Steve steveson wrote:
If it was easy Isis wouldn't be messing about with backpacks of fertiliser and bits of shrapnel. Why bother if you could just walk in to a crowded building and release an odourless gas and wait for the panic?

This is 100% state actors, and the Russian news reports basically confirm it was FSB. Why else would they be making these vague warnings and silly insinuations about Porton Down?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498

The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If it was easy Isis wouldn't be messing about with backpacks of fertiliser and bits of shrapnel. Why bother if you could just walk in to a crowded building and release an odourless gas and wait for the panic?

This is 100% state actors, and the Russian news reports basically confirm it was FSB. Why else would they be making these vague warnings and silly insinuations about Porton Down?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498

The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad).

They do?

Who has given them this authority to act in this manner when not in Russia?!?

Wow, this might be a little OT but reading that article about that doomsday cult in Japan.... Whoah.

A group of less than 2000 people pooled resources and acquired enough material to make weapons capable of killing like 4 million people...


My local SF convention pulls in about 2000 people annually.

If a little cult like that one in japan could put together the resources for a holocaustic attack I think we need to face that it's likely a matter of when not if, we have a truly massive terrorist attack in the west with casualties that will dwarf 911. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.

I just wonder if it will really be a bunch of nuts, which is quite possible especially in America today, or a Reichstag fire to justify a new power grab or distract the public from something bigger.

But back on topic, I'd bet the poisoning of these people traces back to uncle pooty.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If it was easy Isis wouldn't be messing about with backpacks of fertiliser and bits of shrapnel. Why bother if you could just walk in to a crowded building and release an odourless gas and wait for the panic?

This is 100% state actors, and the Russian news reports basically confirm it was FSB. Why else would they be making these vague warnings and silly insinuations about Porton Down?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498

The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

I’m afraid I don’t know the inside out of the Russian “security” services, however I would hardly say “they only assassinate terrorists overseas” as a claim of being innocent.

I think it is a reasonably good guess that some news presenter isn’t doing that without editorial guidance, which I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume where this came from.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If it was easy Isis wouldn't be messing about with backpacks of fertiliser and bits of shrapnel. Why bother if you could just walk in to a crowded building and release an odourless gas and wait for the panic?

This is 100% state actors, and the Russian news reports basically confirm it was FSB. Why else would they be making these vague warnings and silly insinuations about Porton Down?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498

The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad).

They do?

Who has given them this authority to act in this manner when not in Russia?!?

Federal Law No. 35-FZ
Which also grants that same authority to all other Russian armed forces (in Russia, intelligence services are military rather than civilian organisations). That law was signed by a certain V.V. Putin, though it is widely known that these laws are not written by Putin or by parliament but by the intelligence agencies themselves. So I guess the most fitting answer is that they gave themselves the authority.

I think Alpharius's point was "what gives Putin the right to give that right in other countries?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If it was easy Isis wouldn't be messing about with backpacks of fertiliser and bits of shrapnel. Why bother if you could just walk in to a crowded building and release an odourless gas and wait for the panic?

This is 100% state actors, and the Russian news reports basically confirm it was FSB. Why else would they be making these vague warnings and silly insinuations about Porton Down?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498

The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

I’m afraid I don’t know the inside out of the Russian “security” services, however I would hardly say “they only assassinate terrorists overseas” as a claim of being innocent.

I think it is a reasonably good guess that some news presenter isn’t doing that without editorial guidance, which I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume where this came from.

Indeed, they assassinate more than just terrorists, and also not only abroad. But the FSB generally does not assassinate people abroad, it is an internal security organisation so its assassinations usually take place in Russia itself. So while it does have the authority to assassinate terrorists abroad if it sees fit, assassinations abroad are usually left to the SVR, the foreign intelligence agency. The SVR has better capabilities for such operations, especially if they take place outside of the ethnic Russian diaspora where the FSB has little power. Then there is also the GRU, the military intelligence organisation. They assassinate people both in Russia and abroad, but generally tend to focus on military targets (troublesome Ukrainian leaders, Chechens, radical islamists etc.).
As for your second point, that is just an assumption. He could have said it either on his own initiative or have been told to say it by the editors. We can't know unless we ask him, and it matters little either way.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think Alpharius's point was "what gives Putin the right to give that right in other countries?

The same thing that gives the CIA or Mossad the right to do it? Which I guess in the end comes down to nothing but 'might makes right'. There are no international laws that allow intelligence agencies to assassinate people in other countries. Governments just give themselves the right to do it.

It’s an act of terrorism, if not war, to murder someone in another country and injure dozens of bystanders. We wouldn’t tolerate Russian agents putting a bomb on a bus so why tolerate a chemical attack in a park?

Pretty sure our security services know who is responsible, but whether they can say publicly without betraying their sources and means of intelligence is a different thing. I’m sure there’s heaps of evidence for those behind the murder of Litvinenko but they won’t spill it openly as sources of information have to be preserved and secrecy maintained. But all the governments involved know the score behind closed doors.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Wow, this might be a little OT but reading that article about that doomsday cult in Japan.... Whoah.

A group of less than 2000 people pooled resources and acquired enough material to make weapons capable of killing like 4 million people...

If a little cult like that one in japan could put together the resources for a holocaustic attack I think we need to face that it's likely a matter of when not if, we have a truly massive terrorist attack in the west with casualties that will dwarf 911. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. .

2000 people for a cult, especially a cult of that nature, isn't that small. Most cults are unlikely to grow so large due to their fondness for secrecy and total control of their members, both of which become much harder as more people are exposed to the cult.

Notable exceptions being ISIS, which basically wanted to become a country, and Scientology which is just a scam to con people out of money set up by a third rate science fiction novelist and fraudster.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It’s an act of terrorism, if not war, to murder someone in another country and injure dozens of bystanders. We wouldn’t tolerate Russian agents putting a bomb on a bus so why tolerate a chemical attack in a park?

Pretty sure our security services know who is responsible, but whether they can say publicly without betraying their sources and means of intelligence is a different thing. I’m sure there’s heaps of evidence for those behind the murder of Litvinenko but they won’t spill it openly as sources of information have to be preserved and secrecy maintained. But all the governments involved know the score behind closed doors.

An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Wow, this might be a little OT but reading that article about that doomsday cult in Japan.... Whoah.

A group of less than 2000 people pooled resources and acquired enough material to make weapons capable of killing like 4 million people...

If a little cult like that one in japan could put together the resources for a holocaustic attack I think we need to face that it's likely a matter of when not if, we have a truly massive terrorist attack in the west with casualties that will dwarf 911. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. .

2000 people for a cult, especially a cult of that nature, isn't that small. Most cults are unlikely to grow so large due to their fondness for secrecy and total control of their members, both of which become much harder as more people are exposed to the cult.

Notable exceptions being ISIS, which basically wanted to become a country, and Scientology which is just a scam to con people out of money set up by a third rate science fiction novelist and fraudster.

You just gave me a chilling thought. What if some real whacko takes over Scientology? As is I'm pretty sure Scientology is a grand scam to fleece suckers. But man, what if some real. nut with an agenda took it over? The resources it possesses are way beyond that doomsday cult in Japan had and those xxxxs set up to kill up to 4 million people....

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

The story is not about the FSB or the various jurisdictional vagaries of the Russian intelligence network. That's deflection, don't do it.

The story is about a newsreader on a government controlled channel making a clear case that Russia was behind the attack, and giving a motive for why Russia would do it, in order to put the word out to any possible future defectors. Who actually undertook the attack is irrelevant to that.

Now, you are right that the statement isn't proof. It wouldn't mean much in a court of law, but the legal requirements of courts are irrelevant here, even if the UK could identify who committed the act and who ordered it, they'd have no chance of getting them extradited from Russia. What is being debated here is policy response, what the UK should do if they become confident Russia was behind the attack. For those purposes, yeah this statement definitely helps confirm that it was Russia behind the attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a nice long list of US defectors who were died in mysterious circumstances while living in other countries. Maybe even just one name, one person. Because if you can't give even just one name, I might be forced to conclude this is yet another example of you defending Russia by saying its okay for Russia to do it because you accuse other countries of doing the same thing despite having absolutely no evidence of it.

21 people now effected. When spies, double agents and whatever are hurt that’s one thing. Random members of the public is something totally different. There is now no way the UK government can mumble something about sanctions, eject a few diplomats and forget about it.

To some extent it is true that the UK and USA carry out what might be called assassinations of people such as Jihadi John, and sometimes civilians get caught in the cross-fire. This is very regrettable.

There are two key differences between the Salisbury situation and the Jihadi John situation, though.

The first point is that the drone strikes in Iraq are against people who are engaged in armed combat against UK/US or allied forces. Skripal had done his time, been released and pardonned, and can't possibly still be involved in espionage activity all these years later. Thus the attack on him has no operational significance. It is purely vindictive.

The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

So things have now stepped up a notch, 182 military personnel are being deployed to the area. This includes chemical experts and marines along with all the gear needed.
A notice has been issued for the local population to not needlessly worry and let the services/ troops do their thing. Time will tell where this goes for sure, will be passing the area tomorrow and am wondering we will see a more military presence than usual on the roads.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

And are the drone strikes actually that much better, except for the fact they use only explosive ordinance instead of chemical weapons? The US seems perfectly OK with killing the target along with anyone in the house, no matter if they're terrorist supporters, hostages or his family who don't know he's a target. And there's often a second drone striking the same location after 5-15 minutes in case the target's terrorist buddies come to help him, or maybe the locals try to put out a fire... but feth them, they're foreigners.

Otherwise then yes, killing a retired spy who did his time was a waste of resources. Making an example of someone who was already officially punished and released.

 Steve steveson wrote:
21 people now effected. When spies, double agents and whatever are hurt that’s one thing. Random members of the public is something totally different. There is now no way the UK government can mumble something about sanctions, eject a few diplomats and forget about it.

Source?
[For the numbers effected]

Spetulhu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

Obviously it is!

The whole of the Cold (and Lukewarm) Wars of the 1950s to 1980s was based on that principle. The West and the Soviet Union competed militarily through proxies, and to some extent that reduced the probability of a direct confrontation.

This is the situation we are heading towards again now with Russia supporting Assad in Syria, the West supporting Saudi Arabia in the Yemen.

sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

The story is not about the FSB or the various jurisdictional vagaries of the Russian intelligence network. That's deflection, don't do it.

The story is about a newsreader on a government controlled channel making a clear case that Russia was behind the attack, and giving a motive for why Russia would do it, in order to put the word out to any possible future defectors. Who actually undertook the attack is irrelevant to that.

Now, you are right that the statement isn't proof. It wouldn't mean much in a court of law, but the legal requirements of courts are irrelevant here, even if the UK could identify who committed the act and who ordered it, they'd have no chance of getting them extradited from Russia. What is being debated here is policy response, what the UK should do if they become confident Russia was behind the attack. For those purposes, yeah this statement definitely helps confirm that it was Russia behind the attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a nice long list of US defectors who were died in mysterious circumstances while living in other countries. Maybe even just one name, one person. Because if you can't give even just one name, I might be forced to conclude this is yet another example of you defending Russia by saying its okay for Russia to do it because you accuse other countries of doing the same thing despite having absolutely no evidence of it.

