emotions to get you to buy the next big thing, belive that some group is worse than another?
Like I said, ALL media is meant to manipulate how you feel for one reason or another.
It ALL makes you tow the political line that it presents. Infowars and other independent media included.
Here's a bit of food for thought relating to the subject:
If you honestly believe that any media presents 100% unbiased truth that isn't meant to manipulate you in some way, we're just going to be going around in circles.
You're moving goalposts. First the media tries to manipulate us into towing the government line of viewing Putin as a threat to fund the military industrial complex, now you quickly change it to the political line of whatever media outlet might be discussed.
I never said any media represented a 100% objective reporting. I was countering the ridiculous notion that all Western media is towing the political line on Putin to fund the military industrial complex and manipulating everyone on it. From then onwards you tried to get out from under what you said by making up the excuse you just meant you had to be "skeptical", to now entirely trying to change what you said at first.
Guys, guys. It's "toeing" the line. As in, you stand where you're told in line with everyone else. Not that you pick up and haul a line around (tow the line). Carry on.
feeder wrote: Guys, guys. It's "toeing" the line. As in, you stand where you're told in line with everyone else. Not that you pick up and haul a line around (tow the line). Carry on.
You know, I never thought about the english saying, I just copied it. You learn something every day
The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.
I seem to recall that once upon a time there was a wildly popular Russian leader who pushed the world a bit too far and had a terrible hunting accident. Might I suggest Candidates Tokarev and Nagant as viable solutions to some of Russia's problems?
"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman
"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman
There’s a big difference between standard media political bias, which is always present to some degree, and media being a tool to spread state propaganda to manipulate the public. Saying ‘oh yeah, all media has some bias’ is not an argument for some of what is being claimed here.
The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.
I seem to recall that once upon a time there was a wildly popular Russian leader who pushed the world a bit too far and had a terrible hunting accident. Might I suggest Candidates Tokarev and Nagant as viable solutions to some of Russia's problems?
"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman
Let us all hope Putin becomes a modern Statesman.
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
Well, we do have a politician in Russia who has openly proposed murdering all people in the Baltic states by poisoning them with radioactive waste. He leads the ironically named the Liberal Democratic Party, the third-most popular party in Russia after United Russia and the good ol' Communist Party.
“What will remain of the Baltics? Nothing will remain! In Poland, the Baltics, they are doomed. They’ll be wiped out!”
He is a rabid Russian supremacist, warmonger, racist, antisemite, genocidal maniac and hater of migratory birds. I am not joking when I say this guy is the Russian Hitler.
Next to Zhirinovsky, Putin is the best leader and nicest guy ever. And the worst thing about Zhirinovsky? People actually support him... Luckily, not enough for him to be likely elected leader of Russia, but still a scarily large portion of the Russian population.
Just to show how crazy he his, watch him turn a question on Georgian wine imports into a threat to destroy the entire world here:
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire.
This, by the way, is at the very core of the problem. Russia still wants to be a major player on the world stage, and control an empire. But it's economic heft is only slightly ahead of Spain and going in the wrong direction.
Because Russia is a small dog trying to fight out of its class, it's turned to a bunch of cheap but damaging one-sided ops. Hackings, spy murders etc. Discount malevolence.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.
To the extent that Russia is willing to act as a decent member of the international community, the West should maintain ordinary relations. But it is beyond stupid to think you achieve anything by just pretending Russia is decent, in the hopes that they will become so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: "A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?
I'll take Putin, please.
Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?
#Russia's state TV tries to deflect blame & send a warning to runaway oligarchs & spies: host says #Berezovsky was shunned by the English society & claims "It's acceptable in the UK for the English gentlemen to kill/poison those they consider to be beneath them" (i.e. #Skripal)."
#Russia's state TV tries to deflect blame & send a warning to runaway oligarchs & spies: host says #Berezovsky was shunned by the English society & claims "It's acceptable in the UK for the English gentlemen to kill/poison those they consider to be beneath them" (i.e. #Skripal)."
Jeez, if Skripal was already dead I could imagine that Russian state media would be trying its hardest not to dance on his grave on live TV.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?
I'll take Putin, please.
Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?
I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.
How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?
How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.
And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.
Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?
I'll take Putin, please.
Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?
I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.
How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?
How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.
And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.
Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.
I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one
No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.
Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.
Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?
You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....
The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.
I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.
How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?
How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.
And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.
Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.
I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one
No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.
Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.
Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?
You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....
The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.
Do you genuinely not understand the point he is trying to make, or are you just being obnoxious? Acknowledging that Russia's leader could be much worse is not apologetic behaviour, it is pragmatism. Relations need to improve, or else the next leader of Russia is going to be worse.
Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.
Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.
How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?
I'll take Putin, please.
Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?
I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.
How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?
How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.
And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.
Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.
I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one
No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.
Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.
Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?
You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....
The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.
Not sure how I've outlined Putin as a 'Good Guy.' He simply could be a worse guy, very easily, and while it doesn't affect me much if the guy that runs the local butchers is as bad as Hitler, if someone worse than Putin took over Russia's stockpile of nerve agents, nuclear weapons, and armed forces, it would be exceptionally bad for all of us, and it is a very real and geninue possibility such a thing may one day happen.
You're moving goalposts. I never said chemical weapons were never used. I said chemical weapons were never used against civilians of a foreign country like this. You're listing chemical weapons used in conflicts and mostly on other soldiers or on a country's own citizens. You don't see how Russia using nerve gas on UK soil in peacetime against civilians is entirely different from your wikipedia list?
I didn't mean to imply you said Putin was a good guy, apologies if it reads like that. The point was that because there could possibly be a worse option we shouldn't settle for Putin. At every moment in history there could have been a worse option, that doesn't mean we shpuld prefer the current bad one to the possibility it might be worse. Even if a worse option takes over we just fully switch over to Cold War policy. The Kims are about as bad as it gets, and the West has isolated them quite effectively. The problem in letting Putin get away with these things is that it makes a worse future only more likely, because the worse option can just see what Putin got away with and could just turn it up a notch to see what happens. Setting clear lines is important because if you don't it will slowly get worse as they test your response. Putin's actions and the meek response of the West are what is emboldening the worst this world has to offer, not the West taking a tougher stance.
Apparently Tusk hinted that further co-ordinated retaliation could be in the works.
As I said before, there's more a tinge of self-interest in this united front. If the Russians feel they can do it here, they likely feel they can do it anywhere. This is pre-emptive action to send a signal that it's a step too far, and that Putin needs to stick to more traditional, less collateral, assassination methods. I have no doubt Russia will now close a US consulate, but will they risk going tit for tat with all of Europe too? We shall see...
Well Putin just won his elections and its a long 6 years to the next one. Putin can afford to back down a little for economic reasons. If he will is a good question, but its hard to see what Putin has to gain from driving this up further right now.
And Russia will probably respond in kind. Moscow will have so much more extra parking space now
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West.
Errr....no? We can just lock Putin's government in from every angle, ignore the Russian government, and leave it to moulder until the Russian people decide to overthrow their totalitarian rulers. Or not. We're under no obligation to have anything to do with Russia if we don't want to. They don't make anything of value for the West we can't obtain elsewhere. They're no serious military threat anymore, and judging by declining birth rates and naff economic capability, won't be for a very long time.
Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war.
If Putin's Government decides that the only way it can influence the West is to invade it, Russia will cease to exist in relatively short order; be it by conventional or nuclear means. Which is why it won't happen. Putin has no desire to live in a bunker in an radioactive wasteland for the rest of his life, anymore than he wants to be unceremoniously dragged out of his nice office by a bunch of scornful GI's. And one of those two scenarios would definitely occur if Russia resorted to the military option.
This isn't the nineteenth century anymore, where authoritarian governments can craft any sort of substantial military, economic, or diplomatic muscle. Russia is a small dog yapping at the heels of the big powers once again, desperately trying to keep up and make everyone else look at it. Putin keeps up these little jabs at the West because they're all he can achieve. The problem for Putin is that once the West locks ranks and brings the Iron Curtain back down in reverse, his impotence will be revealed to his own population. And they might decide they'd prefer someone else in charge. Which is why this level of co-ordinated action is bad for him; it brings that scenario another step closer.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?
No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.
Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.
If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.
whembly wrote: Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.
...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.
No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.
He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.
The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???
I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?
Uhm, by that virtue countries like Pakistan and North Korea are superpowers. Being a superpower is more than just having nuclear weapons as basically half the world has the capability to produce those given incentive. By any other measurement Russia is no more of a superpower as Poland or Turkey is.
Actually Putin's ability to feth with the European markets has been severely reduced in recent years with the collapse of prices and intense EU efforts to diversify (plus Russia's economy would absolutely tank). If anything Russia ability to do so is declining steadily. Which is why Putin is kicking and screaming so loudly, its all he has left.
Of course Putin doesn't want war, that's not the point. The point is that these little jokes of his might actually lead to an escalation nobody wants. Also the appropriate response without giving Russia a casus belli? Russia just gave the UK a casus belli, not the other way around. If Russia decides to go to war over how the West responds that is fully on them.
whembly wrote: Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.
...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.
No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.
He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.
The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???
I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?
The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>. And this is something they won't do, because hardline stances against Bogeymen is what gets people to vote for you.
Maybe we can get through this with some back-channel diplomacy that allows the leaders to save some face like we've done in the past.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
And the Second World War. Let's think on that one for a moment.
whembly wrote: Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.
...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.
No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.
He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.
The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???
I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?
The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>. And this is something they won't do, because hardline stances against Bogeymen is what gets people to vote for you.
Maybe we can get through this with some back-channel diplomacy that allows the leaders to save some face like we've done in the past.
I think this is true, but I also think states cannot back down to such open aggression. What is needed is a combined carrot and stick approach- a simultaneous response of resisting further aggression and expansion by targeting Russia in remaining, non-military ways (of which there are many, despite existing sanctions), yet also having a clear and well defined approach to regaining trust and removing sanctions, which is clearly communicated to Russia. The message should be to play international ball, or be locked down. Both aspects are necessary in the current situation.
If the Western community just backs down and goes "ok, you win, lets dial the sanctions back somewhat and look to work closer again", that basically says messily deploying a military grade weapon into a civilian population to loosely target a valueless ex-asset is an acceptable way to force the international communities' hand. Then everytime Russia gets sanctioned for doing something unpleasant, it is going to bomb/gas/poison etc. somebody in a country to try to reduce the pressure. I also think other states would learn from this that Western states can be forced to back down through attacks.
Therefore a two-fold hardline response with an escape route to regain trust is necessary. But the escape route should require meaningful concessions, at the very least admission of responsibility. Would Russia be likely to do this? Probably not, but then they are in the weaker economic position here.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
And the Second World War. Let's think on that one for a moment.
I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.
I probably shouldn't dive into this off-topic rabbit hole... But I suppose it is tangentially relevant.
I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.
...
I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.
I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.
...
I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.
I wouldn't say so- they erased a lot of the benefits for the army, but the most important parts of the British military in the early war were the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. We only introduced the Hurricane in 1937 and the Spitfire in 1938. The Messerschmitt 109 was introduced in 1937 too, but the Lufftwaffe definitely had a head start on air superiority and practice in the Spanish civil war.
Without a capable RAF and RN, Operation Sealion was actually a plausible strategy, rather than a suicide mission.
Also, what would've happened if we'd had a Dunkirk without rearming? No capability to respond in North Africa and protect the main source of oil for Britain in the West? Rearming allowed Dunkirk to be absorbed without crippling the British Army entirely.
I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.
...
I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.
Appeasement gave Germany the time it needed to arm, and Hitler the popular support he needed to avert a General's coup. The German army was barely in a state to invade Poland in 39', it would have crumbled at any serious armed resistance in Czechoslovakia.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West.
Errr....no? We can just lock Putin's government in from every angle, ignore the Russian government, and leave it to moulder until the Russian people decide to overthrow their totalitarian rulers. Or not. We're under no obligation to have anything to do with Russia if we don't want to. They don't make anything of value for the West we can't obtain elsewhere. They're no serious military threat anymore, and judging by declining birth rates and naff economic capability, won't be for a very long time.
No military threat? Russia has enough nukes to destroy pretty much the entire world, and if nukes are out of the question it still has enough conventional missiles to level every city in the world. It has a vast arsenal of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deploy them on massive scale. It has more tanks and armoured vehicles than pretty much all other countries in the world combined, the world's largest contingent of artillery including intercontinental missiles, the world's third largest air force (second-largest when including helicopters), one of the world's largest navies with a very large number of nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, highly developed and tested military doctrines, a vast pool of manpower to draw upon, a population willing to bring massive sacrifices when it feels threatened, huge stores of retired but serviceable Soviet surplus etc. etc. etc. Russia could overrun the Baltic States and Ukraine in a matter of hours, Eastern Europe in a matter of days. It may be only a shade of Soviet power, but Russia still maintains an incredibly powerful and well-organised military. And all of it on just a fraction of the budget of other countries (which is possible to the degree of integration of government and military-industrial complex in Russia), so a relatively small economic base is and has never been a problem. The Soviet Union's economy wasn't much better than modern Russia's, and yet they maintained an army that was much larger. Calling Russia 'not a military threat' is to be completely ignorant of the reality. Especially since most European countries no longer have real militaries. Please don't underestimate them. We are at a critical moment in history, and underestimating Russia is likely to lead to a very deadly mistake.
Ketara wrote:
Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war.
If Putin's Government decides that the only way it can influence the West is to invade it, Russia will cease to exist in relatively short order; be it by conventional or nuclear means. Which is why it won't happen. Putin has no desire to live in a bunker in an radioactive wasteland for the rest of his life, anymore than he wants to be unceremoniously dragged out of his nice office by a bunch of scornful GI's. And one of those two scenarios would definitely occur if Russia resorted to the military option.
Scenario one won't occur because no one in the US or Europe wants their country to be turned into a lifeless nuclear wasteland. Any (strategic) nuclear attack on Russia would mean the total annihilation of the attacking country. Nobody wants that, therefore nobody will attack Russia with nuclear weapons, and Russia will in turn not attack anyone with (strategic) nuclear weapons. A third world war will probably still be fought with conventional weapons and maybe the occasional tactical nuke, simply because nobody wants to risk total annihilation. Scenario two won't occur either. The US won't attack or invade Russia directly, and if it does, the invading soldiers will simply meet the same end the millions of other would-be invaders of Russia have met throughout history. Defeating Russia through conventional means is not really do-able. Hitler could not do it, and he had an army many times stronger than the entirety of contemporary NATO put together. The US would need ten times the military it currently has to even attempt such an attack. In war, Russia will simply take what it wants by force and there will be nothing the West can do about it. The Baltic States and Ukraine will fall very quickly. And once they fall it will be prohibitively difficult and costly for the West to try take them back. It will be a fait accompli. There is two ways for the West to prevent that. The first way is to rebuild their militaries back to the size they were in the 1980's. This won't happen because Western economies can't handle it. The second way is to simply be nice to Russia and stop making them feel threatened. With Russia no longer being under threat, the army and military-industrial complex would lose power, which would open paths to alternative ways of development. Putin would need to focus on improving the economy to stay in power, because he would no longer be able to use external threats, nationalism and 'though measures' to boost his popularity.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations. The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?
No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.
Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.
If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.
You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results. Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/ The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership. And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?
Iron_Captain wrote: The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner.
It has been laid out to you plainly and repeatedly that that is total bs. There has been multiple efforts to reset relations with Russia. Normal relations is desired by the West.
But the West also desires the international community follows international law, respects sovereignty and human rights. So when Russia invades other countries, relations and trade with Russia will be reduced at a bare minimum.
And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
Yeah, and here's the fundamental problem I explained to you earlier. You think Russia is a big dog that gets to dictate what security arrangements major powers will have. But Russia is a little dog that is getting smaller. When you try and pick fights several weight divisions above your class, you're gonna have a bad time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.