WTH are you going on about? Deflection? Someone said that the statement basically confirmed that the FSB did it and all I did was point out that it likely was not the FSB but another organisation. How is trying to help someone by learning them something deflection?
And how much confirmation do you need? That Russia is behind this was already more crystal clear than a mountain stream.

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a nice long list of US defectors who were died in mysterious circumstances while living in other countries. Maybe even just one name, one person. Because if you can't give even just one name, I might be forced to conclude this is yet another example of you defending Russia by saying its okay for Russia to do it because you accuse other countries of doing the same thing despite having absolutely no evidence of it.

Anwar Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being an elderly man who called for people to fight against the US.
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being 16 years old and being the son of abovementioned (The US government claims he was killed as 'collateral damage', but since there was no actually militarily significant target)
Samir Khan, US citizen, Treason: Was editor of a pro Al-Qaeda magazine.
All of these people are Americans who had ties to groups the US government doesn't like. None of them were militarily significant targets or were engaged in an armed struggle against the US. Their only crime was supporting a group that is antagonistic to the US. Which isn't really all that different from people like Skripal. I am not saying that there aren't any differences and that it is all the same, but I am saying that there is plenty of similarities.

Kilkrazy wrote:To some extent it is true that the UK and USA carry out what might be called assassinations of people such as Jihadi John, and sometimes civilians get caught in the cross-fire. This is very regrettable.

There are two key differences between the Salisbury situation and the Jihadi John situation, though.

The first point is that the drone strikes in Iraq are against people who are engaged in armed combat against UK/US or allied forces. Skripal had done his time, been released and pardonned, and can't possibly still be involved in espionage activity all these years later. Thus the attack on him has no operational significance. It is purely vindictive.

I don't entirely agree, because the justification for US/UK assassinations is often highly questionable. First of all it is questionab;e whether all of those people assassinated really are engaged in armed combat against the US/UK and second because just being engaged in armed combat does not allow a country to assassinate someone. International law is pretty clear on when killing a combatant is allowed and when it is not, and especially the US often violates that. A lot of the assassinations the US carries out really have next to no military significance and are no less vindictive than Russia's assassinations But I don't want to drag this off topic and I do get the point you are making.
The motives and circumstances of this assassination are very different, right? But I am not sure I can agree to that. As to the full motives of this assassination, we can only guess. Surely there was an element of vengeance and spite in it, but that does not mean that those necessarily were the only motives. Another motive that seems likely for example is frightening other potential traitors back in line. Yet another motive may be that Skripal still did have information that he had not yet shared with Western agencies and that they wanted to keep out of enemy hands. Just because he was caught doesn't mean that he shared everything he knew. If one of these examples was the main motivation for the attack, then it did have operational significance. Then the only real differences between this assassination and the assassinations the US usually carries out is the nature of the target, a traitor rather than a political/ideological opponent (although since the US has also been assassinating US citizens, you could argue that even that difference is non-existent) and the way it is carried out, by poison rather than a drone strike.

Kilkrazy wrote:The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Salisbury is foreign soil from a Russian point of view. Why would an assassination in the centre of a Middle Eastern city be ok, but in a British city not? Maybe I am understanding you wrong here, but it seems like double standards.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Former PM al-Maliki of Iraq
Current/Former/lolwhoknows? President Hadi of Yemen
President Mohamed of Somalia

Discussing the morality of a military dictator like President al-Sisi of Egypt asking a democracy like Israel to assassinate dissidents in the Sinai peninsula is a different topic entirely then a unilateral assassination attempt like Kim Jong Nam getting a face full of poison.

And are the drone strikes actually that much better, except for the fact they use only explosive ordinance instead of chemical weapons? The US seems perfectly OK with killing the target along with anyone in the house, no matter if they're terrorist supporters, hostages or his family who don't know he's a target. And there's often a second drone striking the same location after 5-15 minutes in case the target's terrorist buddies come to help him, or maybe the locals try to put out a fire... but feth them, they're foreigners.

You're absolutely right, we don't care about a bunch of foreigners that a great deal of Americans consider ignorant mud hut dwellers. The point of the drone program is it reduces the cost of American interventions in terms of treasure and blood. If you're trying to convince Americans to make the calculus that losing American soldiers to save some foreigner's life is worth it to uphold our schizophrenic national values or point out the hypocrisy that Westerners should be able to deploy autonomous assassins to roam the skies of less developed countries. You're talking to a stone wall, people don't want to confront the evils that their tax money pays for. I can think of several other more productive things to do.

Oh come on.. The US asking Iraq for permission to conduct drone strikes? You mean asking our sock puppet Iraqi leader?

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Oh come on.. The US asking Iraq for permission to conduct drone strikes? You mean asking our sock puppet Iraqi leader?

Yes. We asked. Whether or not the leader we asked is truly representative or even capable of saying no is irrelevant. It's the fact we asked the internationally recognized head of state and got a meek "yes" is what allows the US to create a fig leaf of legality.

And if you paid attention to PM al-Abadi, successor of PM al-Maliki. Asking for American or Iranian air strikes against ISIS was a political hot potato due to the actions of his predecessor and necessity of including Iranian aligned elements in the government/military during the ISIS crisis. Creating the conundrum of which foreign power should be bombing his country.

This isn’t about what the US may or may not have done. At most it is possible to comment on what the UK may or may not have done. But ultimately this is about the Russian government using a nerve agent on UK soil which has possibly killed two people in injured many more. US drone strikes are as relevant to this as a justification or finger pointing as the death of Kim Youg Nam.

Deploying a chemical/biological weapon in another country that injuring their people *is* an act of war.

It’s nothing like the US carrying out drone strikes in Iraq which is at least done with the agreement and knowledge of their government. You can argue that they politically don’t have a lot of choice in the matter but it is an ongoing armed conflict.

That’s still not the same as undertaking a covert operation in a country that you are in no armed conflict with and without any knowledge of their government. Iron Captain tries to handwave this not a act of war but ‘state terrorism’ as if that’s makes it a bit more acceptable but it is what it is. But if it was ordered by the Russian government, a biological weapon attack on citizens of a country currently not on a war footing is an act of war just as if we lobbed a missile into Moscow to kill someone we didn’t like and injured dozens of bystanders.

You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

Do the Russians really commit that much to the Turkish tourism industry? I would have thought that the major factors in any losses would rather be the general state of security, and the country rapidly becoming an authoritatian hellhole.

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

Spetulhu wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

Um, unless the point was to be imprecise? "We won't just kill you, but everyone around you to show how negative your influence is". Which would potentially draw concern from any governments hosting these agents, as future assassination attempts won't just cost them one spy, but also bystanders.

The Russian state media said that Britain's not a good host country for defectors (well, wanting and actually being are different things). Alienating the government from the process may be a step towards it. ...Or rather, depending on the state's backbone, just mean a couple of Russian spies wind up being found dead elsewhere...

Its hardly like publicly executing spies (with collateral damage) isn't common these days. China's purge of American spies a few years ago was apparently pretty bloody (as in having soldiers fire indiscriminately into an office filled with their own civilians just to kill one guy awful. Though they're fine with their people fearing the government, so them killing them, rather than the Americans was fine I guess).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Deploying a chemical/biological weapon in another country that injuring their people *is* an act of war.

It’s nothing like the US carrying out drone strikes in Iraq which is at least done with the agreement and knowledge of their government. You can argue that they politically don’t have a lot of choice in the matter but it is an ongoing armed conflict.

That’s still not the same as undertaking a covert operation in a country that you are in no armed conflict with and without any knowledge of their government. Iron Captain tries to handwave this not a act of war but ‘state terrorism’ as if that’s makes it a bit more acceptable but it is what it is. But if it was ordered by the Russian government, a biological weapon attack on citizens of a country currently not on a war footing is an act of war just as if we lobbed a missile into Moscow to kill someone we didn’t like and injured dozens of bystanders.

The US also carries out drone strikes in countries without agreement and knowledge of the government. Like Pakistan, for example.

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

Spetulhu wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

It may have been executed by criminal elements, but the order to do so came from Moscow, no doubt about it. No Russian crime boss would do such a thing without securing approval first.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

You guys do remember you started it right, when you murdered Nicolas II, a relative of our then Queen, not to mention uncounted numbers of your own countrymen?
It's going to go that far back if you start with the, 'Well you started sheltering enemies of the state and spying on us' crap, to justify dropping nerve gas in public places.

"Well they started it!" Is a child's defence from a playground. You get the moral high ground from stopping it. Not upping it to WMDs.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

Do the Russians really commit that much to the Turkish tourism industry? I would have thought that the major factors in any losses would rather be the general state of security, and the country rapidly becoming an authoritatian hellhole.

Well its a bit of both, the IS attacks and Erdogan caused the Western tourists to stay away, Germans being the largest tourist group to Turkey before that. But Russian tourists cared a lot less about the political state and they already made up the second largest tourist group after Germans. So when Western tourists stopped going it was even more devastating when almost all the Russians collectively stopped going to.

https://www.ft.com/content/340b5762-5c0d-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36676516

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

If the US wanted to assassinate Snowden, they'd probably not use a drone. But if he were assassinated I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

Only at this point? The Russian state has been very active in using terror as a weapon ever since the days of Ivan the Terrible. I thought it was a widely known fact that Russia often uses very brutal methods to get to its goals.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

If the US wanted to assassinate Snowden, they'd probably not use a drone. But if he were assassinated I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

Only at this point? The Russian state has been very active in using terror as a weapon ever since the days of Ivan the Terrible. I thought it was a widely known fact that Russia often uses very brutal methods to get to its goals.

"I don't want to blame the UK, but here's how it's the British government's fault and you shouldn't be outraged about it. If you don't want people getting hurt in assassination attempts, then you shouldn't have been dressed like that."

It is a bit ridiculous to accuse the UK of spying on Russia and sheltering traitors so that the UK should expect them to be assassinated in turn.

All countries spy on each other. The Russians spy on the UK and also have sheltered traitors such as Philby and Burgess.

The key difference is that the UK does not assassinate such people, especially not after they have served time in prison for their crime, been released and exchanged, and double especially not with nerve gas in the middle of an important city.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

Even if they took out several random bystanders? I would bet you would be outraged, but it’s never going to happen because the US dispute it’s falins would never stoop to the levels of a petty dictatorship.

Seriously? It’s all fine because Russia have been doing it for years? Don’t mess with Russia because we have bombs? Right now Russia is one step above North Korea, and heading down. If you are any representation of the wider attitudes in Russia I hope the governments of the world finally stop the behaviour. The Russian state and Putin are just petty bullies. I hope we do deal with this in the strongest terms and stop worrying about a bit of gas. Freeze assets, throw out “diplomats” and any friends of the Russian government. See how Putin likes it when his mates can’t get to their Kensington homes or access their money stored in UK assets.

Unfortunately the perpetrators have probably got away, and once back in Russia there won’t be any cooperation.

Russia are hardly going to co-operate with the UK police if it's their guys who did it. And if it isn't, how van they offer any help.

Plus, Russia prohibits extradition of Russian citizens anyway.

The new thing is "implausible deniability", meaning that Russia does stuff that obviously is them but can't be proved in a court of law because there isn't enough evidence, thus allowing them to go "Nah, nah, nah nah, nah!"

 Steve steveson wrote:
If you are any representation of the wider attitudes in Russia I hope the governments of the world finally stop the behaviour.

I am not representative of wider attitudes in Russia. I think these attacks are horrible and that Russia should stop doing it. Most Russians on the other hand cheer these attacks. They want traitors to receive their punishment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a bit ridiculous to accuse the UK of spying on Russia and sheltering traitors so that the UK should expect them to be assassinated in turn.

All countries spy on each other. The Russians spy on the UK and also have sheltered traitors such as Philby and Burgess.

The key difference is that the UK does not assassinate such people, especially not after they have served time in prison for their crime, been released and exchanged, and double especially not with nerve gas in the middle of an important city.

No, but the UK is a much nicer country than Russia is. The UK doesn't hunt down traitors. Russia does. It is the way it is, and this is going to happen again. All of the outrage and sanctions in the world aren't going to change that. Like it or not, but the only way to prevent these attacks is to stop sheltering traitors. You can kick out diplomats, and Russia will just kick out British diplomats. You can seize Russian properties and Russia will just seize British properties. Seize the houses of Putin's billionaire friends and they will just buy a house and spend their money in another country (not to mention this would be hard since many of them are British citizens that have committed no crimes (at least in Britain). Would make the ordinary Russian people quite happy though.). You can slap economic sanctions on Russia and Russia will barely notice. Russia is too powerful, too isolated and it doesn't care about having a bad reputation. There is unfortunately nothing I can think of that the UK can do to hurt Russia and make the Kremlin stop.

If this was the Russian state and they have quite deliberately unleashed a chemical weapon which has injured/killed British citizens on British soil; that is sufficient grounds for a declaration of war. Nations have opened hostilities over far less in the past. At the very least, it is easily sufficient grounds for putting the 'Cold War' back on, complete cessation of any and all economic activity with Russian citizens, withdrawal of visas from said citizens, and from any and all forms of international collaboration.

Frankly, if the Russian Government feels confident enough to undertake such behaviour; I'd personally demand the latter course of action. The Government withdraws our taxes in the name of national defence from other countries. If other nation states can unleash such weaponry at will on myself and my countrymen at any time whilst suffering no retaliation? My Government loses its primary raison d'etre. This isn't a case of an ex-Russian spy getting knifed in the dark, this is the equivalent of a missile into a British town. It's a military grade weapon designed to cause mass casualties.

But, as the Economist put it. Russian government is a weird conglomeration and interweaving of crime, facism,and business. It's a startling and concerning thought if Putin ordered this. But it will be more concerning still if he didn't.

Well again, at the very least we should be boycotting the World Cup, but I’d be in favour of your suggestions too.

I am sorry to have to say it, but this is another situation where Brexit is bad news for the UK.

it's all very well for PM May to keep saying "Security, blah blah" but in reality, the rest of the EU is less likely to be influenced to support the UK since we've flipped them off and said we're taking our ball home.

 Ketara wrote:
If this was the Russian state and they have quite deliberately unleashed a chemical weapon which has injured/killed British citizens on British soil; that is sufficient grounds for a declaration of war. Nations have opened hostilities over far less in the past.

Yes. Saying this is true and sounds very though, but it is meaningless. What is Britain going to do? Declare war on Russia? I am sure having to dodge ICBMs will improve the safety of the British people...

 Ketara wrote:
At the very least, it is easily sufficient grounds for putting the 'Cold War' back on, complete cessation of any and all economic activity with Russian citizens, withdrawal of visas from said citizens, and from any and all forms of international collaboration.

That is actually a lot more extreme than the Cold War. Even in the Cold War there was still contact, cooperation and travel between the Soviet Union and Britain. Furthermore, it would be hard to do legally under British and international law and probably accomplish less than expected since most Russians living in Britain are British or EU citizens as well as Russian citizens. Last but not least, it would hurt Britain as well. British businesses would lose access to an important market and lose all of the money that Russian oligarchs are pumping into Britain. It would also hurt Britain diplomatically, culturally and scientifically. It sounds though, but it really would not make things better for Britain.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It sounds though, but it really would not make things better for Britain.

It would make things better in that we would not be funding and abetting a power willing to literally deploy chemical warfare agents on us in our own country. I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

We will survive without a bunch of Putin's backers buying suits on Savile Row and eating in our restaurants. Because frankly, beyond investing Mafia proceeds into property; the Russian economy has very little hold here beyond that of luxury goods/services market. Trade between us halved back in 2015, and barely anyone noticed; there were more than enough Chinese millionaires lurking about the joint to replace them. There's very little cultural and scientific exchange either. Certainly nothing worth trading dozens of people's lives for. It's more about a) making a strong statement that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated, and b) removing the apparatus by which it can be carried out. Then you make a very clear statement attributing it, and stating that if this behaviour continues, NATO will be invoked.

And no, that wouldn't be an overreaction on our part on the second time. Because carrying out sloppy military grade chemical weapon attacks on another country, is a textbook, open-shut case of military aggression; just as much as firing a missile, occupying the Isle of Wight, or sinking a ship. If a country feels that they can murder large quantities of your citizens whenever they please, you have two choices. You accept it and roll over (ala Pakistan with America) or you fight back.

This isn't some vague case of cyber-attack damaging a handful of SCADA, or stealing a few million dollars. This is functionally identical to a handful of guys wearing balaclavas jumping out of a helicopter and machine gunning people. The only difference is the weapon involved. At the moment, our metaphorical balaclava wearers are anonymous. The minute that they are proven to be of Russian military origin is the minute that you freeze all relations on every level. You don't start a war over just one such military incident in today's civilised world. But two or three? You do. And that would need to be made abundantly clear.

Putin is an international opportunist. Draw a decisive line in the sand, make clear that you will stick to what you say, and he'll backtrack several miles.

Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us. This, IMO, is a step to far that cannot be ignored by the international community in the way it has with Ukraine, Russia shooting down planes and the aggressive flights and naval routes. Russia have stepped over a line and the international community must now stand up to Putin. This morning they found traces of the agent in a restaurant, so they have the smoking gun. It won’t be long until they can prove the country of origin.

I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

Perhaps it would be prudent to add 'WIth Nerve Gas', on the end of that.

Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

As long as they continue to support that government, they share responsibility for what that government does. They are the people with power to force through lasting change in their own country, it is up to them if they use it.

A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

Russia, is well Russia.
It's very different to Western nations, and yes things like protests need to be approved and so mean opposition is not always as viable but there still is one, its not a monarchy.

Putin, yes had alot of power and influence, and being his enemy is not the best choice, however he is not quite also the DR evil type super villa some claim at times.

Don't post intentionally baity stuff to/that could derail a discussion, thanks.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

Add in the military and it is fairly accurate.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us. This, IMO, is a step to far that cannot be ignored by the international community in the way it has with Ukraine, Russia shooting down planes and the aggressive flights and naval routes. Russia have stepped over a line and the international community must now stand up to Putin. This morning they found traces of the agent in a restaurant, so they have the smoking gun. It won’t be long until they can prove the country of origin.

And that is the only way the UK could send a message that Russian government actually notices. Alone the UK can't do much, but if it coordinates a response with other countries it can do much more. Unfortenately, I think the UK wasted most of its international credit and negotiating power.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

As long as they continue to support that government, they share responsibility for what that government does. They are the people with power to force through lasting change in their own country, it is up to them if they use it.

True. The Russian government isn't some evil dictatorship that is far above the common population. It is elected and approved (in a reasonably fair election, as confirmed by international monitoring organisations) by the Russian people, and currently highly popular. Russians love their government doing this kind of stuff, so they most certainly are to blame.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

Yes, there is plenty of Russians that do not support the government, but on a national scale they are not very many. The current Russian government has massive, overwhelming support that is unprecedented in Russian (or perhaps even European) history. So anti-Putin voices are there, especially in Moscow and Peterburg, but they just get drowned out in waves of Putin supporters from the smaller provincial cities where most of the Russian population lives.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us.

I suspect there would be little issue gaining such support for the most part. Few 'credits' needed, as it were. It is one thing when Russia is messing around in its backyard with little green men and loaned weapons. Out of sight, out of mind. If it turns out to be the case that they are responsible for this incident; it raises the spectre that they will repeat it next in France, Germany, or America. We are a First World Western nation with one of the highest budgets on military spending. If Putin feels he can get away with it here, then no place and no citizen is safe from him any longer.

Unlike the Syrian rebels or the Ukrainians however, we very much have the capability to damage Russia equally back; be it in economic/political sanctions, or in half a dozen tit for tat surprise chemical attacks around Moscow (since you can't complain about someone doing to you what you do to them, after all).

And if Putin didn't order this? Then he needs to get his house in order, because the minute this is irrefutably established as coming from Russia? He'll be the one taking the flak. That's the thing about being a dictator; we don't necessarily believe you when you say you weren't the one in control.

In regards to ownership the Russians can't play the same hand as they did Ukraine, at least in the short term. Where they adamantly denied involvement whilst suggesting that the resulting actions were a good thing (already happened here), before walking that back a while later to saying "yeah, we did it, so what?". The Russians are still using the argument that their soldiers one day decided to just walk off with hundreds of tanks and other military hardware, but faced no repercussions.

If that's the image which Putin wants to project to the world of how inept his government is then they could presumably play a similar hand here. All the while internally putting out smug statements to his own people about how smart they are in fooling the West. Unfortunately those who buy into that guy's line have an inferiority complex which results in them using the argument "oh, but the West's been doing this for decades, so we have every right to do it too". Though I suppose that predicates also not stopping to think "wait, we just did a bad thing. Regardless of someone else having done a bad thing, we're still doing a bad thing" or "no, you can't get away with theft just because that other guy stole something".

...Though any arguments of that sort are pretty moot. We're dealing with a government who's default stance seems to be smugness. "Look how smart we are in how we can circumvent all your laws", and so on. Putin's response this week to "Was it the Russian government who influenced the US election?", was "Russian citizens acting independently maybe, but they must have been Ukrainians, Tatars, or Jews" (which, yeah, feth you dude). In this 1984 style state that government's already sold their followers that any sanctions and isolationism is a good thing, as it only this separation from the West only makes them stronger (which is against the line put out from the Russian Federation prior to Putin). As the UK government carries out its investigation here we're yet to see what the reaction will be, but hopefully it'll be something which sums up the West's feelings over the past few years of nonsense which that state's perpetrated.

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

Because publicly operating drone strikes for the explicit purpose of eliminating members of violent groups who have perpetrated many atrocities at home and abroad (and will likely continue doing so) is entirely morally equivalent and identical to unleashing indiscriminate cloaked chemical arsenals to kill a harmless ex-spy trying to have a meal with his daughter, right?

I get there are some very broad brush similarities in that both involve governments killing people they disapprove of abroad, but trying to discount reactions on that basis is just virtue signalling taken to the extreme. 'Sometimes there's collateral damage when YOUR government kills people. What are you complaining about? You people are all just as bad as each other'

I mean, seriously?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

It is odd. I'm pretty sure that most posters here if given the resources this attack must have required, could come up with dozens of more precise ways to kill someone on foreign soil, that would also send a message to other "traitors". I think its possible that the attacks message is not just to individuals who have crossed Putin, but to other countries as well.