That's really not how it works. Sure, hypothetically Putin could blow up a large chunk of the planet, but so could Pakistan or Israel. It doesn't make you a world power. All nukes mean is in absolute terms you won't be invaded, but Russia is basically invasion proof anyway, with the cost of occupation and the scale of Russia no-one is going to bother with that.
Actual, practical force is something very different. That's is a combination of economic might, and the ability to project conventional military force. And on those counts Russia is a very minor player. Just think of it this way - after the Ukraine invasion the US led a sanctions effort against Russia, and RUssia responded in kind. The Russian stock market halved within days and kept falling, it eventually hit a low where the entire value of every single company on the exchange was lower than the value of Apple. In contrast, the Russian sanctions on the US had no impact at all. Not just no impact on the total market, it was impossible to find a single company that had a price drop due to Russian sanctions.
...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.
Europe is a heavy user of Russian energy. But Europe has plenty of alternatives, the market isn't short of sellers, especially not with the explosion of natural gas supply. In contrast, Russia has no alternative to energy supply. If it isn't exporting that, then it isn't exporting anything. Russia cash stops overnight, and the country falls over.
The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???
It isn't about giving Russia cause, even with cause Russia doesn't want war. The challenge is in finding responses that are appropriate, and just as importantly sustainable. We need levers against Russia that won't be let up until Russia improves its behaviour. A major part of forcing that change is giving Russia a credible statement that these penalties will be maintained until Russia normalizes.
This is the problem with booting the spies. It isn't something that will continue. Other embassy staff with intelligence connections will come in, countries won't keep booting these guys as soon as their real roles are uncovered.
But sanctions cost the West little, and Russia a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>.
What, in the wake of the Georgian invasion the West basically gave Russia a mulligan. Then Putin doubled up with Ukraine, and the response was targeted sanctions. There's no way the West could do any less without giving up on the idea of international law entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: No military threat? Russia has enough nukes to destroy pretty much the entire world, and if nukes are out of the question it still has enough conventional missiles to level every city in the world.
No, this isn't how it works. The ability to blow up the world isn't power, it's just a suicide pact. Russia isn't going to respond to increased sanctions by eradicating the human race.
Nukes mean a country is safe from invasion. It means nothing in terms of power projection.
Iron_Captain wrote: It has a vast arsenal of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction,
I'd like to point out that Russia having a vast arsenal of chemical weapons would be in direct violation of its membership and international treaty with the OPCW. Its highly unlikely Russia has stockpiled so much without international protest.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?
No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.
Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.
If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.
You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/ The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?
I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.
Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".
I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.
Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.
The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive. The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.
I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.
No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.
Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?
Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.
Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?
It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.
Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?
Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.
Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?
It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.
Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.
You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?
I think Western Civilization and Western Democracies should call it a day, because if this is the calibre of politicians we're producing, we deserve to have the Goths, the Vandals, Atilla and the Barbarians, overrun us and put an end to this mockery of governance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: The same reason Canada, the United States, and other non-Euro powers are. A show of solidarity that these nations are firmly against what Russia did.
Canada and the USA makes sense in a way, seeing as they're in the same neighbourhood as Russia and fellow NATO members, but Australia?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.
Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?
Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.
Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?
It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.
Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.
You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?
Issuing a statement of condemnation is one thing, but expelling diplomats? Pointless. Gesture politics at its worst.
Do what it promised to do back in the 1990s when it had a gentlemen's agreement not to roll NATO up to the Russian border and keep the hell out of Ukraine.
Crazyterran wrote: The same reason Canada, the United States, and other non-Euro powers are. A show of solidarity that these nations are firmly against what Russia did.
Canada and the USA makes sense in a way, seeing as they're in the same neighbourhood as Russia and fellow NATO members, but Australia?
Australia is part of the West and is heavily invested in its US ally. Its only natural that Australia would go along with this out of American interest. Its what allies do, you back each other up even if you don't really have anything on the line. Plus its effect on international law and all that. Australia has a very large regional neighbour in the form of China that is inherently interested in what Russia and by extension itself might get away with. Not doing anything about Russia today might mean China might be doing it in its 'backyard' tomorrow.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.
Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?
Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.
Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?
It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.
Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.
You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?
Issuing a statement of condemnation is one thing, but expelling diplomats? Pointless. Gesture politics at its worst.
Its an immediate tool available to countries. Other measures take time to prepare. Everybody knows its kicking out enemy intel officers. It just shows you're serious.
Do what it promised to do back in the 1990s when it had a gentlemen's agreement not to roll NATO up to the Russian border and keep the hell out of Ukraine.
Like we have gentleman's agreements (called international law) about not illegally invading and annexing parts of other countries or using chemical weapons on civilians in foreign countries? Yes, certainly the next gentleman's agreement is going to prevent all that. Russia had a gentleman's agreement with Ukraine about its borders, you should ask Ukraine how that went
So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.
tneva82 wrote: So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.
They have evidence. It was sent to UK allies and the OPCW for testing. It could be years before any evidence becomes public as it deals with sensitive information. The idea that all these countries are going to accuse and condemn Russia cause the UK told them so is a bit weak.
Also its hilarious that accusing Russia with evidence is forgetting your principles. How about the principle of not letting other countries murder civilians in your country with chemical weapons
tneva82 wrote: So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.
No public evidence. I very much doubt all of these countries would be taking this action only for OPCW to say "actually we have done tests and it looks like it wasn't Russia". We have been over it time and again in this thread.
What principles are you referring too? I'm not sure what principles they are forgetting.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?
No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.
Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.
If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.
You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/ The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?
I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".
Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation.
The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.
A reset that does not reset anything is not a reset.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.
They were damaging to relations, yes. But they were reactions to damaging actions by the West, done long after Russia lost its faith in the West. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West, he means what I explained above. A relation between equals. Western politicians meanwhile continue to talk about wanting good relations but keep performing hostile actions. Hollow words, hollow souls. Russia has made real sacrifices to allow for good relations with the West, just a comparison between a map of 1977 and 2017 should show that. Now it is the turn of the West to make sacrifices. But the West does not want to make sacrifices, it wants only to dominate.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive.
When someone punches you in the face, you punch him back. When someone shows you disrespect, you show him disrespect. When someone treats you kindly, you treat him with kindness in return. This does not mean you do not have agency.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.
Russia has been invaded unexpectedly too often to take risks like that. When there is massive military alliance on your border, and their words and actions are hostile, do you trust them or do you arm yourself? NATO is a tool for Western domination. As long as NATO exists, Russia will always be threatened, and an equal relation will never be possible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.
That path does exist, it is the path of the Cold War. But it is a delicate path. Confrontation leads to tension, which leads to more confrontation. Too much tension and confrontation leads to war. Eventually someone has to back down and appease, or war is inevitable. The question is, will our leaders back down in time? The Cold War is on again, but I have less trust in the politicians of the present than in those of the past.
Iron_Captain wrote: The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner.
It has been laid out to you plainly and repeatedly that that is total bs. There has been multiple efforts to reset relations with Russia. Normal relations is desired by the West.
As it has been for you. There has never been any effort made by the US or any other Western country. Only empty talk. The West does not desire normal relations, that is clear from their actions. The West only desires a subservient Russia that kowtows to the US like the rest of world.
sebster wrote: But the West also desires the international community follows international law, respects sovereignty and human rights. So when Russia invades other countries, relations and trade with Russia will be reduced at a bare minimum.
Sure, we want good relations with you, but only if you do exactly what I want you to do. Yes, Russia sometimes invades other countries. So do Western nations. But of course, only those Western nations are allowed to invade other people. The Western imperialism evident in this statement is sickening.
And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
Yeah, and here's the fundamental problem I explained to you earlier. You think Russia is a big dog that gets to dictate what security arrangements major powers will have. But Russia is a little dog that is getting smaller. When you try and pick fights several weight divisions above your class, you're gonna have a bad time.
"Ha, little Russia! You are too small so you have to do exactly what Uncle Sam says, or else..."
tneva82 wrote: So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.
No public evidence. I very much doubt all of these countries would be taking this action only for OPCW to say "actually we have done tests and it looks like it wasn't Russia". We have been over it time and again in this thread.
What principles are you referring too? I'm not sure what principles they are forgetting.
I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants.
Alternatively, because most of Eastern Europe is in NATO and thus has a bigger stick than Russia.
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants.
Alternatively, because most of Eastern Europe is in NATO and thus has a bigger stick than Russia.
A bigger stick is useless if you can't reach it in time. NATO is more powerful than Russia, but NATO is divided and spread out.
I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
I seem to recall the last time anyone presumed innocence with Putin he seized Crimea and parts of the Ukraine? And even when I showed you video of Russian tanks rolling over the boarder you insisted that it was not true that Russia was involved because RT said so?
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.
'Force' is a relative concept.
For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.
Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.
Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.
The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.
Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.
When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.
All this talk of ‘all power come from force and Russia has lots of force, we are really powerful’ is typical of the bullish, chest beating bravado that comes from their government too. Like when the Russian embassy chose to ‘remind’ us they’re a nuclear power and should be given more respect when ejecting their diplomats. Iron captain boasting that if they want something they’ll drive tanks in and take it. You tried to murder people on British soil with chemical weapons. You can’t win arguments by waving nukes around and stamping your feet.
Seems to me generally Russia and its people have an inferiority complex and think being murderous warmongers will automatically earn the respect they crave rather than create antagonism that carries consequences that make them feel more victimhood.
True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.
Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.
notprop wrote: True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.
Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.
Ah, Boris Johnson. I didn't know you posted on Dakka.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.
Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.
You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?
No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.
Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.
If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.
Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.
You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/ The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?
I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.
Honestly not all power is derived from force, you seem to have skipped a lot of history in that case, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed, the British Empire collapsed etc etc. Russia has a lot of power true, but so do countries like China, the UK and France. We might stretch to include China as a semi superpower. But Russia like the UK and France are no longer superpowers. The Russian military isn't what the Warsaw Pact was. Its cornered by two powerful blocs now in the form of NATO and China. The idea that Russia could defeat NATO is laughable, the US alone vastly outspends Russia. Russia's army is only useful in bullying the poorer countries on Russia's southern flank.
This is what I mean by Russian delusions, the idea that they could still rule Eastern Europe by force. The idea that it can somehow stand up to US military power. The only reason it hasn't happened is that unlike most Russians, Putin doesn't suffer from the same delusions about military capabilities. Russia's polar moment has passed. The US is the unipolar power by sheer numbers alone, whether you want to accept it or not. The only shift to a bipolar world will be with China. Russia had its moment in the sun. If Russia wants to blow up the world to cling to delusions then its even more insane than the Kim family.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".
Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation.
The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.
Putin doesn't want more?? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are the definition of wanting more. Putin is nibbling off what territories he can of unfriendly neighbouring states. The West doesn't have to appease Russia. Russia is not some special case that deserves preferential treatment. Yet the West is bending over backwards to restrain themselves in cases such as this and Ukraine, where sanctions were positively mild. The West could just sell arms to Ukraine or end the regime of the tin pot dictator called Assad and there would be nothing Russia could do about it. Its the type of restraint Russia has never shown towards its neighbours.
You think gassing civilians in the UK is a sign of mutual respect? Russia has no respect for the West. You can't have meaningful relations with a country that can't behave internationally. We can have meaningful relations with countries like China because they don't do this gak. The West doesn't desire to dominate Russia, the West desires Russia to respect international boundaries (that Russia has agreed with) and not behave like a 19th century bully. I guess when the West finally decides to spread it for Russia that is a sign of 'mutual respect' to you?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.
A reset that does not reset anything is not a reset.
I think you're confusing reset with "ignore all the bad gak we do forever now".
Disciple of Fate wrote: Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.
They were damaging to relations, yes. But they were reactions to damaging actions by the West, done long after Russia lost its faith in the West. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West, he means what I explained above. A relation between equals. Western politicians meanwhile continue to talk about wanting good relations but keep performing hostile actions. Hollow words, hollow souls. Russia has made real sacrifices to allow for good relations with the West, just a comparison between a map of 1977 and 2017 should show that. Now it is the turn of the West to make sacrifices. But the West does not want to make sacrifices, it wants only to dominate.
What, as pointed out multiple times Skripal already did his time and Ukraine is what thoroughly ruined the reset. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he actually means that the West should let him get away with what he does. It would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly sad. Russia is supporting murderous regimes and illegally annexing territories, its as hostile to the West as you can get when considering the role of Western normative and hegemonic power. Hahaha, so the Soviets collapsing and Russia being weakened was a sacrifice made to the West? Pull the other one. None of that was for the West, it was imperial overstretch and the logical collapse. When you say the West should make sacrifices, all that means in reality is throwing sovereign nations under the Russian bus.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive.
When someone punches you in the face, you punch him back. When someone shows you disrespect, you show him disrespect. When someone treats you kindly, you treat him with kindness in return. This does not mean you do not have agency.
This does mean you have no agency, you're blatently mirroring what the other does. You don't have to punch back, you don't have to show disrespect. Saying all actions Russia takes are only because of Western actions is taking away agency, as it means that Russia isn't able to act independently, only to mirror.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.
Russia has been invaded unexpectedly too often to take risks like that. When there is massive military alliance on your border, and their words and actions are hostile, do you trust them or do you arm yourself? NATO is a tool for Western domination. As long as NATO exists, Russia will always be threatened, and an equal relation will never be possible.
Ah I see, when I bring up fears of Poland or the Baltics being invaded by Russia its 'Russophobia', but when its Russia and NATO its perfectly valid, got it
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.
That path does exist, it is the path of the Cold War. But it is a delicate path. Confrontation leads to tension, which leads to more confrontation. Too much tension and confrontation leads to war. Eventually someone has to back down and appease, or war is inevitable. The question is, will our leaders back down in time? The Cold War is on again, but I have less trust in the politicians of the present than in those of the past.
And if that path needs to be taken than so be it. The West has nothing of value to lose from returning to the Cold War. If that is the price to pay for making Russia behave like a normal country than so be it. Maybe its time for Russia to back down and not murder civilians in the West again. Maybe Russia should stop creating this tension and it can avoid being isolated. If Russia wants to go to war over economic sanctions it only serves to demonstrate that Russia can only act like a 19th century bully and not behave like a 21st century country.
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.
'Force' is a relative concept.
For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.
Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.
Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.
The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.
Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.
When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.
You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.
France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible. They do not have the militarised society or population base needed for that, and if they did, they would not have the economy they have now. The notion that European armies would be able to stand up to Russia is extremely laughable. Aside from Poland, no European country has a military close enough to Russia's borders that is worth mentioning, and most European countries barely have any military at all. They don't even meet the already very low NATO goals and are smaller than even a single Russian division. The UK for example has a military that is way too small to do anything independently, and coordinating an operation with its allies would take far too much time. Meanwhile, as shown in snap exercises Russia can have formations of upwards of 160,000 soldiers including tanks and aircraft ready and deployed at the border within 24 hours. For the record, that is a formation larger than the entire British military.
While the Russian military obviously does not have the capability to invade Britain, it does not need to. It has the capability to invade the Baltics, Poland Ukraine etc, which is what it needs to. The British or any European military does not have the capability to stop such an invasion. They are so outmatched in manpower and especially material it is not even funny. In any conflict with Russia, Europe would lean completely on the US of A.
Don't try to argue that Russia is not militarily capable. That is nonsense. Russia has an incredibly strong, capable military and that is a fact backed up with plenty of hard data. Analyse Russian military exercises or military operations in the recent past (Crimea, Syria) if you do not believe me. The Russian military has fully recovered from the Soviet collapse. Instead of wasting your energy trying to cling to a reality that no longer exist and be all like "We can defeat Russia, Britain stronk!", I would like to invite you to spend it on discussing a way to avoid a military confrontation instead. Because ultimately, who is stronger or who would win a war is completely irrelevant. If it comes to war, both sides already have lost. We must not have war.
So, what do you think can be done (realistically) to avoid the current course of confrontation?
notprop wrote: True and the more they beat their collective chests to show how “powerful” they are the more we laugh at them.
Russia really looks like an anachronism, a characture from a 70’s pastiche of a tinpot Middle Eastern Dictator or a hairy-chested wannabe trying to impress a girl half his age with bad disco moves.