It's a very messy assassination given the substance used.

A police officer being directly affected. 100's asked to take care washing clothes and other items, Its going to be hard for The govt and whitehall to continue asking police and other offices to turn a blind eye to the funny funds that have been washing into the country - and London in particular - since Blairs government welcomed Russian monopoly money in the late 90's.

Messy by design or accident I'm pretty sure this will lead directly back to the Kremlin.

Diplomatic explusions ahead and I'm pretty certain that Oligarchs should probably start expecting visits from the SFO and their ilk - and that will probably hurt Putin and his pals.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

How is a conventional attack on a military force you are at war with, in a war zone, morally the same as a nerve gas attack on a civilian target in a neutral country?

Is this becoming a major political issue in England? Will the English government simply ban news. Coverage of it to. Prevent unrest or demands for action?

Spetulhu wrote:
Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

The difference is the US has deal with Yemen and other countries. There is no violation of sovereignty when the government of the country gives you permission to make the attack.

A more complicated situation is Pakistan. The US originally had permission for the attacks but that was withdrawn later, after which the Pakistani government has made a lot of noise to its domestic audience about how outraged they are about the violation of their sovereignty. Except that position is purely for show, Pakistan has continued to work with the US and fly drone missions out of Pakistani airfields.

If there is a case of the US making attacks without any government permission, that would be terrible. But is there any such instance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
WTH are you going on about? Deflection? Someone said that the statement basically confirmed that the FSB did it and all I did was point out that it likely was not the FSB but another organisation. How is trying to help someone by learning them something deflection?

Ah, my mistake. I read the news piece and forgot about the post it was linked in. I see you were just making a factual statement, my bad.

And how much confirmation do you need? That Russia is behind this was already more crystal clear than a mountain stream.

You were the one who said this wasn't proof. Read your own post again. I was making the point to you that you are now repeating back to me.

Anwar Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being an elderly man who called for people to fight against the US.
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being 16 years old and being the son of abovementioned (The US government claims he was killed as 'collateral damage', but since there was no actually militarily significant target)
Samir Khan, US citizen, Treason: Was editor of a pro Al-Qaeda magazine.
All of these people are Americans who had ties to groups the US government doesn't like. None of them were militarily significant targets or were engaged in an armed struggle against the US. Their only crime was supporting a group that is antagonistic to the US. Which isn't really all that different from people like Skripal. I am not saying that there aren't any differences and that it is all the same, but I am saying that there is plenty of similarities.

What utter crap. People can say that the drone strike program is wrong, and there's a strong case to be made, but trying to claim that it is 'assassinating people they do not like' is very silly. Taking that even further, as you did, and trying to claim Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't engaged in an armed struggle against the US is so far wrong it's close to parody, he was an active recruiter for AQ and linked to many terror attacks.

So no, you didn't provide a list of other major powers doing the same that Russia does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind.

Seriously, Pakistan saying the US undertakes strikes without their permission is a con. The drones fly out of Pakistani airfields.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Is this becoming a major political issue in England? Will the English government simply ban news. Coverage of it to. Prevent unrest or demands for action?

No, no, and no.

 sebster wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind.

Seriously, Pakistan saying the US undertakes strikes without their permission is a con. The drones fly out of Pakistani airfields.

Not only that, there is some evidence that the Pakistani military actively cooperates in target selection and also requests certain targets to be hit inside Pakistan.

Tangentially the EU's upholding the existing sanctions against Russia over Crimea.

A former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, Theresa May has told MPs.
The prime minister said the government had concluded it was "highly likely" that Russia was responsible for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
She said Russia's ambassador in London had been summoned to explain whether it was "a direct action by the Russian state" or the result of it "losing control" of its stock of nerve agents.

The BBC

Specifically:

She said the UK would consider his response before deciding what action to take, but added: "Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom."

To which my response is, they better not let this slide... I'm not sure the usual "oh, it was a non-state actor who did it" will cut it. ...Or rather as per Putin's most recent comments regarding non-state actors, "it must have been the Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews" .


As a followup, the particular nerve agent used in the attack is rather deadly. "Wash your phone" wouldn't really cut it. Nah, that stuff could defeat the Hazmat gear of the time it was invented in...

Again playing into the notion of "its not healthy to harbour our enemies" (yes, even the ones we made peace with...).

https://twitter.com/UKIPHighWycombe/status/971773863230164992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalscrapbook.net%2F2018%2F03%2Frussian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning%2F

@RussianEmbassy too early to say who did it .It could be a third party such as the EU trying to interfere in UK Russian relations

That's the UKIP branch in High Wycombe saying that it could be the EU behind it.


Who are renowned for their usage of bio weaponry.

whilst the UK Russian embassy is ...well




https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/russian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning/

which is a proper classy move eh ?


https://twitter.com/TimmermansEU/status/973267588217298945

I followed closely the declaration made by PM May today on the attack with nerve gas in the UK. I want to express my strong feelings of solidarity with the British people and the British government. We stand with you.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/971712153274191872

EU countries must show solidarity with UK authorities dealing with the suspected deployment of a nerve agent on British streets. We should react together; our unity is our strength. There should be clear consequences for Russian authorities.

Odd how quiet some other twitter accounts are eh ?

Soon learn who your real friends are eh ?

 reds8n wrote:


https://twitter.com/UKIPHighWycombe/status/971773863230164992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalscrapbook.net%2F2018%2F03%2Frussian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning%2F

@RussianEmbassy too early to say who did it .It could be a third party such as the EU trying to interfere in UK Russian relations

That's the UKIP branch in High Wycombe saying that it could be the EU behind it.


Who are renowned for their usage of bio weaponry.

whilst the UK Russian embassy is ...well




https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/russian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning/

which is a proper classy move eh ?

UKIP time and again show themselves to be total idiots.

As for the Russian embassy. WTF? Are they admitting that Russia’s definition of “spy” is so wide as to include just about anyone?

I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

smugness

noun

excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.

The Russian state media has two settings. Smugness and acting affronted. Even if they didn't perpetrate the attack the management would have them play it up to net some brownie points with the Nationalistic audience. They were gloating about their troops killing French and Israeli Special Forces in Syria months ago (...almost like they want to portray us as their enemy. Heaven forbid!).

Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

 Ketara wrote:
It is one thing when Russia is messing around in its backyard with little green men and loaned weapons. Out of sight, out of mind. If it turns out to be the case that they are responsible for this incident; it raises the spectre that they will repeat it next in France, Germany, or America. We are a First World Western nation with one of the highest budgets on military spending. If Putin feels he can get away with it here, then no place and no citizen is safe from him any longer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

Probably because the Russians don't respect you. I mean seriously, Boris was the only guy y'all could find for foreign secretary?

Your choices of retaliation are constrained by Brexit and your of lack of ability to project military power. The UK spends a lot buying the high end equipment but not enough of it. What kind of international influence do you have that the Russians would shy from? Your relationship with the EU is shot and the US "special relationship" is near dead.

You can only respond unilaterally, so they took their shot and expect your retaliation to be bearable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

Of course not. We all think this is quite hilarious. Well, not me. But all other Russians I know do. For decades after the collapse of the USSR the West has humiliated and laughed at Russia. Now we are the ones who are laughing. That is how it feels.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

Of course not. We all think this is quite hilarious. Well, not me. But all other Russians I know do. For decades after the collapse of the USSR the West has humiliated and laughed at Russia. Now we are the ones who are laughing. That is how it feels.

In this topic, poisoning people is hilarious!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

The alternative theory I've come across is:

A) Novichoks were manufactured in Uzbekistan up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there's some uncertainty of who has access to the formulas.

BBC wrote:The research centre is housed in a closed military complex and until the early 1990s was a major research site for the chemical weapons the Soviet Union still produced.

The institute was staffed solely by Russians and it was only when they left in 1993, taking with them much of the equipment and documentation, that what had gone in there slowly began to emerge.

According to a senior defector from the Soviet chemical weapons programme, the Soviets used the plant to produce small batches of a lethal new generation of nerve agents called Novichok, or New Boy in Russian.

B) The Telegraph reported:

Telegraph wrote:A security consultant who has worked for the company that compiled the controversial dossier on Donald Trump was close to the Russian double agent poisoned last weekend, it has been claimed.

The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify, lived close to Col Skripal and is understood to have known him for some time.

C) Christoper Steele of said Trump Dossier, was operating out of the UK's Moscow embassy from '90-'93, then was heading the Russia desk at MI6 in 2006-2010. Skripal began work as a MI6 intelligent asset in '95 and traded in 2010. It's postulated that Steele knew/meet Skripal. Furthermore, according to CNN, he was recruited by MI6 spy Pablo Miller. Pablo Miller was later employed by in Christopher Steele's private company Orbis. The theory being that Miller was the consultant in point B):

CNN wrote:What connects Salisbury to the spy wars of the mid-2000s? A man named Pablo Miller also has an address in Salisbury, according to his LinkedIn account.
A LinkedIn profile for Miller is no longer available. A summary of his profile viewed by CNN said that prior to his retirement in February 2015, he specialized in the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eastern Europe.

D) For the Russians to assassinate Col. Skripal now is strange because there doesn't seem to be a reason. Someone else could have done it, knowing they could scapegoat the Russians in the current media climate. Which would make the Russian complaints about Russophobia hilariously true. Here you can make your wild conjecture it was the CIA, MI6 or some nutjob with a lot of money.

 Spinner wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

Of course not. We all think this is quite hilarious. Well, not me. But all other Russians I know do. For decades after the collapse of the USSR the West has humiliated and laughed at Russia. Now we are the ones who are laughing. That is how it feels.

In this topic, poisoning people is hilarious!

No, they don't think poisoning itself is hilarious, the provocation and the UK's reaction to it is.

 avantgarde wrote:
Probably because the Russians don't respect you. I mean seriously, Boris was the only guy y'all could find for foreign secretary?

People with glass Rex Tillersons shouldn't throw Boris Johnsons.



Anyhow, while the spy was probably killed for a lot of reasons, the subsequent acts by various Russian orgs to make it so obvious is really about a bigger geo-political aim. Russia knows the US isn't on-side, but is neutered for the next few years because it has the orange man in charge. So now is the perfect time to act and prove that America won't be backing up anyone else. It degrades the 'special relationship', it shows other countries that the US can't be counted on to always have your back against Russia.

Oh, and by the way, did every notice the Whitehouse comment on the attack... didn't assign Russia any blame. They said it was 'operatives within Russia', but didn't follow Theresa May's lead in saying Russia was behind the attack. Funny that.

 sebster wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Probably because the Russians don't respect you. I mean seriously, Boris was the only guy y'all could find for foreign secretary?

People with glass Rex Tillersons shouldn't throw Boris Johnsons.

Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his job.

Anyhow, while the spy was probably killed for a lot of reasons, the subsequent acts by various Russian orgs to make it so obvious is really about a bigger geo-political aim. Russia knows the US isn't on-side, but is neutered for the next few years because it has the orange man in charge. So now is the perfect time to act and prove that America won't be backing up anyone else. It degrades the 'special relationship', it shows other countries that the US can't be counted on to always have your back against Russia.