And lo, I have found my new, one true love on the Intahweb! (sorry Notprop ... no heart orkmote on Dakka...)
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world.
'Force' is a relative concept.
For example, me and my rival are having our teams of slaves indulge in a rope pulling contest. You know, one of those ones to drag the other team over the line. I might well have a thousand slaves to my rival's dozen, but if there is only space for ten men on each side of the rope; the one of us with the ten strongest men wins. My thousand men might well be collectively stronger than his dozen, but that means nothing within the scope of the rope pulling contest.
Likewise, I can have as large an army as I like, but if they have no landing craft and I wish to invade Britain? It matters not. The force cannot be applied to the relevant scenario.
Russia has plenty of nukes; but no ability to deploy them into a non-nuclear armageddon scenario. Therefore it doesn't matter if they spend all weekend building nukes in every back garden for any other scenario. Having the greatest 'force' means nothing. It cannot be applied. It is irrelevant. When quantifying how 'powerful' a state is outside of a hypothetical armageddon scenario, Russia's nuclear weapons might as well be non-existent. They contribute nothing in terms of 'force' to anything but that one nuclear scenario.
The 'force' and 'power' of a state in this day and age in the field of conventional warfare is derived from a number of factors. In comparison to the EU, the US, and China, Russia is not even close. It doesn't even match France or Britain in terms of economic muscle. Either could (if they really decided to change domestic funding priorities) raise a conventional army within three years far larger than Russia's. That's without even factoring in the collective 'force' or 'power' of NATO into our calculations.
Russia is neither strong nor weak in the field of conventional warfare when compared to any individual nation (barring the US and China). It is....mediocre. It has a fairly good domestic military research base, a reasonably large population (if shrinking), and a large standing land army. Unfortunately, it has very little economic muscle to sustain any kind of protracted conflict (war is expensive), a rather poor domestic infrastructure, and very few allies.
When compared to the big dogs? It's laughable. The American, European, and Chinese militaries all outmatch Russia in every field of conventional warfare, and have none of the weaknesses to protracted conflict that Russia does. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia would be like that one frat college guy in bed; comes on strong and forceful in the opening rounds, then ends up out of juice and all dazed after two minutes of action.
You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.
France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible. They do not have the militarised society or population base needed for that, and if they did, they would not have the economy they have now. The notion that European armies would be able to stand up to Russia is extremely laughable. Aside from Poland, no European country has a military close enough to Russia's borders that is worth mentioning, and most European countries barely have any military at all. They don't even meet the already very low NATO goals and are smaller than even a single Russian division. The UK for example has a military that is way too small to do anything independently, and coordinating an operation with its allies would take far too much time. Meanwhile, as shown in snap exercises Russia can have formations of upwards of 160,000 soldiers including tanks and aircraft ready and deployed at the border within 24 hours. For the record, that is a formation larger than the entire British military.
While the Russian military obviously does not have the capability to invade Britain, it does not need to. It has the capability to invade the Baltics, Poland Ukraine etc, which is what it needs to. The British or any European military does not have the capability to stop such an invasion. They are so outmatched in manpower and especially material it is not even funny. In any conflict with Russia, Europe would lean completely on the US of A.
Don't try to argue that Russia is not militarily capable. That is nonsense. Russia has an incredibly strong, capable military and that is a fact backed up with plenty of hard data. Analyse Russian military exercises or military operations in the recent past (Crimea, Syria) if you do not believe me. The Russian military has fully recovered from the Soviet collapse. Instead of wasting your energy trying to cling to a reality that no longer exist and be all like "We can defeat Russia, Britain stronk!", I would like to invite you to spend it on discussing a way to avoid a military confrontation instead. Because ultimately, who is stronger or who would win a war is completely irrelevant. If it comes to war, both sides already have lost. We must not have war.
So, what do you think can be done (realistically) to avoid the current course of confrontation?
Can we have a thread to do a wargame between Russia and Nato, please?
I would geninuely be so excited for that.
I don't get what's up with all this "Russia has nukezzz lol, you can't invade Russia!" Meanwhile France, the UK and the US also have nukes in Europe to guard against a Russian invasion, but somehow those aren't going to be used when were talking about a full scale Russian invasion of Europe? In reality Russia wins the opening moves before being thrown back to its borders and that's that, because France is the safe base of operations in mainland Europe for a counteroffensive.
As for European army size, if the political will was there from a credible Russian threat (it isn't credible) they could easily expand their armies. Lets not forget that during the Cold War most European armies were 2 to 3 times the size of what they are now.
You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost.
I know you can't actually argue that *I* know little of the above things. And, while there's a lot of chest beating around here atm, Russia's biggest issue is still going to be the same issue old issues that have plagued large armies since the beginning: supply. Worse, while Russia's military industries are impressive, they're unlikely to be able to sustain the Russian military in a protracted engagement with Nato in Eastern Europe, due to a likely scorched earth policy as they advance.
Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.
This is patently false. All projected force relies on a strong economy to function in any kind of sustained capacity. Economy and production are the basis of any power, and the military is merely an extension of that. You can say all you want about the Russian military not requiring an economy to function, but that is not true in the slightest.
Without even touching on the fact that the vast majority of the Russian military is not actually modernised, Russia has some key strategic military weaknesses that are not based on military power, but economic power.
First of all, the Russian government revenue, and therefore military spending, is highly dependent on oil prices. Therefore, it relies on there being an external market for the oil it produces to fund it's military. The rest of Europe is already in the process of weaning off Russian fuel imports, and this is only going to accelerate following such blatant aggression. The Russian military may be cost-efficient, but it is not free or self-reliant on no government support.(1)
The second major weakness is that Russia imports the vast majority of the electronics used in it's military tech. For example, Russian naval electronics are 100% dependent on foreign imports, and military electronics in other areas vary from 40% to 90% reliance. Typically, the most reliant areas are the most high-tech and crucial in the modern age, such as satellites. Since the increasing sanctions after the Crimean invasion, Russian rearmament has already slowed due to reduced imports of strategic components. If Russia cannot produce it's own high-end electronics domestically, it will quickly run out of it's modernised forces, and be unable to replace them.(2)
The other major weakness is related to the second one- Russia imports 90% of it's required rare-earth metals, along with importing various other strategic resources, including 100% of it's titanium and a large amount of high-end steel alloys (because Russia cannot produce steel alloys of a sufficient quality). This is inspite of Russia having the second-largest known-natural reserves of rare-earth metals. The weakness here is obvious- lose access to Western markets, and lose access to the resources needed to actually build up the Russian military. Why does Russia import rare-earth metals? Chronic underdevelopment of domestic mining industries- in short, a poor economy to support the military. This is a serious shortfall too- increasing production tenfold is no easy task.(2)
What we see here is Russian power being limited by a lack of domestic economic power, and yes, this is directly affecting their military strength. They are likely to shoot themselves in the foot by acting so aggressively so early. Especially as they have only recently regained a capability to project some power abroad again, as seen in the Syria intervention. If Russia wants to regain any kind of similar capability for a large proportion of it's approximately 3 million personnel, it needs to not feth off the people supplying the technology and resources that are actually allowing that to happen. I believe the phrase is not to bite the hand that feeds you?
As an aside, Russia is not a superpower. The USA is the only global superpower currently. Russia is at best a great power, along with other nuclear states who can actually project their nuclear power to anywhere on the globe (UK, France, China), and definitely at least a regional power (taking Eastern Europe is operating as a regional power). China is the only state currently that looks to be able to ascend to superpower capabilities, and that is entirely due to it's strong economic basis. Future possible contenders are India, the EU if it survives and undergoes further integration (it is currently only an economic power) and, yes, Russia, but only if it sorts out it's domestic economy. These three are all far in the future too, not near future like China.
Oh, I think you mentined that Poland has the only European military near Russian borders worth caring about? Finland has a military worth caring about. It is not part of NATO, but is enough of a pain in the arse to invade that Russia isn't actually fething about with it.
They essentially have one! How achievable this is I do not know, especially with likely changes to sanctions. It would still leave them heavily reliant on imports too.
Iron_Captain wrote: As it has been for you. There has never been any effort made by the US or any other Western country. Only empty talk. The West does not desire normal relations, that is clear from their actions. The West only desires a subservient Russia that kowtows to the US like the rest of world.
No, the West desire a Russia that adheres to international law.
Sure, we want good relations with you, but only if you do exactly what I want you to do.
"what I want you to do" is follow international law.
Yes, Russia sometimes invades other countries. So do Western nations. But of course, only those Western nations are allowed to invade other people.
You've almost got a point there. If you took out the Russia martyrdom silliness you might have actually realized the reality, but you couldn't quite get there. Anyhow, yes, the US can invade Iraq in clear breach of international law and suffer no penalty. Similarly China's actions in the South China Sea are plainly illegal, but the response has been nothing more than ineffectual posturing.
But this is because the US and China are big dogs with enormous economic and military clout. They get away with stuff. Everybody else, and yes I mean everybody else, not just poor widdle Russia, has to live in a world where breaches of international law come with severe punishment. It isn't completely fair, but there's no sensible way to make the US and CHina obey the same rules as the rest of us, and the alternative is to have no rules at all, and that would be a complete disaster.
But even if this wasn't the best possible option, end of the day it is the option we have taken and so it is the world that Russia lives in. So Russia either needs to grow up, realize its real place in the world order and get on with being an ordinary country, or keep trying to pretend its a major player and keep whinging when it all blows up in its face.
So far you're fully behind Russia's imaginary, pretend to be strong decision. Deep down it must be a humiliating experience.
"Ha, little Russia! You are too small so you have to do exactly what Uncle Sam says, or else..."
That's a silly response. Anyhow, yes, Russia has to obey international law or face sanctions. Accept this reality, or continue to piss and moan when Russia's breaches of international law are met with more sanctions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: You know painfully little of Russia and the Russian military. War may be expensive for the West, but Russia can wage war at only a small fraction of that cost. You don't need much military muscle to field an army if that army barely costs anything. That is the presumption with which the Russian (and Soviet) militaries have always operated. As I said, the Russian Empire and Soviet Union also had no economic base to speak of, yet that did not stop them from waging long, protracted conflicts. You do not understand how the Russian state or the Russian military-industrial complex operates. It doesn't need an economy. It is largely self-sustaining.
This is hopelessly mistaken. The Soviet Union had serious industrial power, and so triumphed in WW2 as it was a war of industrial power. Before then, when Russia had not yet gone through its communist industrialization, its lack of economic power was a direct cause of its poor performance in WW1 & the Crimean War. Before then Russian successes came in a period where manpower and military training were key elements.
France and Britain can't raise armies larger than Russia. The way their economy and government function makes that impossible.
Right here, in the 21st century, we have someone trying to claim that conscript troops doing their mandatory period of service are what makes for military might. This is a real thing that a person is actually trying to claim.
Nationalism is a hell of a drug.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.
It isn't just that. While the Russian air force has some good qualities, the reality is it is a very long way behind the US, never mind the rest of NATO. The US has better quality air superiority fighters and more of them, and that advantage is multiplied by the overwhelming tech edge the US has in air surveillance and electronic warfare.
Recent history has shown that air power doesn't automatically translate to mass destruction on the ground, but that's only true if those forces stop their advance and disperse. The only way they stay in the fight is by becoming useless as offensive assets. At which point who cares if Russia has 160,00 men in armoured columns ready on day one, by day three or four they'll be neutered by the enemy's total air control.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: They essentially have one! How achievable this is I do not know, especially with likely changes to sanctions. It would still leave them heavily reliant on imports too.
Holy crap Russia imports 60% of its helicopter engines? I thought helicopters were like the one thing Russia was actually really good at, and they're not even using their own engines.
I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
We have been through this before and you know it. If you read what you are talking about, rather than just trying to deflect, it specifically states that
n many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial
And
in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.
States are not people. This is not putting someone in prison and this is not a police investigation. Presumption of innocence is not universal or relevant. Stop trying to deflect. No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.
It isn't just that. While the Russian air force has some good qualities, the reality is it is a very long way behind the US, never mind the rest of NATO. The US has better quality air superiority fighters and more of them, and that advantage is multiplied by the overwhelming tech edge the US has in air surveillance and electronic warfare.
Recent history has shown that air power doesn't automatically translate to mass destruction on the ground, but that's only true if those forces stop their advance and disperse. The only way they stay in the fight is by becoming useless as offensive assets. At which point who cares if Russia has 160,00 men in armoured columns ready on day one, by day three or four they'll be neutered by the enemy's total air control.
I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...
Iron_Captain wrote:You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets.
Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.
But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.
I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
We have been through this before and you know it. If you read what you are talking about, rather than just trying to deflect, it specifically states that
n many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial
And
in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.
States are not people. This is not putting someone in prison and this is not a police investigation. Presumption of innocence is not universal or relevant. Stop trying to deflect. No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.
For some reason one side also conveniently keeps ignoring the evidence was sent to the OPCW.
Going for the old ‘quantity has a quality of its own’ approach to war again eh? That’s what makes you powerful, being able to throw away large numbers of people.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Going for the old ‘quantity has a quality of its own’ approach to war again eh? That’s what makes you powerful, being able to throw away large numbers of people.
Its also useful when your industrial capacity is actually bigger, not smaller And 50 year old equipment really does have a quality of its own on the modern battlefield
Steve steveson wrote: States are not people. ...No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.
this is coming really close to 'no evidence is needed at all' and consequences of such approach have proven to be extremely dramatic... here is a telling selection of 2002-2003 rhetorics preceding action on Iraq...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/07/iraqs-weapons-of-mass-destruction-who-said-what-when/ and all these leaders were wrong, the evidence was either fake or non-existent, more than 60,000 non-combatant civilians were killed, on their land, in their homes, being individuals as well as a part of their nation... just think - 60,000... not 2, not 25... a hell of a price for all these 'there is no doubt' and 'know for a fact'...
Iron Captain keeps talking about how numbers are such a powerful factor in war. So the size of Russia's army demands it be seen as a world power. Except North Korea has more active troops. Should we consider North Korea a major world power? And if we go to the old line that Russia has so many reservists to call in... well then North Korea only becomes more powerful because they've got 6 million reservists waiting, and Vietnam then goes ahead of Russia because they've got 5 million of their own reservists. And to my own surprise South Korea actually jumps to the top of the list because they've got 7 million reservists, and therefore have technically the largest pool of troops in the whole world.
So by the Iron Captain grand world theory that Russia should be regarded as a major power because military force is the only consideration and military force is measured purely in quantity... does this mean we should abandon our world order, and accept that South Korea, North Korea and Vietnam are the real powerhouses in the world, and everyone else should just kowtow to them?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...
I remember when Russia got giddy because a Russian built SAM downed a US plane in the Balkans. At the time I wondered who'd be silly enough to believe that a single hit in the course of a 30 month operation showed some kind of effectiveness of AA in response to aircraft.
I waited 20 years and now I get my answer - Iron Captain.
Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.
That's an incredible quote, because it is completely ass backwards. In WW2 airpower was devastating, but still in its infancy and limited in its final impact because low weapons and communication tech placed some pretty hard limits on what planes could do to targets on the ground. These days the level of communications and the presence of guided missiles has changed what planes can do entirely. When NATO decided to engage in Libya and targeted armoured columns on the ground it was terrifying to see what they could do overnight, just lay waste to the whole thing.
But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.
To be fair 160,000 was the number he gave for troops who'd be ready to go on day one. Presumably there'd be probably something north of half a million troops active in the campaign once it really got going, plus a million or so reservists that'd start to filter in and likely undertake the role of occupying captured territory.
The problem though is it could be 5 million men in that first attack, when the Russian airforce is beaten out of the sky, and the US is able to target any mobile, concentrated column of troops and just lay it to waste then basic survival means those Russian troops are going to disperse and stop moving. At which point it doesn't matter how affordable Iron Captain thinks Russia's conscript troops are, they've been entirely negated as offensive units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elk@work wrote: this is coming really close to 'no evidence is needed at all'
Except that Russia has a motive, has prior form in murdering double agents in Britain with exotic tech, and the weapon used in the killing was has only ever been made in Russia.
and consequences of such approach have proven to be extremely dramatic... here is a telling selection of 2002 rhetorics preceding action on Iraq...
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
Well, it sure is a good thing the US doesn't have stealth bombers of any kind. Especially not ones capable of operating at high altitude which are capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons and have an operational range of 6,000 nautical miles on one tank of fuel. Certainly not one that has been used in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, from its home base in the USA.
I think Russia would find that shooting down a B-2 is a lot harder than a passenger airliner.
sebster wrote: Iron Captain keeps talking about how numbers are such a powerful factor in war. So the size of Russia's army demands it be seen as a world power. Except North Korea has more active troops. Should we consider North Korea a major world power? And if we go to the old line that Russia has so many reservists to call in... well then North Korea only becomes more powerful because they've got 6 million reservists waiting, and Vietnam then goes ahead of Russia because they've got 5 million of their own reservists. And to my own surprise South Korea actually jumps to the top of the list because they've got 7 million reservists, and therefore have technically the largest pool of troops in the whole world.
So by the Iron Captain grand world theory that Russia should be regarded as a major power because military force is the only consideration and military force is measured purely in quantity... does this mean we should abandon our world order, and accept that South Korea, North Korea and Vietnam are the real powerhouses in the world, and everyone else should just kowtow to them?
Well NK did just develop nukes, and as people so eloquently argued that is all a country needs to be a superpower. I for one welcome our new North Korean overlords
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm sorry Sebster but haven't you heard? Air power is useless nowadays as AA reigns supreme! No, that is honestly what Iron Captain was arguing once, that AA has come so far it basically negates any air power advantage and that a Russian tank division has so much of it no plane would be able to touch it. No joke...
I remember when Russia got giddy because a Russian built SAM downed a US plane in the Balkans. At the time I wondered who'd be silly enough to believe that a single hit in the course of a 30 month operation showed some kind of effectiveness of AA in response to aircraft.
I waited 20 years and now I get my answer - Iron Captain.
It just shows an amazing disconnect, if that was really the case why would Russia invest so much in flying scrap metal?
Its in the Hawai thread, in response to me saying a top of the line air superiority fighter could have a critical effect on a war between modern armies.
That's an incredible quote, because it is completely ass backwards. In WW2 airpower was devastating, but still in its infancy and limited in its final impact because low weapons and communication tech placed some pretty hard limits on what planes could do to targets on the ground. These days the level of communications and the presence of guided missiles has changed what planes can do entirely. When NATO decided to engage in Libya and targeted armoured columns on the ground it was terrifying to see what they could do overnight, just lay waste to the whole thing.
Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?
But in all seriousness I fully agree. Even ignoring airpower for the moment, 160.000 troops would never be enough to cover the whole of Eastern Europe as an occupation alone, while maintaining full offensive capabilities. But Iron Captain not only expects them to be able to roll over Europe, but have no problem doing so. Its just vastly overestimating Russian capabilities and what 160.000 troops get you.
To be fair 160,000 was the number he gave for troops who'd be ready to go on day one. Presumably there'd be probably something north of half a million troops active in the campaign once it really got going, plus a million or so reservists that'd start to filter in and likely undertake the role of occupying captured territory.
The problem though is it could be 5 million men in that first attack, when the Russian airforce is beaten out of the sky, and the US is able to target any mobile, concentrated column of troops and just lay it to waste then basic survival means those Russian troops are going to disperse and stop moving. At which point it doesn't matter how affordable Iron Captain thinks Russia's conscript troops are, they've been entirely negated as offensive units.
While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian professionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals?
Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals?
Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.
See, we already won, those are wayyyyy too many Chinese to beat off for Russia alone
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evidence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed on a massive scale...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well NK did just develop nukes, and as people so eloquently argued that is all a country needs to be a superpower. I for one welcome our new North Korean overlords
Ha! Good point
Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?
Yeah, and that was with the US flying under very restrictive engagement rules, and planes that had nothing like the technological edge they now have.
I think maybe Iron Captain and others like him has gotten a few different things mixed up. He's seen the US lose a plane here or there in the Balkans or Afghanistan and seen at the same time those planes destroy not that much on the ground, and maybe made some conclusions about what sort of losses planes will suffer when attacking ground targets. What he's missed is that those operations were no fly ops or supporting engagements against targets that were in survival mode, scattered and in hiding. So he doesn't realize what planes can do against conventional military forces trying that have concentrated and are trying to advance.
While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.
The other factor is troop training. The NATO countries are volunteer armies, with a lot of resources put in to the training of each soldier. That level of training is extremely important in war.
In contrast, a lot of Russian troops are just doing their cycle of mandatory service. And because of the chronic corruption problems in Russia, a lot of them spend very little of their time actually training - instead they're used by generals for labour work, rented to private companies, with the generals pocketing very tidy sums of cash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.
Even if I wasn't on a work computer there is no way I am clicking on a link for 'beat off'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elk@work wrote: don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
Yeah, Iraq was a huge screw up, with enormous ramifications for the region and for the basic rules and standards of international relations.
But it doesn't mean that we should adopt a stance of pretend cynicism about any and all future intelligence claims. Especially not when the claim is as straight forward as Russia & Skripal.
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
Fair enough, and full credit to you for your English.
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine
well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine
well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?
Not by fanning the flames and then annexing part of the country through force, no.
Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.
Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))
"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine
well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?
Pretty funny you should mention the UN charter, because the absolute first thing it says is this:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"
Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.
As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.
d-usa wrote: Does any of this dick measuring have anything to do with Russia poisoning folks in the UK?
Well if the UK doesn't just roll over and take it Russia will destroy Europe apparently. So the dick measuring has its importance in trying to make some realize that Russia that it really isn't that big and no, that isn't because its cold in here.
d-usa wrote: Does any of this dick measuring have anything to do with Russia poisoning folks in the UK?
Yes, it all came about when referring to the appropriate and available responses to the Russian actions, and in some cases actually disputing it was Russia who did it at all. It is relevant in-so-far as any response against Russia has to take into account it's strengths and weaknesses, and the available evidence clearly shows Russia has deepset weaknesses that could be targeted. Russia is not in the sort of hegemonic position the USA is in (and even the USA could still be theoretically targeted with sanctions if they did something suitably wrong, they would just be much less effective than any sanctions aimed at Russia).
Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.
As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.
I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...
by the way, there are dictators and dictators... some are bombed, some are not... some are not bombed for a long time, but then suddenly bombed... some of those who are not bombed by any standards aren't better then Assad, so what's the matter?
as for Ukraine, so much depends on what sources of data you use... some of mine are still living on both sides of the red line, some of those who live in Lugansk got bombed by nationalistic militia 'battalions' with cluster bombs... they're certainly not Russian army - unless Russian army has dentist's squads under cover infiltrated in 1970's...
I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...
Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?
I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...
Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?
of course I do... but the issue has'n ever been even brought to the attention of the council... unlike many other nasty clashes between Russia/China and other councel members... like it or not, Russia played major role in persuading Assad to cooperate on Syrian WMD destruction... but taking into account that more then 80% of Syria was under ISIS at a certain point, and the means of warfare used by ISIS, I'd rather believe it is ISIS, not Assad, who uses it
Resolutions 2314 and 2319 concern the use of chemical weapons and the operation of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, which Russia obfuscated after the Sarin gas attack I mentioned a few posts ago.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?
Yeah, and that was with the US flying under very restrictive engagement rules, and planes that had nothing like the technological edge they now have.
I think maybe Iron Captain and others like him has gotten a few different things mixed up. He's seen the US lose a plane here or there in the Balkans or Afghanistan and seen at the same time those planes destroy not that much on the ground, and maybe made some conclusions about what sort of losses planes will suffer when attacking ground targets. What he's missed is that those operations were no fly ops or supporting engagements against targets that were in survival mode, scattered and in hiding. So he doesn't realize what planes can do against conventional military forces trying that have concentrated and are trying to advance.
The first Gulf War really drove home what happens to armored columns when the enemy has air superiority. That was pretty grim in outcome if he's looking for examples.
While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.
The other factor is troop training. The NATO countries are volunteer armies, with a lot of resources put in to the training of each soldier. That level of training is extremely important in war.
In contrast, a lot of Russian troops are just doing their cycle of mandatory service. And because of the chronic corruption problems in Russia, a lot of them spend very little of their time actually training - instead they're used by generals for labour work, rented to private companies, with the generals pocketing very tidy sums of cash.
True, in professional soldiers NATO far outnumbers Russia. While people having done service will be better than pure conscipts they're never going to beat people who have been doing it actively for 5+ years. Even many of Russia's generals have accepted this and have written fascinating pieces on what the future should look like to counter NATO. Its mainly focussed on asymmetrical warfare such as Ukraine and no longer focused on conventional warfare. Meanwhile the minority that still advocates the meatgrinder approach doesn't appear to have looked out the window since 1980.
they all are on terms of settlement (but this is big politics) and WMD, not on legitimacy of Russian action...
Which means that there was a chance that a settlement could be reached with Russia, but wasn't.
What's the point in driving the Security Council to voting on whether what Russia is doing is legitimate or not when Russia can veto it? It's not like Russia's going to go out and agree that they're behaving in an illegitimate way, and there's no compromise that can be made on the subject, so it's dead before even leaving the drawing board.
Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.
As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.
I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...
by the way, there are dictators and dictators... some are bombed, some are not... some are not bombed for a long time, but then suddenly bombed... some of those who are not bombed by any standards aren't better then Assad, so what's the matter?
as for Ukraine, so much depends on what sources of data you use... some of mine are still living on both sides of the red line, some of those who live in Lugansk got bombed by nationalistic militia 'battalions' with cluster bombs... they're certainly not Russian army - unless Russian army has dentist's squads under cover infiltrated in 1970's...
On the contrary, the West brings it up all the time in the UN, but Russia keeps shooting it down, kind of like they did with MH17. Which again they kept shooting down in the UN.
Fact of the matter is that the UN is almost beholden to countries who couldn't care less if you murdered every single person until you are the only one left as long as you keep it within your borders (China). The Syrians really did want to decide on Assad's future, which is why they protested for his resignation before he started bombing them... He has no legitimacy left, he has far too much blood on his hands. The only way Assad has a future is if he murders everyone that doesn't bow down to him. That 50% of hospitals destroyed? That was Assad's airforce with some Russian help.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
It doesn't depend on what sources you use. There is clear evidence Russia is the primary driver of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Without the Russian army the 'seperatists' didn't stand a chance.
I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...
Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?
of course I do... but the issue has'n ever been even brought to the attention of the council... unlike many other nasty clashes between Russia/China and other councel members... like it or not, Russia played major role in persuading Assad to cooperate on Syrian WMD destruction... but taking into account that more then 80% of Syria was under ISIS at a certain point, and the means of warfare used by ISIS, I'd rather believe it is ISIS, not Assad, who uses it
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Vietnam?
Successful?
O-kay.
Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever... andn in your logic, give a single humanitarian reason not to humanitarily intervene on, for instance, Saudi?
as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Vietnam?
Successful?
O-kay.
Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?
I do, yes. I think we have wildly differing definations of successful. Vietnam was at best, a Pyrrhic Victory.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Vietnam?
Successful?
O-kay.
Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?
Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Vietnam?
Successful?
O-kay.
Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?
Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...
Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).
When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.
Vietnam?
Successful?
O-kay.
Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?
Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...
Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).
When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.
After reading your post again, I’m guessing that others, like myself, read “Vietnam” and thought you meant the “Vietnam War”.
Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).
When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.
well, Pol Pot died in peace around 1998, after all evil things he did, after brining 1to 3 mn deaths upon Vietnameese people... and if you happen to look closer into this story you'd be surprised to see no one ever suggested any interventions against him...
I do, yes. I think we have wildly differing definations of successful. Vietnam was at best, a Pyrrhic Victory.
Walrus isn't talking about the Vietnam War. He's talking about the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia which ended the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide.
Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*
"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?
Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?
As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.
Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?
Haiti is a single poorest country in the Western hemisphere... can't comment on Timor and Sierra Lione, never went into details on these, as those were so local and remote... Yugoslavia... complete failure - but this is too complex a story to go into detail here... Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention
As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.
then why not go and check how exactly those 60,000 Iraqi civilians got killed, what happened to Iraqi infrastructure and how it was related to official doctrine of this war? no bombing of hospitals or power plants? no bombing of households? alas...
and in Syria, if you get to look for this data, like here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/30/us-coalition-airstrikes-iraqi-syrian-civilians I'm deliberately giving you this link, so that this is of at least some credibility to you... some other sources, more direct, would be harder to accept and easier to brush away...
and we haven't even scratched the surface of a question of how ISIS and their allies get arms... those arms that kill people...
Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?
Haiti is a single poorest country in the Western hemisphere... can't comment on Timor and Sierra Lione, never went into details on these, as those were so local and remote... Yugoslavia... complete failure - but this is too complex a story to go into detail here... Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention
It seems you're unaware of what humanitarian intervention actually means. Its not economic, its political. That Haiti still is poor has no relevance to humanitarian intervention. Lol, Yugoslavia a complete failure? Yeah I'd call stopping the worst genocide in Europe since 1945 a failure too
What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.
As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.
then why not go and check how exactly those 60,000 Iraqi civilians got killed, what happened to Iraqi infrastructure and how it was related to official doctrine of this war? no bombing of hospitals or power plants? no bombing of households? alas...
and in Syria, if you get to look for this data, like here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/30/us-coalition-airstrikes-iraqi-syrian-civilians I'm deliberately giving you this link, so that this is of at least some credibility to you... some other sources, more direct, would be harder to accept and easier to brush away...
I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...
Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:
No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.
Russian attacks also appear to have deliberately targeted civilians and the infrastructure of civilian life – markets, hospitals and homes – while the coalition has been trying to avoid or limit civilian casualties, although it could do far more, human rights groups said.
"The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure,” said Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.
“We’d certainly agree that the solution is definitely not more bombs but … Russia and the coalition are fighting different wars when it comes to civilians.”
Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.
“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said.
In contrast, the coalition has caused nearly 900 civilian deaths over 26 months of bombing, 19 acknowledged by the coalition itself and another 858 recorded by monitoring groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elk@work wrote: and we haven't even scratched the surface of a question of how ISIS and their allies get arms... those arms that kill people...
Most are captured in Syria or Iraq, when they overran the Iraqi army. The conspiracy theories are just silly that go around.
What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.
and what exactly did they hate Vietnam for? and why they didn't hate outright faschist Pol Pot and his regime? tough questions... may be because this was a proxy war and certain powers supported Pol Pot despite whatever he did... maybe because this was Cambodia who first crossed Vietnamese border... maybe because thai, vietnamese, tyams and any other opposition to nationalistic policies of Pol Pot were just killed in masses, what western sources omit... tough questions... western sources pose it as Vietnamese intervention... other sources give it the other way - ethnic cleansings and provocations by Pol Pot regime and retaliation from Vietnam...
and hasn't Vietnam been a 'bad guy' for 'most countries' before, when its people were subjected to one of the most un-human treatment, in 60s, and they're still suffering from what was done...
I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...
Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:
now... when a modern high-precision missile hits a hospital, an embassy or a residential area... does it mean anything when a party who fired it claims it was unintentional, not deliberate... no it doesn't... one doesn't cause deaths 'unintentionally' on the hemisphere opposite to where it's borders lie...
No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.
Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.
“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said.
think of this...
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR), founded in May 2006, is a UK-based information office whose stated aim is to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria... The organisation is run by Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim (does it tell you something?) who owns a clothes shop.... In 2012, Süddeutsche Zeitung described the organisation as a one-man-operation with a single permanent worker, Rami Abdulrahman... SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" or anti-Assad and has been criticised for refusing to share its data or methodology.... this is your source...