If the Russians did it, that's a great reason. Besides Putin getting to metaphorically take off his shirt and flex like he used to.

If there's any truth to Col. Skripal being involved in the Steele dossier and if the President is aware. This might look like one of those situations where it's none of the US's business.

 avantgarde wrote:
Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his

"He's trying" is what we say about schoolkids when we're trying to be positive about their failing grades.

job.

Yeah, it's just the latest instance of Tillerson and the Whitehouse being way out of synch on the issue. Not sure if its lack of communication or if Tillerson is actually trying to drag the Whitehouse in another direction in spite of themselves. Either way its pretty grim.

But to your specific point- on this issue Tillerson has done everything right. Shame itis on his own.

If there's any truth to Col. Skripal being involved in the Steele dossier and if the President is aware. This might look like one of those situations where it's none of the US's business.

The connection to Steele is extremely speculative. They were in roughly the same circles a couple of decades ago, which you would expect, given Steele was on the Russia desk in the early 90s, and Skripal is a Russian agent who existed in the early 90s. Not saying there was no connection, but there's no evidence beyond some loose connections that would be expected whether or not Skripal was connected.

No matter what actually went down and why, this is most definitely a matter for the US, and for anyone who thinks it most definitely not okay for Russia to go about murdering people in other countries.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

The UK.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

Of course not. We all think this is quite hilarious. Well, not me. But all other Russians I know do. For decades after the collapse of the USSR the West has humiliated and laughed at Russia. Now we are the ones who are laughing. That is how it feels.

I see. It's the random lashing out of a the school ground bully. I have never see "the west" humiliating and laughing at Russia. I know Russia has seen the west and NATO standing up to them and not putting up with their petulant behaviour as humiliating, and the Russian authorities have spun the failure of the Russian state, due to rampant corruption, nepotism and abuse of power, as the fault of "The West".

My feeling from the statements now coming from our government and the support of other governments tells me that Russia are going to feel the impact of this. A line has been crossed, and when Russia feels they can carry out an attack like this in the UK they will feel they can do it anywhere. The international community will react. It won't be a military strike or anything crass like that, but there will be a serious reaction. Russia needs to be dealt with, and do not think that the UKs allies will back down. They can't. That will make them seem like a soft target.

After 1989 and perestroika, the West hoped Russia would become a modern liberal democracy with the rule of law, and so on.

At first there seemed a good prospect, and lots of western firms set up offices in Moscow, made deals and started to work with local companies.

Unfortunately things did not develop well. Since Putin, Russia has become pretty anti-Western. That is mostly due to Putin's nationalist strategy of bolstering his domestic power by casting an outside agency as an enemy to Russia, so he can blame them for economic problems and the like.

In the current situation, the UK is a convenient "enemy." There is no reason why the UK wants Russia as an enemy, except for items such as the annexation of the Crimea. There are actually many areas in which we could co-operate.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

The UK.

How? The UK has nothing to gain from it.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

The UK.

How? The UK has nothing to gain from it.

Well, the tories could use it to distract people from their complete clusterfeth of brexit negotiations.

However, even I wouldn't believe they'd kill people with chemical weapons people to do it.

No, they'd rather sell out to foreign money - it's not in their interest to stop Russian gangsters buying up bits of the UK.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's look at another angle.

Who would gain from driving a wedge between the UK and Russia?

The UK.

How? The UK has nothing to gain from it.

Anything that encourages. A country to cut ties as much as possible with Russia is beneficial. Dealing with Russia really isn't worth it. It's a criminal syndicate with nuclear weapons.

The UK may seem a little helpless given the abysmal state of it's military.

We have an army which s technically not an army by our military definition.

We have an air force of paper aeroplanes and which would struggle to put more than an actual squadron in the air at one time due to planes being canablised for parts.

It's better to just not mention the Navy with it's aircraftless carriers and ships that can only go in the right type of water.

However what we do have and what as been hinted at as our toughest option to take, is that we know where Putins loot is.
We can release details of the massive amounts of Russia's GDP that Putin and his family and friends have siphoned out of Russia. Also ultimately since a great deal of it is in places that the UK control and can access it can be frozen or even take by the UK government.

This would of course put off future crooks, spivs and Tories from hiding the loot in crown territories but given the changes the EU plan shortly that may not be an issue.

Ultimately we can hit Putin where it hurts most his wallet.

 avantgarde wrote:
Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his job.

Possibly too well? He's just been sacked... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

SeanDrake wrote:
The UK may seem a little helpless given the abysmal state of it's military.

We have an army which s technically not an army by our military definition.

We have an air force of paper aeroplanes and which would struggle to put more than an actual squadron in the air at one time due to planes being canablised for parts.

It's better to just not mention the Navy with it's aircraftless carriers and ships that can only go in the right type of water.

Don't believe everything you see in the news. Most of it comes from generals eyeing up next years budget requirements and media outlets with a story to sell.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/

At any rate, the UK is just about the most distant country in the northern hemisphere from Russia (excluding sub-Saharan areas.)

It's practically impossible for the UK and Russia to have a 'real' war without resorting to strategic nuclear weapons.

I don't know - the Russian Air Force seems to hang around here an awful lot. We could shoot at them.

Possibly related, : Russian businessman and close associate of Boris Berezovsky found dead in Britain, lawyer says

As one commentor put it :

Was it natural causes or Russian natural causes (bullets, nerve gas, radioactive poisoning)?

Is it even a meme anymore that if you do over the Russian government and then go into exile you wind up dead? If it is the Kremlin who did it, then what a hell of a way to respond to the current state of affairs in Britain.



Also, Russia demands access to U.K. findings in spy poisoning probe

“Of course, we heard the ultimatum that was made in London,” Lavrov said, according to comments reported by the Interfax news agency. “We have already made a statement that it is all nonsense. We have nothing to do with it.”

As has been discussed, the Russians have gone from saying "oh we didn't do it, *wink*, but this is the response our enemies should expect from us, *wink*" to their default next stage of being affronted at any accusations that might have some negative response for them, "how could we have done this. Where are these accusations coming from? It must have been the Americans (they've already found a way to say it was a US/ Ukrainian plot), or no, the British! Yes, you did it this to yourselves (something else they've said...) !". Its pretty tiresome.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
After 1989 and perestroika, the West hoped Russia would become a modern liberal democracy with the rule of law, and so on.

You know? Russians hoped exactly the same thing. The people on the barricades in 1989 and 1991 weren't there because they wanted a state ruled by the military and the secret services. They were there because they wanted Russia to be like the West. But the West did not want Russia, apparently. When the economy and the entire country completely collapsed because the transition to a market economy was not done properly, there was no help or aid from the West. When Yeltsin sold out the economy to the oligarchs and their Western business partners and had his tanks destroy the Russian parliament and the fledgling democracy, the West was silent. NATO, a military alliance against Russia, was not disbanded. Clearly we were still distrusted and seen as enemies. When Gorbachev asked if the Soviet Union could perhaps join NATO, he was laughed away. And the corpse of the Soviet Union wasn't even cold yet when the West began to completely disregard Russia, violating promises, expanding NATO all the way up to our much reduced borders (as if we were still an enemy), bombing our Serbian friends... All of our protests, ideas, requests etc. were completely ignored. We wanted to treated as equals. We were not. That is how Putin and his FSB could rise to power, and why you now have people being assassinated in the streets of Salisbury. Russia was weak, and the West took advantage of that. Now that Russia is strong again, the West is reaping what it sowed.

Here, read this article from the Moscow Times. It puts it more eloquently than I could:
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/why-the-wests-betrayal-of-democratic-russia-brought-us-putin-56658

Russia went from being in love with the West to outright hating the West in less than two decades. You can not blame that on Putin. Putin too used to love the West. Just look at his speeches and decisions in the first years of his presidency, and his opinions and actions before he became president. Nowadays, Putin is often stereotyped as a KGB-man, but this is a man who resigned from the KGB because he was fed up with Soviet oppression and chose the side of democracy. He was anything but anti-Western. Something happened that made Putin and Russia hate the West. And that something did not come from Russia itself.

All we have is Putin claiming Russia wanted to join NATO and the US declined. But Putin claims lots of things, like Ukraine shooting down flight MH17 or that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine or etc. etc. So......

As for the Soviets joining NATO, that wasn't going to happen with them still occupying the Baltic States.

As for NATO expansion, its been covered over and over. If anything Ukraine and Georgia shows that those countries had the right idea to join up. Any independent foreign policy lands you on the chopping block. Its quite a dishonest argument that "oh you have nothing to fear, joining NATO is bad!" to countries who had been opressed by the Soviets less than five years ago.

As for economic help. This is what happens. The West doesn't bail out countries, the IMF goes in with a harsh list of demands and if you comply they might help. Western help wouldn't have exactly made the situation better at first. The reform would still have been required, the pain would have barely been less. Whatever choices Yeltsin made ar his responsibility.

As for the article, I guess this line says it all in there: "West’s visceral and ancestral hatred and suspicion of Russia." Leaves a lot of room for debate!

Also this line: "we betrayed the eastern Europeans who longed for security, yet ended up (in NATO!) feeling less secure than they did in the years following Russia’s democratic revolution." Geeh, I wonder why they feel less secure now then right after the Soviets collapsed

The possibility of Russia joining NATO has come up multiple times, and usually been rebuffed by Russia itself. We've been over that on this board many times.

Was "the west" (that wonderfully nebulous term that gets thrown about a lot but has no clear definition and depending on who you talk to and when can also include Russia) responsible for every ill Russia suffered? No. Was "the west" supposed to step in and micromanage the Russian economy after the Soviet Union? Were nations that *requested* to join NATO supposed to be turned away? Russia has certaibly made joining NATO look like the right call for such nations that did so (loke the Baltic countries) looking at the Georgia and Ukraine examples. NATO was shifting its orientation and mission to counter terrorism entirely until a few years ago when the Ukraine/Crimea issue occurred. European militaries were at the smallest and least capable theyd ever been. Russia's actions of late are what have reoriented NATO back to its traditional role.

As for Serbia, the Serbs ended up picking fights with almost literally everyone they shared a border with, and were engaged in absolutely heinous acts (which, admittedly they were not alone in, but were by far the largest actors). Do we really want to get into how the Serb faction under Milsoevic in Yugoslavia led its disintegaration in the name of Serb nationalism and opened the path for Tudjman's actions? Was Europe supposed to just sit by while Yugoslavia disintegrated?

Lets be real, while there was unfairness and ugliness to Russia, Russia is largely responsible for its own predicament (just as the US is responsible for its current predicament regardless of Russian involvement) Putin's current stance is far more about the accumulation and preservation of power, dangling foreign threats to silence internal dissent and push programs and views that serve his purposes, than it is about the "evil west". Russia is isolated because Russia chose to isolate itself. There may be an argument that "the west" didnt actively help as much as it should have, but had it attempted to, what would the reaction have been? Can you say with a straight face it would have been openly and eagerly accepted or viewed as Western Colonialism? Was "the west" even in possession of enough information to have effectively done so in the previously closed former Soviet republics?

You cant just dump all of Russias ills on "the west" and blame them for not fixing Russias problems.