I didn't give you Syrian or Russian sources, you won't believe anyway... what makes me believe those is that Syria-Russia do not rely that havily on air strikes, but have a solid boots-on-the-ground operation represented by Syrian army... this is a good reason to believe civil casualties are minimized to some extent, something you can't do when relying solely on air strikes
People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.
This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.
Steve steveson wrote: People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.
This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.
if you check the thread I was only responding to other people who introduced those themes... and there is a pattern of bullying without evidence relevant to the thread topic... and look at the thread name, there was a ? mark but it somehow got to be ignored although there have been no new official data inputs so far... no disrespect was meant, though )))
Iron_Captain wrote: [ If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.
Honestly not all power is derived from force, you seem to have skipped a lot of history in that case, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed, the British Empire collapsed etc etc. Russia has a lot of power true, but so do countries like China, the UK and France. We might stretch to include China as a semi superpower. But Russia like the UK and France are no longer superpowers. The Russian military isn't what the Warsaw Pact was. Its cornered by two powerful blocs now in the form of NATO and China. The idea that Russia could defeat NATO is laughable, the US alone vastly outspends Russia. Russia's army is only useful in bullying the poorer countries on Russia's southern flank.
Ultimately, all power does come from force. What is power? Power, at its core, is the ability to tell others what to do. We speak of things like 'economic power' or 'cultural power', but economy or culture do not give power of themselves. They can be ways to obtain power, sure. But ultimately they only yield power when they yield the ability to purchase the force needed to enforce your will. The US is the world's powerful country not because of its great economy, but because that economy allows them to maintain the world's greatest military force. When the US is telling someone else what to do, their words are backed up by that force, and not by Apple's stock listings. Also, if you pay attention, you will notice that while the US vastly outspends Russia, it does not actually get that much more military for its money. Stuff in Russia is cheaper than in the US, a lot cheaper. And that is even more true for military equipment. Russia pays only a fraction of the price the US has to pay for an equivalent piece of military equipment. Taking MBTs as an example, a US-made Abrams costs 8-9 million dollars, while a Russian-made T-72 costs only 1-2 million dollars. You can have almost 9 T-72s for the price of a single Abrams. That holds true not just for tanks, but for all military equipment. That is why the spending gap between the US and Russia is much smaller than it actually appears. And the question whether Russia can defeat NATO or not is not as laughable. That just shows your ignorance of military matters. Of course, in a hypothetical, all-out war where NATO can bring its full force to bear Russia would not stand a chance. But wars aren't like that. Whether Russia can defeat NATO or not depends on what "defeat" means here. Are we talking about a full, complete defeat? Can Russia totally defeat every single NATO soldier and conquer all NATO countries? No. Or are we talking about a partial defeat? Can Russia take and hold the Baltic States? Yes. Russia's military may only be good for bullying smaller countries, but that is the only thing a superpower needs to be good at. The US military is likewise, only good for bullying smaller countries. And that is the only thing it needs to do (beyond the obvious of defending the US and its allies of course). Because while the US may be the top dog in the world, its strength is not so great it could hope to fully defeat China or Russia, the numbers two and three of the world.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is what I mean by Russian delusions, the idea that they could still rule Eastern Europe by force. The idea that it can somehow stand up to US military power. The only reason it hasn't happened is that unlike most Russians, Putin doesn't suffer from the same delusions about military capabilities. Russia's polar moment has passed. The US is the unipolar power by sheer numbers alone, whether you want to accept it or not. The only shift to a bipolar world will be with China. Russia had its moment in the sun. If Russia wants to blow up the world to cling to delusions then its even more insane than the Kim family.
Oh, for the love of God, please. For the one hundred billionth time: RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT TO RULE EASTERN EUROPE. Russia is fine with just Russia. Plenty of space. They just don't want any hostile troops in their sphere of influence, okay? And yes, Russia can easily stand up to US military power in its own region. The US does not have enough force in Eastern Europe to be effective against Russia, and it does not have the capabilitie to bring in reinforcements quickly enough before Russia takes its goals and can sit back and rely on the nuclear deterrent, offering to trade back the taken areas for concessions. The Baltics aren't afraid for nothing after all. If the Russian forces were no match for the US they wouldn't be calling for more forces in their territory all the time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".
Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation. The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.
Putin doesn't want more?? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are the definition of wanting more. Putin is nibbling off what territories he can of unfriendly neighbouring states. The West doesn't have to appease Russia. Russia is not some special case that deserves preferential treatment. Yet the West is bending over backwards to restrain themselves in cases such as this and Ukraine, where sanctions were positively mild. The West could just sell arms to Ukraine or end the regime of the tin pot dictator called Assad and there would be nothing Russia could do about it. Its the type of restraint Russia has never shown towards its neighbours.
No, Putin does not want more. That is a dishonest argument. You know full well Crimea or Eastern Ukraine would never have happened under normal circumstances. It was only possible because relations between the West and Russia already were so polarised. And Russia is a special case. Russia is not just any country. Russia demands preferential treatment, and it is not afraid to back those demands up with force. If the West desires peace in Europe, they should get smarter and treat Russia with the respect it deserves. Russia is a powerful country, and it is not a nice country. You may call that "being a 19th century bully", but Russia has always been a backwards place. The West will just have to deal with that or face the deadly consequences. Fact is that Russia is not like other European countries. Russia is an empire, with all the imperialism, militarism, and rabid nationalism that entails. No matter how much I would love for it to be different, Russia can't and won't behave like a Western democracy because it is not. That path is closed now. The rest of Europe would be wise to keep that in mind. Again, the choice is between war and peace, and sometimes it is a wise thing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.
Wth. Why do you think Russia would try to slog all the way through Europe? It is just the Baltic States and Ukraine and that's it. Russian forces aren't going to be going much farther than that. Russia doesn't have the power to conquer all of Europe. As you say, it would be WW2 in reverse with Russia in the same position as Germany and NATO as the Soviets. That is not what Russia is going to do in a war. Conquering Europe was the dream of the Soviets. The Russian Federation has more humble goals. They don't need to conquer much, they just want a big fat buffer between themselves and hostile forces.
Steve steveson wrote: People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.
This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.
Queue complaints about the content of the discussion of this thread, saying things are becoming OT and it being locked.
I.e. any thread where Russia's portrayed in a negative light.
No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.
No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.
That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades. Russia has not yet let the idea of empire go, and to be honest I highly doubt they ever will, at least in the current situation. The question is how will Western countries deal with it? Russia is too big, powerful and assertive to be ignored like North Korea or Iran. Any form of confrontation just will make things worse. In my opinion, the only good option for the West to deal with the Russian problem is to make compromise and try to accommodate Russian concerns (preferably in return for some concessions as well, the Kremlin is not adverse to making deals). In combination with a cessation of hostile language towards Russia, this will soon stop Russian belligerence. Then, given time, Russia too may overcome the loss of its former territories and become part of the greater European community and hopefully transition into a proper democracy. But that is only possible if the perceived threats to Russia are removed first and if Russia is respected as a superpower. As long as the threats remain, Russia will remain belligerent, and the population will continue to rally behind strong, authoritarian and highly nationalistic leaders like Putin (or worse). And as long as such leaders are in charge, Russia will continue with destabilising actions against the West. I feel that the West should take responsibility here and break the vicious cycle. Because it was Western actions that (inadvertently) started this cycle, and because Russia simply can't back down in its current state.
This argument that it is Western nations' fault that Russia gassed people in the UK is beyond ridiculous and just drags the thread off topic by incensing those arguing sensibly. So is the fantasy of Russia being a superpower we desperately need to respect and the other side of the argument as well, wondering how an invasion would go, wondering how easily NATO would beat it etc. It's not relevant. Chill. Scale back the discussion from WW3 because it's just causing people to get aggravating and aggravated. Thanks
elk@work wrote: I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...
I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.
"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."
Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elk@work wrote: would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...
Sierra Leone. East Timor. Mali. Off the top of my head. There's been a lot of others. They don't get as much media attention because 'things are going okay' isn't as good a story as deaths and disaster. So people rather foolishly tend to think the only interventions are the bad ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
elk@work wrote: well, Pol Pot died in peace around 1998, after all evil things he did, after brining 1to 3 mn deaths upon Vietnameese people... and if you happen to look closer into this story you'd be surprised to see no one ever suggested any interventions against him...
What? After Vietnamese intervention the Khmer Rouge was toppled and Vietnam installed a new government that didn't go about murdering a quarter of the population. Pol Pot feld, and while it would have been nice to have him face trial for his atrocities, the most important thing was to end the killings.
What's most frustrating about this is that if you wanted to take a position against Vietnamese action in Cambodia as a successful intervention there's an easy case to make that it wasn't an intervention at all. Because Vietnam started the operation not out of humanitarian concern but due to border raids by Cambodia that had killed more than a thousand Vietnamese civilians. But because you don't know any of this, instead you went with an argument that it didn't count because Pol Pot got away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.
To be fair, the UK took a while to finally realise it. The Suez crisis could be broadly described as Britain and France thinking they were still empires, running an operation like they were, which ended when the US turned up and said 'actually we're the empire now and you should stop this'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades.
This reads like a 1990s self help book, 'if you believe it it will be'.
Seriously, stop this nonsense. You don't get to just believe you are an empire and then it becomes so. You actually have to have the economic clout to make it so. And Russia really doesn't, which is why instead of doing things that normally grow an empire, things that the US and China do daily like expand their businesses in to key market and strategic resources, instead Russia plays pretend games about being an empire with crude, cheap military ops like pushing troops across the border in to the eastern fringes of Ukraine, or murdering a spy who gave up intel on your country a decade ago.
That isn't the work of an empire. It's the work of a malevolent country with severe budget constraints. Its discount evil.
What's most frustrating about this is that if you wanted to take a position against Vietnamese action in Cambodia as a successful intervention there's an easy case to make that it wasn't an intervention at all. Because Vietnam started the operation not out of humanitarian concern but due to border raids by Cambodia that had killed more than a thousand Vietnamese civilians. But because you don't know any of this, instead you went with an argument that it didn't count because Pol Pot got away.
again, you do me wrong... somebody (not me) suggested Vietnamese intervention as an example of a successful "humanitarian intervention"... I wrote - "Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention"... I meant the later stage of the conflict... the point is not whether it was successful or not, but was it a "humanitarian intervention" or just a war... having read quite a lot on this, I believe it was just war... as well as any affair in which your border is crossed by an enemy and you retaliate by driving him back...
What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.
and what exactly did they hate Vietnam for? and why they didn't hate outright faschist Pol Pot and his regime? tough questions... may be because this was a proxy war and certain powers supported Pol Pot despite whatever he did... maybe because this was Cambodia who first crossed Vietnamese border... maybe because thai, vietnamese, tyams and any other opposition to nationalistic policies of Pol Pot were just killed in masses, what western sources omit... tough questions... western sources pose it as Vietnamese intervention... other sources give it the other way - ethnic cleansings and provocations by Pol Pot regime and retaliation from Vietnam...
and hasn't Vietnam been a 'bad guy' for 'most countries' before, when its people were subjected to one of the most un-human treatment, in 60s, and they're still suffering from what was done...
I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...
Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:
now... when a modern high-precision missile hits a hospital, an embassy or a residential area... does it mean anything when a party who fired it claims it was unintentional, not deliberate... no it doesn't... one doesn't cause deaths 'unintentionally' on the hemisphere opposite to where it's borders lie...
No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.
Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.
“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said.
think of this...
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR), founded in May 2006, is a UK-based information office whose stated aim is to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria... The organisation is run by Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim (does it tell you something?) who owns a clothes shop.... In 2012, Süddeutsche Zeitung described the organisation as a one-man-operation with a single permanent worker, Rami Abdulrahman... SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" or anti-Assad and has been criticised for refusing to share its data or methodology.... this is your source...
I didn't give you Syrian or Russian sources, you won't believe anyway... what makes me believe those is that Syria-Russia do not rely that havily on air strikes, but have a solid boots-on-the-ground operation represented by Syrian army... this is a good reason to believe civil casualties are minimized to some extent, something you can't do when relying solely on air strikes
and think of who exactly has been buying oil from ISIS...
You know why most countries were against Vietnam in the 70's during the Cold War, which is completely besides the point of Vietnam invading Cambodia.
There are clear differences between how the US and Russia conduct themselves in operations regarding civilians. My sources are Amnesty, Airwars and MSF amongst others, not just the SOHR. Yet you try to equate a longer US commitment in two countries to a shorter Russian one in a single country. Airwars also made the choice to focus their limited resources on the US the past 1,5 years. Meanwhile arguing about numbers does nothing to disprove Russia isn't comitting war crimea. I'm sure Syrian and Russian sources would agree with you, seeing as those sources only see terrorists everywhere, no civilians.
As you just unironically linked fething GlobalResearch, the Infowars of the left, I think were about done here.
elk@work wrote: again, you do me wrong... somebody (not me) suggested Vietnamese intervention as an example of a successful "humanitarian intervention"... I wrote - "Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention"... I meant the later stage of the conflict...
But it wasn't your first post on Cambodia. Before that you posted, quite bizarrely, that despite Pol Pot killing millions no-one had ever suggested intervention against Pol Pot, seemingly oblivious that Vietnamese action had ended Pol Pot murderous rule after just three years.
the point is not whether it was successful or not, but was it a "humanitarian intervention" or just a war... having read quite a lot on this, I believe it was just war... as well as any affair in which your border is crossed by an enemy and you retaliate by driving him back...
And now you're aping the argument I said you should have made in the first place but pretending it was your opinion all along. Just admit you got caught out on this issue, mate. It's okay. We don't expect everyone to know the ins and outs of post-war SE Asian politics.
Also, you're being very dishonest in your approach in this thread. You haven't responded to the large list of successful interventions and admitted your earlier challenge has been met and your point proved wrong. And you also didn't accept the Bank-Ki Moon quote you gave was deceptively manipulated, and as a result the point you tried to make was a lie.
An honest person would admit those two things, and allow the conversation to continue. Be an honest person.
Oh, for the love of God, please. For the one hundred billionth time: RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT TO RULE EASTERN EUROPE. Russia is fine with just Russia. Plenty of space. They just don't want any hostile troops in their sphere of influence, okay?
As we have been told to drop it this is my last repy to this. You're being extremely disingenous. You attacked me for my 'Russophobia' because I said Poland and the Baltics are still scared of Russia. Besides Russian actions in Ukraine make what Russia wants pretty clear one would think. Now you're making wild claims about NATO hostile troops going to invade Russia and you conveniently ignore that just pages before you accused me of Russophobia when I mentioned something that had already happened twice in the 20th century, but something that has never happened is completely rational for Russia. Let that sink in.
I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.
"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."
Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
.
I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.
"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."
Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
.
would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?
Did you check that blog? Its riddled with dead links (which we need to believe actually existed in the first place, for example the El Pais link goes to Apple.com) and 'translations' by an obviously subjective writer. It doesn't have credible value.
And I mean seriously, just think about it, what kind of diplomat is going to pause in the middle of a statement to add 'especially western countries', turning a neutral statement in to an overtly political attack on one side of an issue? No diplomat would do that, but you happily believed a quote that was supposedly from the senior most diplomat on the planet doing exactly that.
It shouldn't passed the giggle test, but you bought in to it. You need to seriously reconsider your critical judgement.
would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?
It is nothing to do with superiority. Look at all the people who got confused about the Vietnam/Cambodia thing, I didn't comment on any of that, because they got caught out not knowing about one part of mid to late 20th century SE Asian politics, it doesn't matter.
In contrast, not only is it far from your only mistake, the nature of your mistakes is quite telling. You keep just happening to make factual, logical and even comprehension errors that all somehow manage to fall in favour of the pro-Russia position you're taking. At which point we're not dealing with accidental mistakes, but an approach to debate and understanding that is all about trying to find some way, any way, of arguing for your team, with no effort put in to figuring out what the truth really is.