In the end it comes down to a simple question. If countries have nothing to fear from Russia, why does Russia care so much that those countries join defensive alliances?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Were nations that *requested* to join NATO supposed to be turned away? Russia has certaibly made joining NATO look like the right call for such nations that did so (loke the Baltic countries) looking at the Georgia and Ukraine examples. NATO was shifting its orientation and mission to counter terrorism entirely until a few years ago when the Ukraine/Crimea issue occurred. European militaries were at the smallest and least capable theyd ever been. Russia's actions of late are what have reoriented NATO back to its traditional role.

In hindsight, yes. What reason did NATO have to exist if the Soviet Union collapsed? It feels like this inescapable situation where the eastern NATO countries are rightfully afraid of being bullied by the Russians but end up even more afraid because being in NATO attracts Russian interference, so cling ever tighter. I do think Georgia and Ukraine were a mistake, Georgia largely on Dubya and EuroMaidan largely on the Europeans and Obama. Flipping Georgia stinks of containment strategy and flipping the Ukraine chips at an already decimated Russian buffer with the EU.

Shimon Peres discussing conversations with Putin

Putin says, “Look, what do they want from me? What do you need NATO for? The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. The Warsaw Pact was dismantled. I am ready to be a member of NATO, like you! But why do they need Georgia in NATO? Why do they need Romania in NATO? They want to go to Europe, go to Europe. But which army do they want to fight?”

And then he said: “You think I didn’t know that Crimea is Russian, and that Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine as a gift? I didn’t care, until then you needed the Ukrainians in NATO. What for? I didn’t touch them. They wanted to go to Europe, I said, ‘Great, go to Europe.’ But why did you need them in NATO?”

Putin told me he talked with Obama. He said, “I told Obama, ‘You know what? I’m ready to join you in the Middle East. Economically, not militarily. I invested $4 billion in Libya, we are working toward a transition there.’ Then one morning, I read that Obama cut the connection with Libya. I lost $4 billion. So I asked him, ‘Why did you do that? Did you think about what will happen there afterwards?’ ”

Pivoting the NATO framework to global terrorism then back to Russia makes it seem like the original mission was self fulfilling. I don't know what alternative could have been made at the time as a middle ground between abandoning the Eastern Euros and bringing them under the NATO umbrella, perhaps a Eastern European only mutual defense treaty, call it Baltic Treaty Organization. Regardless, the bed was made and we're locked again in this cycle of mutual recrimination with the Kremlin where neither side believes the other's version of events. We've all seen this movie before.

 War Drone wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his job.

Possibly too well? He's just been sacked... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

I guess it was the straw that broke the camels back. Tillerson was too public about his disagreements with Trump, now we got a little brown noser like Pompeo running the state dept and a known torturer running the CIA. Hopefully Theresa May and the US general's cabal can prevail on the president to reverse course and back the UK. General McMaster is also on the chop block, doe. We'll see Wed. when May makes here announcement.

 War Drone wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his job.

Possibly too well? He's just been sacked... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

Tillerson is often accused of being too soft on Russia as he's the former CEO of EXXON that has several billions dollars at stake in Russia that's currently being neutered by current sanctions. (not sure if I agree... but the conflict of interest is quite obvious).

If the idea that Trump is replacing him with someone who's soft on Russia... it wouldn't be with someone Mike Pompeo. In fact, tapping Pompeo may signal a more harsher relationship between Russian and the US.

What I can't wrap my head around... is what more can UK/US do? Stuff like the Maginski Act definitely hurts the Oligarch.... but, does it really faze Putin and upper leadership?

Maybe UK/US would push for US bases in Ukraine? More missile defense assets in Poland?

Kick out RU Embassy personnel for awhile?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
In the end it comes down to a simple question. If countries have nothing to fear from Russia, why does Russia care so much that those countries join defensive alliances?

Seeing said alliance is heavily anti-russia and led by country that has led illegal invasion of foreign countries with trumped up make-up excuses...yeah nothing to worry for russia there obviously.§

Has there been any violence at the Russian embassy in England? If this happened in America they might be some violent protests at the Russian embassy in America.

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
In the end it comes down to a simple question. If countries have nothing to fear from Russia, why does Russia care so much that those countries join defensive alliances?

Seeing said alliance is heavily anti-russia and led by country that has led illegal invasion of foreign countries with trumped up make-up excuses...yeah nothing to worry for russia there obviously.§

There's not, because invading Russia means everyone dies. The US invading Iraq doesn't mean they're a threat to Russia.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
All we have is Putin claiming Russia wanted to join NATO and the US declined. But Putin claims lots of things, like Ukraine shooting down flight MH17 or that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine or etc. etc. So......

As for the Soviets joining NATO, that wasn't going to happen with them still occupying the Baltic States.

You might want to look up what the word occupation means. The Baltic states were sovereign republics and integral parts of the Soviet Union with the same rights and privileges as all other Soviet republics. They had governments made up of people from their own republic, and each of them had people to the federal Soviet government. They were not occupied territories ruled by Russians. As should be immediately obvious from the events that took place around this time in those republics.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for NATO expansion, its been covered over and over. If anything Ukraine and Georgia shows that those countries had the right idea to join up. Any independent foreign policy lands you on the chopping block. Its quite a dishonest argument that "oh you have nothing to fear, joining NATO is bad!" to countries who had been opressed by the Soviets less than five years ago.

Soviets that were no longer in existence. The Soviet Union was not Russia. This is russophobia at its finest. You are basically saying you can't trust Russians, even though at that point in time there was no indication whatsoever that the new Russian government (which had fought alongside the governments of all of the states you just mentioned against Soviet oppression) would ever make an aggressive move towards those states. On the contrary, it did everything to peacefully cooperate with them and recognise their sovereignty, despite the horrible way in which some of these states decided to treat the Russians that suddenly found themselves living within their borders.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the article, I guess this line says it all in there: "West’s visceral and ancestral hatred and suspicion of Russia." Leaves a lot of room for debate!

You would want to argue such a hate does not exist? When your own comments here show exactly the opposite? When all one needs to do is to open a Western newspaper? I have lived here in the West most of my life and I see it in almost every newspaper, every broadcast, every documentary about Russia that I watch. Seriously, do you even watch Western movies? Notice how many times the bad guys are Russians? Maybe you do not see it, because you are Western and simply do not know better. Maybe it is something you think subconsciously. But we Russians do see it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also this line: "we betrayed the eastern Europeans who longed for security, yet ended up (in NATO!) feeling less secure than they did in the years following Russia’s democratic revolution." Geeh, I wonder why they feel less secure now then right after the Soviets collapsed

Yeah, they would have felt much more secure if NATO had been disbanded and Russia incorporated into the larger democratic European community. That would have been a nice future. But I guess we are starting to get off topic now.

How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

It doesn't, but it partly explains why a person like Putin got such a firm grasp of power in Russia.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

It doesn't, there is no justification. But it is part of the explanation. If relations between Britain and Russia had been better, it never would have happened. This is something that could only happen because relations between Britain and Russia were so bad that Russia felt that even the use of chemical weapons in British cities would no longer be problematic (for them, for Britain it is obviously problematic). It is not like relations could get much worse anyway.

There was an ultimatum?

20:44
Russia warns London against using ultimatum language: one does not give nuclear power 24 hours - Foreign Ministry

Relations could be dramatically worse. Trade ports, capital access, corporate bank accounts, finance sector access, imports, exports, travel access, etc could all be dramatically curtailed or cut off entirely, far more than they are for just the cherry picked officials, oligarchs, and state owned enterprises that have been hit so far. This would hurt Russia far more than the UK and her partners, particularly as things like Electronics are heavily reliant on imports in Russia, including computer equipment and military electronics.

Things arent great, but they could absolutely be dramatically worse. They can always get worse

At least nobody is openly shooting at each other yet however.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

It doesn't, there is no justification. But it is part of the explanation. If relations between Britain and Russia had been better, it never would have happened. This is something that could only happen because relations between Britain and Russia were so bad that Russia felt that even the use of chemical weapons in British cities would no longer be problematic (for them, for Britain it is obviously problematic). It is not like relations could get much worse anyway.

It’s not the level of relationship but the arrogance of the Russian government that believes it can do what it wishes.

Relations between the UK and Russia took a dive in 2006 when the Russians poisoned Litvinenk in London with radioactive Polonium. Things got worse thanks to the invasion of the Crimea in 2014.

There hasn't been a single incident of the UK attacking Russia in any assassination or military style.

It just seems to me that Russian actions are disproportionate and designed to push the situation worse and worse.

 whembly wrote:
There was an ultimatum?

20:44
Russia warns London against using ultimatum language: one does not give nuclear power 24 hours - Foreign Ministry

Seriously? Don’t threaten us we have nukes. Well so do we, but our government are not petulant children. When a country is using its nukes to back up the authority to use chemical weapons in another country then it needs dealing with. That is a country that believes it acts with total impunity and is a danger to the world. Russia’s behaviour is becoming more and more dangerous. Its clear they don’t feel anyone can do anything. If nothing is done these attacks will continue and Russia will annexe more countries.

Right at the moment this is making them look like North Korea.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Relations between the UK and Russia took a dive in 2006 when the Russians poisoned Litvinenk in London with radioactive Polonium. Things got worse thanks to the invasion of the Crimea in 2014.

Putin had cemented himself as a strongman by then. I've always thought it was Chechnya the straw that definitely pushed the Russians towards authoritarian figures.

Remember Putin came out stronger after the botched Moscow theatre operation and the Beslan school massacre. Force was something the Russian people were familiar with, and they readily took that.

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
In the end it comes down to a simple question. If countries have nothing to fear from Russia, why does Russia care so much that those countries join defensive alliances?

Seeing said alliance is heavily anti-russia and led by country that has led illegal invasion of foreign countries with trumped up make-up excuses...yeah nothing to worry for russia there obviously.§

So now we're equating invading Iraq, not a NATO invasion, with possibly invading a nuclear armed semi-superpower? Yeah, Russia's neighbours have a lot more to worry about from Russia than Russia from them, but nice false equivalence I guess. Also, what does heavily anti-Russia even mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 avantgarde wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Were nations that *requested* to join NATO supposed to be turned away? Russia has certaibly made joining NATO look like the right call for such nations that did so (loke the Baltic countries) looking at the Georgia and Ukraine examples. NATO was shifting its orientation and mission to counter terrorism entirely until a few years ago when the Ukraine/Crimea issue occurred. European militaries were at the smallest and least capable theyd ever been. Russia's actions of late are what have reoriented NATO back to its traditional role.

In hindsight, yes. What reason did NATO have to exist if the Soviet Union collapsed? It feels like this inescapable situation where the eastern NATO countries are rightfully afraid of being bullied by the Russians but end up even more afraid because being in NATO attracts Russian interference, so cling ever tighter. I do think Georgia and Ukraine were a mistake, Georgia largely on Dubya and EuroMaidan largely on the Europeans and Obama. Flipping Georgia stinks of containment strategy and flipping the Ukraine chips at an already decimated Russian buffer with the EU.

Is this a joke, largely on Dubya, Europeans and Obama? Heaven forbid some independence in national foreign affairs not get you invaded right?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
All we have is Putin claiming Russia wanted to join NATO and the US declined. But Putin claims lots of things, like Ukraine shooting down flight MH17 or that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine or etc. etc. So......