Did you check that blog? Its riddled with dead links (which we need to believe actually existed in the first place, for example the El Pais link goes to Apple.com) and 'translations' by an obviously subjective writer. It doesn't have credible value.
sure I did, I'm quite capable of it... and there are no un-biased news sources presently, it seems, so one has to work with a broader base and assess critically every piece of news... there are many other sources who reported this in the same manner, but all are secondary and are giving fragmented quotation of this part... here at least the text is more solid...
but the funny part is that I can't find the original article in El Pais, albeit there is no doubt there was this interview in October 2015... and El Pais site gives zero results on 2015... so I wonder what other sources quote and in what way those are more credible...
the article on your link also gives secondary and very fragmented quotations and doesn't provide any link to the source which is somehow so hard to find... so, in what exactly way is it 'more reliable', rich of 'context' and not 'modified'? and what if I give you links on Indian news - would they be unreliable to?
Well we went full circle on there being "no unbiased news sources" pretty fast.
The article does exist on El Pais, here is the qoute:
Preguntado por el futuro de Bachar el Asad, principal escollo en la negociación, el diplomático observa: “El futuro del presidente Asad debería decidirlo el pueblo sirio. Ahora bien, no quiero interferir en el proceso de Viena, pero creo que es totalmente injusto e irracional que el destino de una persona pueda paralizar toda esta negociación política. Esto no es aceptable. No es justo. El Gobierno sirio insiste en que El Asad debe ser parte de la transición. Muchos países occidentales se oponen. Mientras tanto, hemos perdido años. Han muerto 250.000 personas; hay 13 millones de refugiados o desplazados internos. Más del 50% de hospitales, escuelas e infraestructuras de Siria ha quedado destruida. No se puede perder más tiempo. Esta crisis ya va más allá de Siria, más allá de la región. Afecta al continente europeo. Es una crisis global”.
Asked about the future of Bashar al-Assad, the main obstacle in the negotiation, the diplomat observes: "The future of President Assad should be decided by the Syrian people. Now, I do not want to interfere in the Vienna process, but I think it is totally unfair and irrational that the fate of a person can paralyze all this political negotiation. This is not acceptable. It's not fair. The Syrian government insists that El Asad must be part of the transition. Many Western countries are opposed. Meanwhile, we have lost years. 250,000 people have died; there are 13 million refugees or internally displaced persons. More than 50% of hospitals, schools and infrastructure in Syria have been destroyed. You can not lose more time. This crisis is already beyond Syria, beyond the region. It affects the European continent. It is a global crisis. "
Automatically Appended Next Post: The translation falls in favor of Sebster compared to the cut up one of yours.
elk@work wrote: and there are no un-biased news sources presently
And there it is, as always.
I think we're probably done here, to be honest. There's really nothing to be gained from trying to discuss things with people who reject critical judgement.
I think it would be best if everyone just put elk on ignore for the duration of this thread. So far they have done nothing to actually keep to the topic and, as mentioned earlier, have basically been following the russian state line of deflection, obfuscation and denial.
Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.
elk@work wrote: and there are no un-biased news sources presently
And there it is, as always.
I think we're probably done here, to be honest. There's really nothing to be gained from trying to discuss things with people who reject critical judgement.
again you rush ahead to judge ))) thanks Disciple for the link, but I don't find this translation to read or mean matterially far from what I originally posted on whether or not Assad must be replaced by the west... then, in your quotation you ommited 'Western contries', jumped to conclusion I'm using the quotation to put the blame solely on Western countries (which I never wrote or implied, please check) and proceeded with personal insults... so much for critical judgement )))
Disciple of Fate wrote: Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.
I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.
in Russia, this temporarily receded into the background after Kemerovo tragedy... but the main line is that Kremlin waits for renewal of dialogue and something to work with - samples, OPCW analysis results...
I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.
in fact, there was a single protest on Sunday in Kemerovo, people were outraged due to a wave of fake news in social networks reporting hundreds killed in the fire... those turned out to be lies... but certain news outlets like Radio Freedom went to report rallies in memory of deceased as anti-government protests... which is not true, at leats, I can say so of one I went to here in Moscow...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.
I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.
True, but it could be used as a politically convenient public distraction to quietly let this international argument die down before getting slapped with sanctions before the investigation is even over. Which is what I was wondering about. Putin doesn't have much to gain from picking it back up.
Putin is quite right in domestic terms to focus on the Kemerovo fire, which was a dreadful tragedy we all sympathise with. Particularly Londoners, who are still concerned with the fallout of the Grefell Tower fire, a similar disaster.
Russians are much better served by better fire regulations and less corruption in construction than by following up quarrels with the UK, particularly as it turns out the UK has much stronger backing from allies than Putin probably expected.
Kilkrazy wrote: Putin is quite right in domestic terms to focus on the Kemerovo fire, which was a dreadful tragedy we all sympathise with. Particularly Londoners, who are still concerned with the fallout of the Grefell Tower fire, a similar disaster.
Russians are much better served by better fire regulations and less corruption in construction than by following up quarrels with the UK, particularly as it turns out the UK has much stronger backing from allies than Putin probably expected.
thank you... ironically, Kemerovo disaster is to some extent attributable to recent liberalisation of small and meduim businesses regulation... and now, would this liberalisation stay in place or be revised, there will be an openning for critisizing state policies
Kilkrazy wrote: Putin is quite right in domestic terms to focus on the Kemerovo fire, which was a dreadful tragedy we all sympathise with. Particularly Londoners, who are still concerned with the fallout of the Grefell Tower fire, a similar disaster.
Russians are much better served by better fire regulations and less corruption in construction than by following up quarrels with the UK, particularly as it turns out the UK has much stronger backing from allies than Putin probably expected.
thank you... ironically, Kemerovo disaster is to some extent attributable to recent liberalisation of small and meduim businesses regulation... and now, would this liberalisation stay in place or be revised, there will be an openning for critisizing state policies
I don't think its an opening to critisize the state. Fire safety still falls heavily on the business and if its true that fire exits were locked or blocked that doesn't really come down to liberalisation of regulation. Its more than likely a problem of local corruption on the side of inspectors and the business than a policy problem. Even in Europe there have been a number of fires over the years where it was clear the business didn't even attempt to make an effort to adhere to regulations (all the way up to locking fire doors).
It seems to me that the government should set building standards to the correct level (for instance, don't use inflammable seat cushions, do provide X amount of emergency exits per Y number of people, and so on.) Businesses then should follow the regulations. The government should survey the work and ensure the standards have been satisfied by prosecuting businesses which fail.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that the government should set building standards to the correct level (for instance, don't use inflammable seat cushions, do provide X amount of emergency exits per Y number of people, and so on.) Businesses then should follow the regulations. The government should survey the work and ensure the standards have been satisfied by prosecuting businesses which fail.
I run a business, and they like... Do that.
I am already swamped in red tape, and paperwork, and legislation on all manner of safety things, to the point I can't have a can of Deodorant out in a non locked cabinet. Please no more.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that the government should set building standards to the correct level (for instance, don't use inflammable seat cushions, do provide X amount of emergency exits per Y number of people, and so on.) Businesses then should follow the regulations. The government should survey the work and ensure the standards have been satisfied by prosecuting businesses which fail.
Interestingly enough the "cure" you have just outlined may actually be the very reason Grenfell happened.
I work in this industry, and i can pretty confidently say that everything on the grenfell tower will have likely been inspected and met fire safety standards.
The problem is; If a specification is outlined to a contractor they will meet that specification in the most cost effective way possible. If a spec says all internal fire barriers and materials must meet a specific fire standard, they will, at any cost be met.
However, then somebody says "we need to make this building look modern etc, slap some sandwich panel on the outside"- the contractor interrogates the specification and sees that no fire demands are placed on the paneling as it is external and therefore not covered by the internal spec.... so in order to keep costs low buys the cheapest paneling offered despite the fact that common sense would indicate this could leave a way for the fire to spread upwards.
But guess what? if you don't spec it, it doesn't get done.... the contractor is not paid to find oversights in the specification docs and the panel manufacturer is not paid to find oversights in the specification docs.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that the government should set building standards to the correct level (for instance, don't use inflammable seat cushions, do provide X amount of emergency exits per Y number of people, and so on.) Businesses then should follow the regulations. The government should survey the work and ensure the standards have been satisfied by prosecuting businesses which fail.
Interestingly enough the "cure" you have just outlined may actually be the very reason Grenfell happened.
I work in this industry, and i can pretty confidently say that everything on the grenfell tower will have likely been inspected and met fire safety standards.
The problem is; If a specification is outlined to a contractor they will meet that specification in the most cost effective way possible. If a spec says all internal fire barriers and materials must meet a specific fire standard, they will, at any cost be met.
However, then somebody says "we need to make this building look modern etc, slap some sandwich panel on the outside"- the contractor interrogates the specification and sees that no fire demands are placed on the paneling as it is external and therefore not covered by the internal spec.... so in order to keep costs low buys the cheapest paneling offered despite the fact that common sense would indicate this could leave a way for the fire to spread upwards.
But guess what? if you don't spec it, it doesn't get done.... the contractor is not paid to find oversights in the specification docs and the panel manufacturer is not paid to find oversights in the specification docs.
The problem with Grenfell is basically that working class people lived there and the local and national governments don't give a feth. So the standards were set to a bad level (e.g. test flammability of the cladding by a "desk test", which is not a practical working test, and certify it good (and cheap.)
Please note I am not arguing for more and more regulations. I am arguing for regulations that do a proper job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: So, is the guy and his daughter still alive? Have they woken up?
They are still unconscious. Reading between the lines of the reports, they may never wake up and if they do probably will have nerve and brain damage.
They are still unconscious. Reading between the lines of the reports, they may never wake up and if they do probably will have nerve and brain damage.
If I read it correctly, this Novichok substance is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, a substance class also used in medicine, but also as chemical weapons. The main difference seems to be that the weaponized compounds bind irreversible to neuronal enzymes, while the medical compounds just produce a reversible effect. If true, that could indeed mean that their nervous system is shot to hell at this point. Depending on the type of injury, neurons can regenerate to an extent, but I'm sure it'd be a process of years, not months, to get back to some semblance of health.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades.
This reads like a 1990s self help book, 'if you believe it it will be'.
Seriously, stop this nonsense. You don't get to just believe you are an empire and then it becomes so. You actually have to have the economic clout to make it so. And Russia really doesn't, which is why instead of doing things that normally grow an empire, things that the US and China do daily like expand their businesses in to key market and strategic resources, instead Russia plays pretend games about being an empire with crude, cheap military ops like pushing troops across the border in to the eastern fringes of Ukraine, or murdering a spy who gave up intel on your country a decade ago.
That isn't the work of an empire. It's the work of a malevolent country with severe budget constraints. Its discount evil.
You don't need an economy to be an empire. As the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union showed us. But ultimately, whether you think modern Russia qualifies as an empire or not is irrelevant (personally, I think it is an edge case). What matters is what I like to call 'the imperial spirit' in the minds of the Russian leadership and people. If it thinks like an empire and behaves like an empire, you should probably treat it as one in diplomatic relations if you desire a peaceful constructive relationship, regardless of what you personally think.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades.
This reads like a 1990s self help book, 'if you believe it it will be'.
Seriously, stop this nonsense. You don't get to just believe you are an empire and then it becomes so. You actually have to have the economic clout to make it so. And Russia really doesn't, which is why instead of doing things that normally grow an empire, things that the US and China do daily like expand their businesses in to key market and strategic resources, instead Russia plays pretend games about being an empire with crude, cheap military ops like pushing troops across the border in to the eastern fringes of Ukraine, or murdering a spy who gave up intel on your country a decade ago.
That isn't the work of an empire. It's the work of a malevolent country with severe budget constraints. Its discount evil.
You don't need an economy to be an empire. As the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union showed us. But ultimately, whether you think modern Russia qualifies as an empire or not is irrelevant (personally, I think it is an edge case). What matters is what I like to call 'the imperial spirit' in the minds of the Russian leadership and people. If it thinks like an empire and behaves like an empire, you should probably treat it as one in diplomatic relations if you desire a peaceful constructive relationship, regardless of what you personally think.
So treat it like a high school bully then? That think they're bigger than they are?
What the Russian and Soviet Empire also showed us is that bad economies lead to imperial overstretch and collapse much faster. Plus they had a much vaster area to exploit and still didn't make it. Power helps create an empire, money sustains it, as shown by Eastern Europe going over to the US and Central Asia to China. I still don't see how we have to reward people for being delusional. If we should treat people according to how they view themselves that would mean we all have to line up to kiss Kim's ass. No thanks
Basically sums up my thoughts on big strong russia
Spoiler:
In that neither country is what it was and should both get on with being what they are today, large militaries only mean you aren't going to be invaded. Real power these days is either economic or how you can project that military.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What the Russian and Soviet Empire also showed us is that bad economies lead to imperial overstretch and collapse much faster. Plus they had a much vaster area to exploit and still didn't make it. Power helps create an empire, money sustains it, as shown by Eastern Europe going over to the US and Central Asia to China. I still don't see how we have to reward people for being delusional. If we should treat people according to how they view themselves that would mean we all have to line up to kiss Kim's ass. No thanks
That is true. Russia tends to collapse every now and then. It is a big drawback of being so focused on military power. Russia is strong, but also very unstable. It has always been that way.
And actually, it is completely unrelated, but if we started kissing Kim's ass, North Korea would collapse within decades. No more foreign enemies to blame means the regime would suddenly need to find actual solutions for the many problems of the country. Uh-oh... That is pragmatism. To know when it is time to kick ass and when it is time to kiss ass. To sometimes do things you do not want to do to obtain a later result that you do want. Unfortunately, both Russia and Western countries tend to be very bad in pragmatism. A country like China is much better in this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What the Russian and Soviet Empire also showed us is that bad economies lead to imperial overstretch and collapse much faster. Plus they had a much vaster area to exploit and still didn't make it. Power helps create an empire, money sustains it, as shown by Eastern Europe going over to the US and Central Asia to China. I still don't see how we have to reward people for being delusional. If we should treat people according to how they view themselves that would mean we all have to line up to kiss Kim's ass. No thanks
That is true. Russia tends to collapse every now and then. It is a big drawback of being so focused on military power. Russia is strong, but also very unstable. It has always been that way.
And actually, it is completely unrelated, but if we started kissing Kim's ass, North Korea would collapse within decades. No more foreign enemies to blame means the regime would suddenly need to find actual solutions for the many problems of the country. Uh-oh...
That is pragmatism. To know when it is time to kick ass and when it is time to kiss ass. To sometimes do things you do not want to do to obtain a later result that you do want. Unfortunately, both Russia and Western countries tend to be very bad in pragmatism. A country like China is much better in this.
That's an adorable if inaccurate cartoon.
You do realize that kissing Kim's ass achieves nothing? Kim isn't holding North Korea in an iron grip because the West is being mean to him, he's doing it with Stalinist methods. He can just keep pretending. What, are the North Korean independent media going to call him out on it? Its not like North Koreans enjoy North Korea, hence the brainwashing and re-education camps.
China isn't very pragmatic at all. Its only pragmatic about things it doesn't really care about. Bring up Taiwan, Tibet or Japan and watch them almost foam at the mouth. Xi Jinping actually threw away the pragmatic progress that Hu Jintao made in East Asia by going balls to the wall on "our backyard now". China is doing more to unite East Asia against itself than the US ever did.
this gives me a valid reason to mention a quotation from the same piece of writing, p.351 in the book on my shelf:
100 rabits do not make a horse, 100 allegations do not make an evidence...
For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed Never thought Russians would be praising that government
Disciple of Fate wrote: For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed Never thought Russians would be praising that government
Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue...
Disciple of Fate wrote: For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed Never thought Russians would be praising that government
Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue
No, not Russia, hence why I said Russians, as in you and Iron Captain. Its just ironic considering Russia's history with Nazis.
Disciple of Fate wrote: For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed Never thought Russians would be praising that government
Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue
No, not Russia, hence why I said Russians, as in you and Iron Captain. Its just ironic considering Russia's history with Nazis.
this new guy from Austria came to Russia, in general he makes more sense then Johnson who is like our Zhirinovsky (a bit crazy radical guy) but worse as, unlike Zhirinovsky who is being held off from big offices, Johnson is allowed to talk to people on an international level...