As for the Soviets joining NATO, that wasn't going to happen with them still occupying the Baltic States.

You might want to look up what the word occupation means. The Baltic states were sovereign republics and integral parts of the Soviet Union with the same rights and privileges as all other Soviet republics. They had governments made up of people from their own republic, and each of them had people to the federal Soviet government. They were not occupied territories ruled by Russians. As should be immediately obvious from the events that took place around this time in those republics.

Then you might want to look up what the history of the Baltic States. The Baltic States didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union or Tsarist Russia. Between 1939 and 1941 and after 1944 when the Soviets regained the Baltics twice, to beat down opposition to the Soviet Union, tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were deported or imprisoned in peacetime. The idea that the Baltic States weren't occupied is a joke.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for NATO expansion, its been covered over and over. If anything Ukraine and Georgia shows that those countries had the right idea to join up. Any independent foreign policy lands you on the chopping block. Its quite a dishonest argument that "oh you have nothing to fear, joining NATO is bad!" to countries who had been opressed by the Soviets less than five years ago.

Soviets that were no longer in existence. The Soviet Union was not Russia. This is russophobia at its finest. You are basically saying you can't trust Russians, even though at that point in time there was no indication whatsoever that the new Russian government (which had fought alongside the governments of all of the states you just mentioned against Soviet oppression) would ever make an aggressive move towards those states. On the contrary, it did everything to peacefully cooperate with them and recognise their sovereignty, despite the horrible way in which some of these states decided to treat the Russians that suddenly found themselves living within their borders.

The Soviets no longer existed, but the people in charge were barely different. Just because the state fell apart doesn't mean that history gets erased. In 1917 Tsarist Russia fell apart, that didn't mean the Soviet Union didn't come knocking on the Baltics door. What guarantee did they have that "this time its different, honest!"? I'm not saying don't trust the Russians, so knock it with the 'russophobia' crap. I'm saying that after only a few years of independence from the former belligerent neighbour next door, are you really going to take your chances? I could turn anything into a phobia like that, the idea that the Germans would try to invade Russia again after WW2? Germanophobia! The idea NATO will invade Russia? NATOphobia!

While it is commendable that Russia was willing to let the past rest, don't forget that the other ex-Soviet and Eastern European states had a lot more bloody history to lay to rest,which they could attribute directly to Russia's predecessor. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it does make it slightly more understandable.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the article, I guess this line says it all in there: "West’s visceral and ancestral hatred and suspicion of Russia." Leaves a lot of room for debate!

You would want to argue such a hate does not exist? When your own comments here show exactly the opposite? When all one needs to do is to open a Western newspaper? I have lived here in the West most of my life and I see it in almost every newspaper, every broadcast, every documentary about Russia that I watch. Seriously, do you even watch Western movies? Notice how many times the bad guys are Russians? Maybe you do not see it, because you are Western and simply do not know better. Maybe it is something you think subconsciously. But we Russians do see it.

Uh my comments don't show hate, just a basic understanding of international relations. What states did in joining NATO is classic neorealism. You choose to ignore all history before 1991 and then pretend those countries acted crazy or irrational.

Hate exists, but its a two way street. Shared between many countries, Russia is no exception. Almost every state has some sort of beef. Germany pre-1945 felt they were hated. Poland felt it was hated. China felt it was hated. Main difference is how you act on it.

Yes, movies and videogames make Russians and 'Arabs' the bad guys. Its just the lazy man's storytelling, its easy and convenient. Does it speak to some deep seated towards Russia? Very questionable.

Russia catches a lot of flak in the West, for good reason. The West catches a lot less flak in Western media because its harder to recognize your own flaws and political sides play a larger role. That doesn't mean its hatred towards Russia, even though reporting is unbalanced, you can still distinguish between objective and subjective. Yet Russia has the same view of the West turned up a notch, its main English speaking outlet frequently engages in half-truths if not exactly lies.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also this line: "we betrayed the eastern Europeans who longed for security, yet ended up (in NATO!) feeling less secure than they did in the years following Russia’s democratic revolution." Geeh, I wonder why they feel less secure now then right after the Soviets collapsed

Yeah, they would have felt much more secure if NATO had been disbanded and Russia incorporated into the larger democratic European community. That would have been a nice future. But I guess we are starting to get off topic now.

And what if NATO had been disbanded and Russia would still have followed the same road? As it stands the author is full of gak. We all known why even in NATO those states feel less secure now than in the days that Russia couldn't organize a funeral in a graveyard.

Putting all the blame on the West for how Russia developed and its current belligerence to its neighbours is just laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Relations between the UK and Russia took a dive in 2006 when the Russians poisoned Litvinenk in London with radioactive Polonium. Things got worse thanks to the invasion of the Crimea in 2014.

There hasn't been a single incident of the UK attacking Russia in any assassination or military style.

It just seems to me that Russian actions are disproportionate and designed to push the situation worse and worse.

Its obviously a retaliation for our subliminal "visceral and ancestral hatred" towards them

The Russians are refusing to provide a response to the yes or no question. Instead they want all the evidence to be handed over so they can perform their own investigation.

How do Russian investigations into things they clearly perpetrated go again? Oh right, they tamper with and lose most of the evidence then conclude that they had nothing to do with it (i.e. MH17). Citing that any investigations into the use of chemical weapons need to be undertaken by all parties involved for a concise response, and not this supposed "witch hunt". I.e. 5 years later they'll either forget about the investigation or go "nuh, uh, not us! *wink* We're so offended!".

They've been asked to answer a question. Deflecting from it only implies guilt (which the whataboutist crowd will say "innocent until proven guilty" - yeah, but what's happening here is the Russians have absconded from the court trial and are hiding from the authorities...), though the delaying tactics are par the course. Putin wants to gain some points leading up to his re-election with his base (given his opposition him being re-elected is a formality).

Meanwhile, we have the Russian response. They killed someone else today.

Oh and a wonderful quote from a Russian MP regarding the situation:

"This is a drama for British TV. It's a behaviour of Hitler when he blamed someone in burning of Reichstag"

Bonus points after Putin's anti-Semitic comment earlier in the week. .

The UK government has ascertained that this is a highly specialist chemical weaponry developed only in Russia. Given that fact, it is reasonable to say ,'Is this you or have you lost control of your weaponry?' Because unless you are going to claim it was a different chemical weapon, those really are the only two options. There is no third one. And unless you are going to claimed the UK government is responsible, there is no reason to suspect then of lying.

There is a third option, which is that someone else has covertly managed to create the same nerve agent.

Not likely, but it is a possibility. Of course, such a claim would require evidence to back it up and well...

My particular concern is that the Russian government is good enough to go on their state media and accuse everyone under the sun of perpetrating this attack, but can't instead go to an official meeting and say it.

Maybe because if its down on paper then when it comes out they did it they'll be in a deeper hole (there's already been articles on "highly likely" being Intelligence Agency speak - i.e. the confusion people have over use of the term "theory" in terms of science and every day language. I.e. the Intelligence community's saying - you fething did it)? Or rather they just want to extend the deadline to infinity and when someone takes an action against them they can pull the usual eternal victim card. "Why're you so mean to us? You couldn't prove it, but you're doing these bad things to us anyway. Look how evil the West is!".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is a third option, which is that someone else has covertly managed to create the same nerve agent.

Not likely, but it is a possibility. Of course, such a claim would require evidence to back it up and well...

The Russians have already claimed that it could have been stolen in any number of ways. They say that some was stored in Ukraine, under American supervision immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (funny that, Ukraine). Clearly then it was the CIA who did this all as a plant. They've accused the British government of committing the attack themselves due to their Anti-Russian bias as a way of getting back into the EU's good books and turn them against Russia as well.

Again, if they can accuse everyone under the sun of this, then why can't they put that in writing?

I wonder how many of our European neighbours would support a full European withdrawal from the World Cup. Any continentals takers on that one?

It seems like it should be so irrelevant but may be the public admonishment that blowhards tend not to like.

Bonus points from that Russian MP's interview. Russia's at a +16 multiplier on their trolling score at this point.

"You can take this poison from any laboratory in Ukraine or other fake countries that are happy to help you."

...Ukraine's now not a real country. They've gone from a country with an illegitimate government (in the Russian eyes. Swap "illegitimate" for, "not our puppets") to not being a country at all. This in a week where they're calling Tatars in Crimea traitors for saying they refuse to vote in the upcoming Russian elections (not like it matters. The Kremlin could have pitchfork armed mobs at the door and Putin would still claim a 99.99% approval rating).

 Ketara wrote:
The UK government has ascertained that this is a highly specialist chemical weaponry developed only in Russia. Given that fact, it is reasonable to say ,'Is this you or have you lost control of your weaponry?' Because unless you are going to claim it was a different chemical weapon, those really are the only two options. There is no third one. And unless you are going to claimed the UK government is responsible, there is no reason to suspect then of lying.

I'm still trying to wrap my head... I mean, isn't this casus belli for even stronger response?

Can you think of any other belligerent act besides outright militaristic engagement?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
All we have is Putin claiming Russia wanted to join NATO and the US declined. But Putin claims lots of things, like Ukraine shooting down flight MH17 or that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine or etc. etc. So......

As for the Soviets joining NATO, that wasn't going to happen with them still occupying the Baltic States.

You might want to look up what the word occupation means. The Baltic states were sovereign republics and integral parts of the Soviet Union with the same rights and privileges as all other Soviet republics. They had governments made up of people from their own republic, and each of them had people to the federal Soviet government. They were not occupied territories ruled by Russians. As should be immediately obvious from the events that took place around this time in those republics.

Then you might want to look up what the history of the Baltic States. The Baltic States didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union or Tsarist Russia. Between 1939 and 1941 and after 1944 when the Soviets regained the Baltics twice, to beat down opposition to the Soviet Union, tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were deported or imprisoned in peacetime. The idea that the Baltic States weren't occupied is a joke.

They were invaded and occupied. Once. But the history of the Baltic states did not end there. They got a new government and the occupation ended after a few years. After that they were reasonably content in the Soviet Union (The Baltic states profited economically from membership in the Soviet Union and became its richest republics, which is a large factor in why they stayed put for so long) until unhappiness over not being independent and nationalist feelings started to become more prominent in the 1980's again, eventually leading to them seceding with Russian support. But by that point the Baltic states weren't any more "occupied" by the Soviets than Russia or Ukraine were.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for NATO expansion, its been covered over and over. If anything Ukraine and Georgia shows that those countries had the right idea to join up. Any independent foreign policy lands you on the chopping block. Its quite a dishonest argument that "oh you have nothing to fear, joining NATO is bad!" to countries who had been opressed by the Soviets less than five years ago.

Soviets that were no longer in existence. The Soviet Union was not Russia. This is russophobia at its finest. You are basically saying you can't trust Russians, even though at that point in time there was no indication whatsoever that the new Russian government (which had fought alongside the governments of all of the states you just mentioned against Soviet oppression) would ever make an aggressive move towards those states. On the contrary, it did everything to peacefully cooperate with them and recognise their sovereignty, despite the horrible way in which some of these states decided to treat the Russians that suddenly found themselves living within their borders.