Disciple of Fate wrote: For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed Never thought Russians would be praising that government
Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue
No, not Russia, hence why I said Russians, as in you and Iron Captain. Its just ironic considering Russia's history with Nazis.
this new guy from Austria came to Russia, in general he makes more sense then Johnson who is like our Zhirinovsky (a bit crazy radical guy) but worse as, unlike Zhirinovsky who is being held off from big offices, Johnson is allowed to talk to people on an international level...
Well its hard not to make more sense than Johnson However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.
However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.
it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...
here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power
However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.
it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...
here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power
Again, its not crazy, there is a level between just letting things happen and war. Nobody is advocating war. The dial has settings between 0 and 11.
However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.
it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...
here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power
Again, its not crazy, there is a level between just letting things happen and war. Nobody is advocating war. The dial has settings between 0 and 11.
no dialogue between nuclear powers is not crazy? are you sure? And, unlike some countries, Russia doesn't have a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike... does it make sense to push back everything I say just because I'm from Russia?
However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.
it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...
here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power
Again, its not crazy, there is a level between just letting things happen and war. Nobody is advocating war. The dial has settings between 0 and 11.
no dialogue between nuclear powers is not crazy? are you sure? And, unlike some countries, Russia doesn't have a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike... does it makes sense to repulse everything I say just because I'm from Russia?
You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.
You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.
I think that what has been happenning recently is as close to 'no dialogue' as it hasn't been ever in the Cold War... as for preventive (or, pre-emptive), for me this is very straightforward - this is any doctrine allowing to be the first who fires nukes before another country uses nukes or WMD.. very simple - to beging nuke war before other country even attacks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right? What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking. I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.
I think that what has been happenning recently is as close to 'no dialogue' as it hasn't been ever in the Cold War... as for preventive (or, pre-emptive), for me this is very straightforward - this is any doctrine allowing to be the first who fires nukes before another country uses nukes or WMD.. very simple - to beging nuke war before other country even attacks... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.
No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard (Russia even dropped its pledge to the No First Use policy), they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.
No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard, they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.
well, I was 30 and older when those things happened, so was quite aware of what was happening... now it's worse... it's like a dawn and a dusk - they may look the same, but certain things tell the difference... I'd be happy to learn later I was wrong on this...
please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ... http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf
just so, no 'threat', 'prevent', 'deter' and my favourite 'To ensure US and international operations are successful'... so we need dialogue
Disciple of Fate wrote: Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.
No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard, they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.
well, I was 30 and older when those things happened... now it's worse... it's like a dawn and a dusk - they may look the same, but certain things tell the difference... I'd be happy to learn I was wrong on this...
please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ... http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf
So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.
Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.
So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.
Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.
I believe you know how many civil airplaines and ships were shot by US (not some alleged US-backed rebels or what), when and where, and nobody went to war with US, so please don't throw this in my face... And as soon as this is said that Russia leaved something unsaid in its doctrine, that means other nuclear powers also must be suspected of leaving things unsaid in their doctrines... does it make things better, does it make my or your case stronger? nope
I can bear all the level of insults and disrespect to my country and its people I read here... but I can't bear warmongering of any kind...
back to my earlier point, any mediation between two nuke powers in conflict is a good thing... could I use any other words you won't feel obliged to debate?
So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.
Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.
I believe you know how many civil airplaines and ships were shot by US (not some alleged US-backed rebels or what) and where, so please don't throw this in my face... And as soon as this is said that Russia leaved something unsaid in its doctrine, that means other nuclear powers also must be suspected of leaving things unsaid in their doctrines... does it make things better, does it make my or your case stronger? nope
back to my earlier point, any mediation between two nuke powers in conflict is a good thing... could I use any other words you won't feel obliged to debate?
Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it. Also I'm not throwing it in your face, I'm pointing that in public Russia can be quite disingenuous, so their public doctrine has no face value. Of course countries leave things out of public military information, they would be mad not to, as public basically means accessible to the opponent. But to restate, no country has a preventive nuclear strike doctrine.
I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.
(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)
I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.
what I earnestly don't understand... how would giving Russia a sample compromise or derail UK case... even if Russia would run its analysis and deny - there are so many laboratories who would prove UK case, no one would care what Russia says...
Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it.
in Gulf wars there were 2 airplains and a ship... 'by mistake' and 'accept/deny' do not matter, really
(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)
this is a common attitude and a premise in this thread that Russia is bad and guilty just because it has done things... hell, it has done things, I know Russian history just too well... and I know many other respectable countries that have done things, even worse things... the 'good guys'... and all this 'ever good guys against the ever bad guy' attitude is annoying
I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.
what I earnestly don't understand... how would giving Russia a sample compromise or derail UK case... even if Russia would run its analysis and deny - there are so many laboratories who would prove UK case, no one would care what Russia says...
But why even give Russia a sample in the first place? All they're going to do is make up a lie with it that is as convincing as possible. You're just going to undermine the investigation and subsequent results. Just look at what happened to the misinformation from the Russian government on MH17. There isn't a single logical reason to give Russia a sample beyond humoring the most likely suspect of the deployment of chemical weapons, just so they can tamper with it.
(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)
this is a common attitude and a premise in this thread that Russia is bad and guilty just because it has done things... hell, it has done things, I know Russian history just too well... and I know many other respectable countries that have done things, even worse things... the 'good guys'... and all this 'ever good guys against the ever bad guy' attitude is annoying
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it.
in Gulf wars there were 2 airplains and a ship... 'by mistake' and 'accept/deny' do not matter, really
2 during the Gulf Wars? Can you name them both? By mistake and accept/deny most certainly do matter. It shows a certain level of international responsibility. While the Iran Air 665 (which was in 1988 btw, not during the Gulf War) aftermath leaves a lot to be desired, it certainly beats the Russian MH17 circus.
please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ... http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf
Since chemical weapons fall in to the WoMD category, looks like Russia gave the UK reason to nuke them per Russia's own rules...
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2001, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
how much do you know of 2001 bombings of Afganistan? how many Al-Quaeda were identified and killed? what means of warfare were used? how many people got killed? how military involved commented on civilians killed? 3,500 civilians not in any way related to Al-Quaeda killed by indiscriminate bombing (so this was not face to face fire) - isn't it significant? what makes those people deserve life less than other people? what makes one tragedy less important than the other? what makes a civilian killed in his home in Afganistan less important than a civilian killed in his home in a western city?
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
how much do you know of 2001 bombings of Afganistan? how many Al-Quaeda were identified and killed? what means of warfare were used? how many people got killed? how military involved commented on civilians killed? 3,500 civilians not in any way related to Al-Quaeda killed by indiscriminate fire - isn't it significant? what makes those people deserve life less than other people? what makes one tragedy less important than the other?
Mate, can you bugger off and start your own 'anti-US foreign policy' thread somewhere else? Russia kind of just unleashed a military grade chemical weapon against Britain. You can debate the finer moral complexities of Afganistan somewhere else.
Meanwhile, back on topic, Yulia is apparently conscious and talking.
I'm sure the police will be very interested in what she has to say. If both of them survive without mental disability; that turns the Kremlin from looking dastardly into looking idiotic. I mean, if you unleash crap like this and can't even kill the targets?
please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate): Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ... http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf
Since chemical weapons fall in to the WoMD category, looks like Russia gave the UK reason to nuke them per Russia's own rules...
Ever heard of the word "proportionality"? If they had deployed enough gas to wipe out all of Salisbury it would have been different. Just a small dose of gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Or else farmers using nerve gas as insecticide would also be guilty of WMD use...
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?
For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.
I'm sure the police will be very interested in what she has to say. If both of them survive without mental disability; that turns the Kremlin from looking dastardly into looking idiotic. I mean, if you unleash crap like this and can't even kill the targets?
Good news. Maybe we can also get more information now, although I doubt it. They will probably not have noticed much.
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?
For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.
Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here
Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.
Yeah, Russia is pretty much being a Bond villain in this case. It was a pretty malicious, over the top thing to do, when they could have simply had him died while being mugged, poisoned, shot, etc.
Instead they unleashed a chemical weapon in a pub.
Actually it appears they put it all over the door handle of his house and both he and his daughter handled it. It then was transferred to their car, and public places they visited afterwards like the restaurant where it seemed to get everywhere but in lower dosage. Although full details have not been released I assume that is why some emergency crew and police were affected because they likely directly handled the couple and their belongings when first assessing their condition.
So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?
For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionateso that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.
Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?
whembly wrote: So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?
For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionateso that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.
Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?
The current expelling of diplomats does very little beyond degrading some of the capacity of intelligence agencies.
I assume additional sanctions are going to be brought up when the OPCW reaches its conclusion (although I fully agree to doing so). Its going to be hard to get a concerted effort going on sanctions once more on the part of the whole EU, because Hungary and Greece don't seem to be too interested in doing so. Maybe the OPCW report will convince them to go along however.
Go ahead with the sanctions, you will just deteriorate the european economy further. The previous sanctions hurt the european more than the russian, and I don't think they will impose any new economic sanctions, Germany in particular seems very reluctant to it. And still no proof, even when the Czech president asked for them. The day we see the proof that Russia did it, and did it because they are bad guys, I will stop arguing.
Presumption of innocence ? ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies ? Anyone ?
It reminds me of "they have WMD !!! We have no proof (so, let's make them, like the malicious people we are !) but trust us ! Let's kill everyone there !". Don't you remember ? You all have forgot that already ?
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?
For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.
Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here
Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.
Yes, you were factually wrong in some of the points you made. And you are wrong now as well. Russia did not let that spy go themselves. They were forced to let him go, because the West had captured a bunch of Russian spies and Russia needed someone to trade. He did not get out because he served his time. And there is no such thing as an ex-spy. You are assuming that when he was caught, he had already told everything he knew. There is no guarantee for that. He was the head of personnel affairs for the GRU. He might have known the identity of a lot of GRU spies that he had not revealed to British intelligence (for example because that person at that time was not relevant), and he might only have gotten out on condition he would never seek contact with British intelligence. Who knows? We do not, and that is why it is unfair of you to be so prejudiced and make assumptions like that.
Also, I am a nationalist? What the hell. In Crimea, my friends always tell me I am unpatriotic... If you think I am already a nationalist, you clearly have never met an actual nationalist. I am way too critical of Russia to be a nationalist.
whembly wrote: So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?
For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionateso that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.
Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?
Considering the level of economic activity between the UK and Russia, no economic sanctions are almost completely meaningless. It only works if the whole EU comes together, but that is unlikely to happen. And even if it does, Russia is already heavily under sanctions, without much noticeable effects. Russia is pretty isolated economically so sanctions against it don't tend to do much.
However, London is a popular hang-out for rich Russians. Many of those are relatives or friends of people within the Russian leadership. Taking action against those people might sort some effect, though I imagine it would be difficult to do under British law, especially seeing as that many of the people in question are British citizens.
It is hard to find a stronger response than expelling diplomats. Especially since you know that Russia will retaliate tit-for-tat, so you have to be careful not to escalate things too much.
godardc wrote: Go ahead with the sanctions, you will just deteriorate the european economy further. The previous sanctions hurt the european more than the russian, and I don't think they will impose any new economic sanctions, Germany in particular seems very reluctant to it.
And still no proof, even when the Czech president asked for them. The day we see the proof that Russia did it, and did it because they are bad guys, I will stop arguing.
Presumption of innocence ?
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies ? Anyone ?
It reminds me of "they have WMD !!! We have no proof (so, let's make them, like the malicious people we are !) but trust us ! Let's kill everyone there !". Don't you remember ? You all have forgot that already ?
Is that a joke? European sanctions barely had any effect on the European economy as a whole. The only sectors really affected were those heavily geared towards exporting to Russia. Russia suffered a lot more.
Just because they haven't made the evidence public doesn't mean there isn't any. The fact remains that dozens of countries agreed with the UK findings, even those that traditionally are more supportive of Russia in the EU.
Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.
you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say
If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.
Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?
For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.
Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here
Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.
Yes, you were factually wrong in some of the points you made. And you are wrong now as well. Russia did not let that spy go themselves. They were forced to let him go, because the West had captured a bunch of Russian spies and Russia needed someone to trade. He did not get out because he served his time. And there is no such thing as an ex-spy. You are assuming that when he was caught, he had already told everything he knew. There is no guarantee for that. He was the head of personnel affairs for the GRU. He might have known the identity of a lot of GRU spies that he had not revealed to British intelligence (for example because that person at that time was not relevant), and he might only have gotten out on condition he would never seek contact with British intelligence. Who knows? We do not, and that is why it is unfair of you to be so prejudiced and make assumptions like that.
Also, I am a nationalist? What the hell. In Crimea, my friends always tell me I am unpatriotic... If you think I am already a nationalist, you clearly have never met an actual nationalist. I am way too critical of Russia to be a nationalist.
See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.
It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...
How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?
See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.
It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...
How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?
Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?
See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.
It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...
How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?
Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?
I wasn't wrong though, but ok.
The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.
Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Because by nature they tend to spread, killing and injuring bystanders, and even low levels of exposure can have serious health effects down the road, even if it didn't kill you outright.
See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.
It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...
How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?
Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?
I wasn't wrong though, but ok.
The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.
Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Because by nature they tend to spread, killing and injuring bystanders, and even low levels of exposure can have serious health effects down the road, even if it didn't kill you outright.
Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders. The amount of assassinations with guns in which innocents were injured or killed are many. With this chemical, only 3 people were hospitalised in the end (the target and only two bystanders) and no one was killed (yet), so it is not like the spreading or lethality is that bad. I don't think this is enough evidence to be able to say that this means that chemical weapons are likely to cause much more additional casualties. Yes, chemical weapons have the capability to create vast amounts of casualties, but they not necessarily do. They only create mass casualties if they are deliberately spread to do so. But then again, guns in sufficient quantity and with sufficient rates of fire can also cause mass casualties. And while they can cause suffering and long-lasting health effects, so can being wounded by a bullet. I know several people who are still in huge pain every day because of bullet wounds they received in the past.
Now you guys are saying things like "I can't believe you are defending chemical weapons", but that is a fallacy, not an argument. You have not actually yet made it clear to me why the use of a chemical weapon in this case was so much more malicious than the use of a gun.
Like, I get why you guys are so opposed to chemical weapons. There is something sinister about them. I too initially had this response. But now that you guys made me thing about it, I think that this response might not be entirely rational. I need to hear some good arguments.
I think it does come down to the precision. For example- shoot the guy in his house, and only his daughter is also at risk. First responders etc are not at risk, other than if they try to apprehend the assassin (which is true eitherway).
The chemical appears to have been smeared on his door, to target just him. Yet despite being on just his house, it has potentially affected 130+ people, because the Skripals themselves have unknowingly spread the chemical further. The local postman could've gotten almost as big a dose. The chemical has been capable of injuring people long after it was applied in the actual assassination attempt. It is very much more inherently indiscriminate, and importantly hard to control. The fact no one has died so far is more luck than anything else.
Firearms can be used more indiscriminately, but they are inherently less indiscriminate than a fire-and-forget weapon that contaminates the entire area, like the novichok did.
Which given Russia's history of assassinating its opponents, was presumably the intent. Not only in threatening its enemies, but also stating the point that those people are inherently dangerous due to the weapons which are used to kill them (reinforced by statements made by the Russian state media and politicians - because seriously, if they want to say they didn't do it, explain away all the gloating prior to the formal accusation of Russian inclement FFS).
I'd think that behind closed doors the assassination may have been in response to another event, or to send a message relating to some scheme the Intelligence agencies have been up to. Whether something was done to provoke this, or more likely it was the Russians wanting to send a message to other groups is up for debate.
Meanwhile, the matter of that Russian who died on the day where the British government asked for a response from the Russians continues to not be addressed in relation to the current case. However, as with the re-opened cases of assassinated Russians which the British are investigating, it'll all perhaps come out in time.
Apparently chemical weapons poisoning over 100 people with unclear long term effects is less bad than shooting someone with a gun because sometimes a bullet could hit a bystander. Certain Russian posters on here will justify anything, it’s astonishing. Though maybe if my country was so underhanded, malicious and unscrupulous I’d be embarrassed and want to say anything to save face too.
Perhaps certain posters here aren't as pigheaded as they wish to appear, and are just making their proactive comments to get a reaction out of people? Even if they are plainly ignorant, arguing with them just detracts from any meaningful discussion- which in my experience on a couple of boards is exactly their intention.
Would you seriously bother arguing with someone on the street who's saying the moon's made out of cheese? There's an ignore button for a reason guys...
Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders.
*insert joke about Russian and 'gangsta' marksmanship here*
If you're hitting bystanders in an assassination, you're not missing. You're causing as much chaos as possible to cover an exit or you're sending a message. At least if we're talking the level of professionalism that is typically employed by national governments using non-disposable assets..
Haighus wrote: I think it does come down to the precision. For example- shoot the guy in his house, and only his daughter is also at risk. First responders etc are not at risk, other than if they try to apprehend the assassin (which is true eitherway).
The chemical appears to have been smeared on his door, to target just him. Yet despite being on just his house, it has potentially affected 130+ people, because the Skripals themselves have unknowingly spread the chemical further. The local postman could've gotten almost as big a dose. The chemical has been capable of injuring people long after it was applied in the actual assassination attempt. It is very much more inherently indiscriminate, and importantly hard to control. The fact no one has died so far is more luck than anything else.
Firearms can be used more indiscriminately, but they are inherently less indiscriminate than a fire-and-forget weapon that contaminates the entire area, like the novichok did.
I think I can agree with that. The location and the way a weapon is used is important. But that goes both ways. If they had just poisoned him inside his house, rather than through the door handle, only his daughter would have also been at risk. But if they had tried to shoot him at the pub, that would have put a lot more people at risk. So I still think it is not inherently worse, because you can use nerve gas in a very controlled, discriminate way as well with a much lesser risk of harming bystanders (see the assassination of Kim Jong Nam), and you can use guns in just as indiscriminate a way as you can use nerve gas. How 'bad' and 'malicious' a weapon is all depends on the way you use it. And while the novichok did contaminate a wide area, it did not do so in a dose high enough to be really harmful, which is why the people at the pub and such did not have to be hospitalised. Also, it does not make chemical weapons worse than other 'fire-and-forget' assassination weapons, such as bombs, which coincidentally also have a ridiculously high risk of causing collateral damage, I think much more so than a limited dose of novichok.
That being said, while I still disagree that novichok or other chemical weapons are inherently more malicious than other weapons, I do think that I must agree that Russia's use of the novichok was pretty malicious in this case. Because as you say, they applied the agent to Skripal's door handle, which means that the postman or any random, innocent visitor could have been poisoned. That is pretty damn malicious. Not more malicious than if they had strapped a bomb to the door handle, but malicious nonetheless.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently chemical weapons poisoning over 100 people with unclear long term effects is less bad than shooting someone with a gun because sometimes a bullet could hit a bystander. Certain Russian posters on here will justify anything, it’s astonishing. Though maybe if my country was so underhanded, malicious and unscrupulous I’d be embarrassed and want to say anything to save face too.
Apparently you seem to think it very clear that poisoning 100 people is worse than shooting 100 people, but are unable to explain why. Also, in this case, there weren't 100 people that got poisoned, it was just 3. The more than 100 people you are referring to where just the people who were in the same area as the victims. They were advised to wash their clothes just to be sure, but afaik none of them got poisoned.
Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders.
*insert joke about Russian and 'gangsta' marksmanship here*
If you're hitting bystanders in an assassination, you're not missing. You're causing as much chaos as possible to cover an exit or you're sending a message. At least if we're talking the level of professionalism that is typically employed by national governments using non-disposable assets..
You are generalising waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much. There is a myriad ways and reasons that even a trained marksman could miss his target. And you are assuming intelligence agencies do not use disposable assets to carry out assassinations. Why risk one of your valuable agents when you can just conscript a thug? Way less risk. If he gets caught he won't betray anything important and you won't lose one of your agents.
I'm not quoting because they are difficult to manage on mobile.
I don't think "chemical" weapons as a category is inherently worse than firearms, I agree with you. But it does seem novichok especially is, or at least likely was before they used it and found out it wasn't as lethal as intended for whatever reason (this is conjecture on my part, but when it comes down to it no one has died yet, unlike the Korean assassination you mention, see below).
The novichok has proven to be toxic long after the initial poisoning, as the copper was poisoned when aiding the unconscious Skripals after they were some distance from their home, and had apparently been through half of Salisbury. Dangerously large amounts still seem to be present in Salisbury, days after the attack. In addition, whilst it has not been immediately lethal so far, we have basically no idea of the long term impacts of any of the 130+ exposed. The vast majority are fine now, but may have long-term sequelae due to exposure.
Anybody developing the agent would know it lingers in the environment at dangerous levels for extended periods of time. They would also likely havelittle knowledge of the long-term effects, because it is such a rare agent, and the testing on humans is likely limited.
This tells us that using such an agent in a built-up area is very reckless, or uncaringly indiscriminate. I don't think this is universal to chemical attacks, but seems universal to novichok, as it appears to be hard to contain with the lengthy contamination.
I believe contamination is the real issue with chemical, biological and radioactive weapons (less so nukes), as they tendto taint an area for an extended period. At least bombs are one-off events, although they are also inappropriately indiscriminate for an assassination.
Using the firearms analogy, it is like using a .50 cal machine gun to spray the house from a block away, rather than using a low-penetration 9mm to the face. A 9mm is unlikely to go through a wall and hurt someone else, but a .50 could go through several. In choosing novichok, they've chosen the .50 with more chance of colateral damage, rather than the contained 9mm of a more predictable agent.
Regarding the use of novichok specifically, the attack honestly feels like a field test of the weapon as much as an assassination. Two birds in one stone. I wouldn't be surprised if the results have been dissapointing- if the weapon had been as lethal as expected, then probably at least three people would be dead by now, if not more.
Its not a field test, the agent used was apparently developed in the 1970's. We can be certain the Soviets knew how it worked and how to apply it.
Novichok was used as an open warning and rallying card, no direct witnesses (that we know of) but a hit job that could only feasibly be carried out by the Russian state.
The timing before the election is not coincidental, it tells Putins supporters that he is hard line enough to deal with 'traitors'. There is a lot of harkening back to the glory days of the Soviet Union, a rosy nostalgia flag as opposed to the reality of blood red. Putin has arranged so that he is seen as the embodiment of that, and the ideal that Russians/Soviets can do as they please is a major part of the mindset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, even Ireland has expelled Russian diplomats over this.
Anyone could be next. France has dragged their heels though, but even they take the threat seriously.
See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.
It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...
How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?
Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?
I wasn't wrong though, but ok.
The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.
Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.
Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders. The amount of assassinations with guns in which innocents were injured or killed are many. With this chemical, only 3 people were hospitalised in the end (the target and only two bystanders) and no one was killed (yet), so it is not like the spreading or lethality is that bad. I don't think this is enough evidence to be able to say that this means that chemical weapons are likely to cause much more additional casualties. Yes, chemical weapons have the capability to create vast amounts of casualties, but they not necessarily do. They only create mass casualties if they are deliberately spread to do so. But then again, guns in sufficient quantity and with sufficient rates of fire can also cause mass casualties. And while they can cause suffering and long-lasting health effects, so can being wounded by a bullet. I know several people who are still in huge pain every day because of bullet wounds they received in the past.
Now you guys are saying things like "I can't believe you are defending chemical weapons", but that is a fallacy, not an argument. You have not actually yet made it clear to me why the use of a chemical weapon in this case was so much more malicious than the use of a gun.
Like, I get why you guys are so opposed to chemical weapons. There is something sinister about them. I too initially had this response. But now that you guys made me thing about it, I think that this response might not be entirely rational. I need to hear some good arguments.
I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.
How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.
Iron_Captain wrote: [q Apparently you seem to think it very clear that poisoning 100 people is worse than shooting 100 people, but are unable to explain why.
Bears no resemblance to what I said so try harder.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: So we're moving onto 'It's okay for Russia to indiscrimently murder people on British soil, as long as they do it quietly?'
I believe we're moving on to why chemical weapon are more bad than firearms, which are also bad.
To be fair, its likely the use of chemical weapons that made this case such a big deal. While it would still be wrong to have shot him, I honestly believe that the international response would have been a lot less intense.
Indeed, a bullet would kill the target. This chemical attack has put a couple bystanders in hospital, we’ve had public places needed to be chemiically scrubbed, over 100 people throwing their contaminated clothes away and the possibility of unknown health effects later.
It’s like killing someone with a bomb, blasting a street full of people with shrapnel and then saying ‘yeah but stray bullets could hurt people too so what’s the problem *snigger*’
Economic sanctions are likely to be quite specialised and atrgetted.
They will take the form of clamping down selectively on the Russian kleptocrats who surround Putin.
These people are in London not just because London is nice, and they can move to France if they like. They are in London because London is a uniquely friendly place for dirty money which is also a world city in a major first world nation.
Paris isn't and won't be friendly to dirty money like that.
So the idea behind these sanctions will be to hurt Putin and his friends directly. This won't have any real effect on the Russian people as a whole.
Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".
AegisGrimm wrote: Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".
'Nice Country ya got here, be a shame is somethin happened to it.'
AegisGrimm wrote: Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".
'Nice Country ya got here, be a shame is somethin happened to it.'
I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.
How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.
I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?
I think the kind of chemical that is considered a "WMD" is the kind that is intrinsically hard to contain and control, and therefore inherently indiscriminate. There are loads of chemicals that are toxic that are not considered chemical weapons, and the ones that are tend to taint there area and contaminate it. I think that is the key difference. Some chemical weapons are probably erroneously considered "WMDs", which are precise and controllable, but they are usually just called poisons/toxins.
I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.
How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.
I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?
Yet you don't fully understand the difference that not all weapons are equal. Even explosives get differentiated on the international stage. Certain types of explosives are also very much frowned upon if not outright banned like chemical weapons. Think of your garden variety landmine or cluster bombs. Use of those quickly edges into war crime territory due to collateral damage. A distinction is even made between bullets, dum dum bullets are also very much frowned upon and banned by the signatories of the Hague Convention.
One should not assume all weapons are equal even if applied in a vacuum. Chemical weapons like dum dum bullets or cluster bombs are considered excessive and inhumane because they go far beyond the proportionaility required even in war. Sure, regular bullets or explosives can be just as deadly or easily used in war crimes, but chemical weapons and dum dum bullets add a whole other level of unneeded trauma. Bullet wounds and explosive wounds for the most part are pretty straight forward, chemical weapon effects are much harder to treat and most side effects are far more severe because they are manufactured with those side effects in mind, most explosives and bullets aren't. Sure an explosion could blind some people as an accidental side effect, but a chemical weapon that doesn't outright kill could permanently blind. You're talking about chance versus an engineered purpose to be more horrific.
Haighus wrote:I think the kind of chemical that is considered a "WMD" is the kind that is intrinsically hard to contain and control, and therefore inherently indiscriminate. There are loads of chemicals that are toxic that are not considered chemical weapons, and the ones that are tend to taint there area and contaminate it. I think that is the key difference. Some chemical weapons are probably erroneously considered "WMDs", which are precise and controllable, but they are usually just called poisons/toxins.
I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.
How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.
I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?
Yet you don't fully understand the difference that not all weapons are equal. Even explosives get differentiated on the international stage. Certain types of explosives are also very much frowned upon if not outright banned like chemical weapons. Think of your garden variety landmine or cluster bombs. Use of those quickly edges into war crime territory due to collateral damage. A distinction is even made between bullets, dum dum bullets are also very much frowned upon and banned by the signatories of the Hague Convention.
One should not assume all weapons are equal even if applied in a vacuum. Chemical weapons like dum dum bullets or cluster bombs are considered excessive and inhumane because they go far beyond the proportionaility required even in war. Sure, regular bullets or explosives can be just as deadly or easily used in war crimes, but chemical weapons and dum dum bullets add a whole other level of unneeded trauma. Bullet wounds and explosive wounds for the most part are pretty straight forward, chemical weapon effects are much harder to treat and most side effects are far more severe because they are manufactured with those side effects in mind, most explosives and bullets aren't. Sure an explosion could blind some people as an accidental side effect, but a chemical weapon that doesn't outright kill could permanently blind. You're talking about chance versus an engineered purpose to be more horrific.
You have convinced me. I think both of these arguments together put forward a convincing explanation.
To be fair international rules on these types of weapons are patchy at best. Technically a herbicide like Agent Orange is still on the ok side to use, even though we now are fully aware of the long term side effects on people's health and new generations. Its not short term like most chemical weapons that are banned, but its as indiscriminate if not as deadly. Not surprisingly the US is mainly interested in preventing that from being enshrined into international law. But then you have weird cases like tear gas being banned in warfare but fine for domestic use, because its pretty common in riot control. Its a frustrating process.
In other news, Russia has now expelled more UK diplomats than vice versa, plus some argument about a legal/illegal search of a Russian plane. Besides expelling some more diplomats there isn't a lot to do to increase pressure. Still expect the West to wait for the OPCW, then the EU still has to work to get all its countries to agree to measures. The US might already be pretty maxed out on them I think.
No idea what the law is, but this sounds very much like the Russians trying to play the victim again:
The Border Force officers inspected the plane for up to three minutes before leaving with a "thank you", he added.
The pilot maintains they "gave no reasons" for the inspection, and he was not allowed to "observe their actions" or accompany them in their work.
I'm not sure what the legal requirement is (I'm sure a news source will have got an expert to comment within a few hours) but it sounds like they went on the plane, sniffer dog did a quick search, as happens all the time, then they got off. It seems like very routine stuff which the Russian embassy is blowing out of proportion to play the "poor persecuted Russia" game again.
This is Britain ratcheting up the threat level by waiting for the pilots to leave the plane and go down the pub for a well-earned pint, before doing routine customs checks.
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.
Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".
The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain....
Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.
"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."
So have we reached the stage Russia just accused the UK of trying to murder Skripal to prevent the World Cup from happening in Russia? Sure sounds like it.
Yep! Absolutely. And to humiliate the Russian government further the UK government have ordered NI, Scotland and Wales to snub the world cup by failing to qualify and England to turn up but put in such a pathetic display that they don’t go past the group stages! It’s like leaving a tip of a few coppers for bad service rather than no tip at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This is Britain ratcheting up the threat level by waiting for the pilots to leave the plane and go down the pub for a well-earned pint, before doing routine customs checks.
Breaking news! Uk boarder force have asked to see visas and passports of Russians entering the UK! This humiliation of Russian citizens must end!
If an Islamic country complained about drug sniffer dogs on their planes I could at least understand it, because of their religious beliefs about dogs.
But it appears they don't.
What we are seeing is Maskirovka, throw so much gak in the air it clouds the judgement of many. However the Russian strategy has changed, first it was contempt, calling for proof while looking very guilty and blaming outrageous choices of third party such as Sweden. It was a means of saying they did it while mouthing the opposite as a bully tactic.
Now they are going full on to claim their innocence while making themselves out as the victims. That is a whole different strategy and goes to prove that the outcome is not going as expected.
Russia are doubling down on the rhetoric, but they are getting edgy, evidently they expected the UK to be abandoned by the global community, and while some rogue states are backing Russia and the EU is visibly dragging its heels, even the French eventually made statements that they believed the UK governments position and condemned Russia's alleged involvement,
The whole situation is like a bully picking on ten different kids, and then the 11th defends themselves and so the bully runs to the teacher and cries foul about how they are being picked on.
Excuse me, Russia? Get through a single presidential election without the opponents being mysteriously harmed or killed, and we'll talk about you being respected as a civilized country.
messed up in deleteing quotes
)