The Soviets no longer existed, but the people in charge were barely different. Just because the state fell apart doesn't mean that history gets erased. In 1917 Tsarist Russia fell apart, that didn't mean the Soviet Union didn't come knocking on the Baltics door. What guarantee did they have that "this time its different, honest!"? I'm not saying don't trust the Russians, so knock it with the 'russophobia' crap. I'm saying that after only a few years of independence from the former belligerent neighbour next door, are you really going to take your chances? I could turn anything into a phobia like that, the idea that the Germans would try to invade Russia again after WW2? Germanophobia! The idea NATO will invade Russia? NATOphobia!

The people in charge were very different. The people in charge were the people who fought against the Soviets, so literally the opposite. And what guarantee they had? Well, maybe the fact that Russia supported and recognised their independence? You are not saying "don't trust the Russians" except that is exactly what you are saying. Your only argument is "The Russians did it before, so they will do it again, despite what they are saying now." That is like the total opposite of trust. And why? Poland, Germany and Sweden also invaded the Baltics at different points in the past. Yet I do not see you or anyone else claiming they will do that again. No, it is only the Russians who will do that again, because they are Russian. Like it or not, but your argument rests on nothing but bigotry.

Disciple of Fate wrote:While it is commendable that Russia was willing to let the past rest, don't forget that the other ex-Soviet and Eastern European states had a lot more bloody history to lay to rest,which they could attribute directly to Russia's predecessor. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it does make it slightly more understandable.

True. It is very understandable. But not right.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the article, I guess this line says it all in there: "West’s visceral and ancestral hatred and suspicion of Russia." Leaves a lot of room for debate!

You would want to argue such a hate does not exist? When your own comments here show exactly the opposite? When all one needs to do is to open a Western newspaper? I have lived here in the West most of my life and I see it in almost every newspaper, every broadcast, every documentary about Russia that I watch. Seriously, do you even watch Western movies? Notice how many times the bad guys are Russians? Maybe you do not see it, because you are Western and simply do not know better. Maybe it is something you think subconsciously. But we Russians do see it.

Uh my comments don't show hate, just a basic understanding of international relations. What states did in joining NATO is classic neorealism. You choose to ignore all history before 1991 and then pretend those countries acted crazy or irrational.

Hate exists, but its a two way street. Shared between many countries, Russia is no exception. Almost every state has some sort of beef. Germany pre-1945 felt they were hated. Poland felt it was hated. China felt it was hated. Main difference is how you act on it.

Yes, movies and videogames make Russians and 'Arabs' the bad guys. Its just the lazy man's storytelling, its easy and convenient. Does it speak to some deep seated towards Russia? Very questionable.

Russia catches a lot of flak in the West, for good reason. The West catches a lot less flak in Western media because its harder to recognize your own flaws and political sides play a larger role. That doesn't mean its hatred towards Russia, even though reporting is unbalanced, you can still distinguish between objective and subjective. Yet Russia has the same view of the West turned up a notch, its main English speaking outlet frequently engages in half-truths if not exactly lies.

A basic understanding of international relations requires an understanding of Russian sensibilities and viewpoints, both past and current.
I am not saying that former Soviet satellites wanting to join NATO is irrational. Quite the contrary. It was an understandable thing for them to do. You want to be part of the West, you join the Western alliance. Even Russia itself set out on that path before everything changed. But understandable does not mean right. The West should have known better. It either should have made sure to draw Russia firmly within NATO's sphere of influence or it should have respected its promises to the Soviet Union. Basically, everything except "we expand right up to Russia's borders but keep Russia out". Basically, Russia in 1991 wanted to start with a clean slate. But it was not granted that opportunity, because everyone assumed that Russians are evil and will invade them again, just because they did it once in the past.

And if that whole portraying Russians as evil isn't hatred, then what is it according to you?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also this line: "we betrayed the eastern Europeans who longed for security, yet ended up (in NATO!) feeling less secure than they did in the years following Russia’s democratic revolution." Geeh, I wonder why they feel less secure now then right after the Soviets collapsed

Yeah, they would have felt much more secure if NATO had been disbanded and Russia incorporated into the larger democratic European community. That would have been a nice future. But I guess we are starting to get off topic now.

And what if NATO had been disbanded and Russia would still have followed the same road? As it stands the author is full of gak. We all known why even in NATO those states feel less secure now than in the days that Russia couldn't organize a funeral in a graveyard.

Putting all the blame on the West for how Russia developed and its current belligerence to its neighbours is just laughable.

If NATO had been disbanded Russia would not have followed down the same road. Does the West carry all the blame? No. A lot of blame? Yes.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Relations between the UK and Russia took a dive in 2006 when the Russians poisoned Litvinenk in London with radioactive Polonium. Things got worse thanks to the invasion of the Crimea in 2014.

There hasn't been a single incident of the UK attacking Russia in any assassination or military style.

It just seems to me that Russian actions are disproportionate and designed to push the situation worse and worse.

Its obviously a retaliation for our subliminal "visceral and ancestral hatred" towards them

Yes, ridiculing and belittling Russian feelings sure will make things better.

 War Drone wrote:
Possibly too well? He's just been sacked... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

This stuff writes itself. We can't even have half a conversation about whether a Trump appointee is any good, because he's gonna be out of the job before we're done talking about it

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is a third option, which is that someone else has covertly managed to create the same nerve agent.

Not likely, but it is a possibility. Of course, such a claim would require evidence to back it up and well...

The Russians have already claimed that it could have been stolen in any number of ways. They say that some was stored in Ukraine, under American supervision immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (funny that, Ukraine). Clearly then it was the CIA who did this all as a plant. They've accused the British government of committing the attack themselves due to their Anti-Russian bias as a way of getting back into the EU's good books and turn them against Russia as well.

Again, if they can accuse everyone under the sun of this, then why can't they put that in writing?

Uzbekistan. It's Russian deflection, but it's not a lie Americans handled the clean up. How else would the British know it's Novichok? 5 Eyes?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 avantgarde wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Were nations that *requested* to join NATO supposed to be turned away? Russia has certaibly made joining NATO look like the right call for such nations that did so (loke the Baltic countries) looking at the Georgia and Ukraine examples. NATO was shifting its orientation and mission to counter terrorism entirely until a few years ago when the Ukraine/Crimea issue occurred. European militaries were at the smallest and least capable theyd ever been. Russia's actions of late are what have reoriented NATO back to its traditional role.

In hindsight, yes. What reason did NATO have to exist if the Soviet Union collapsed? It feels like this inescapable situation where the eastern NATO countries are rightfully afraid of being bullied by the Russians but end up even more afraid because being in NATO attracts Russian interference, so cling ever tighter. I do think Georgia and Ukraine were a mistake, Georgia largely on Dubya and EuroMaidan largely on the Europeans and Obama. Flipping Georgia stinks of containment strategy and flipping the Ukraine chips at an already decimated Russian buffer with the EU.

Is this a joke, largely on Dubya, Europeans and Obama? Heaven forbid some independence in national foreign affairs not get you invaded right?

I'm serious, but I take a neo-realist approach when looking at Russian behavior. I want to stress this is not a political philosophy, but a tool to view international relations. Since the Russians like power politics, neo-realism is generally good at assessing their intentions.

I like playing devil's advocate so let's look at Georgia's situation from a morale angle and then from a neo-realist angle. My contention is that from either PoV, mistakes were made. Let's set some background, at the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, Bush the Younger pushed for the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

The New York Times wrote:Referring to democratic revolutions in both Ukraine and Georgia, [Bush] said: “Welcoming them into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe. It would send a signal throughout the region” — read Russia — “that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.”

Some German officials described the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, as upset and even angry on Wednesday. She and Mr. Bush have talked repeatedly about the issue in the past two months. Mrs. Merkel had thought that a compromise was in the works, the officials said, with Washington supporting a warm statement welcoming the interest of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and encouraging them to work toward entering the membership plan program.

Germany and France have said they believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia, which firmly opposes the move.

After the 2008 NATO Summit, which Putin was invited to, the Russians reacted hostilely to the proposed membership plan for Ukraine and Georgia.

REUTERS wrote:Russia will take military and other steps along its borders if ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, Russian news agencies quoted the armed forces' chief of staff as saying on Friday.

“Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders,” the agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky as saying.“These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature,” he said, without giving details.

Russia is opposed to NATO plans to grant membership to ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia, saying such a move would pose a direct threat to its security and endanger the fragile balance of forces in Europe.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this week that Moscow will do everything it can to prevent the two countries, run by pro-Western governments, from becoming NATO members.

Morale Angle
Countries should be sovereign, representative and have self determination. This is the ideal we should strive for. Full stop.

Bush offered the Ukrainian and Georgian people a free choice and the Russians, the dicks that they are, are unequivocally saying they will use their military to prevent this choice from occurring. The US and Georgia held joint wargames to demonstrate their resolve in protecting Georgia against aggression right up to the invasion.

When the Russians entered South Ossetia, the right thing to do here was back up the Georgians since A) Bush put the NATO membership on the table B) Follow through on the ideals of national sovereignty and self determination. C) Stop the Russians to show the world donkey-cave behavior like this won't be tolerated. You can't stop all the world's evils, but you should try. Instead the US sat on the sidelines and watched the Georgians get mashed by a tyrant. What's worse is we gave the Georgians false hope. Dubya fethed up.

Neo-Realism Angle
Every country has security concerns and competing interests, from the most basic (survival) to the complicated (economic integration). Relationship deteriorate and conflicts can arise when nations do not respect the security concerns of others in pursuit of their own interests. Part of avoiding these conflicts means recognizing what a nation's main concerns are and identify which of those they're unwilling to compromise to on.

NATO leaders knew this was going to cheese off the Russians. Merkel warned Bush, Sarkozy warned Bush, Gordon Brown warned Bush and most importantly Putin warned Bush. Bush bulled forward and ignored the Russian concerns in favor of the concerns of the former soviet republics. He also refused to compromise and find some middle ground with the former soviet republics and the Russians at the behest of the senior NATO leadership.

When the Russians entered South Ossetia, the US decided the Georgians wasn't worth dead Americans and watched the Georgians fight a lopsided beatdown that could have been avoided. Dubya fethed up.

tl;dr I absolve Russia of all agency.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But the West did not want Russia, apparently. When the economy and the entire country completely collapsed because the transition to a market economy was not done properly, there was no help or aid from the West.

I know this is the story you've been told but it is pure lies. The West acted with remarkable speed in opening trade with Russia, removing barriers and actually encouraging direct investment in to Russia. A wide range of experts were brought in to modernise Russia's economic systems.
Unfortunately, a lot of these experts were had lived with the institutions of West and took them for granted. They thought that market economics existed in a vacuum, that you could just place a market on top of an existing system and just watch the efficiency and wealth creation happen. They didn't realise that you needed strong institutions, that corrupt political and legal authorities could sink investment.

The multinationals had lived poor institutions aroudn the world. But this was different to SE Asia and Africa. In those places the multinationals worked with criminals and corrupted officials to take wealth from the country and its people. Here in Russia the criminals and corrupted officials were taking money from the multinationals. It's one thing to be involved in crime, but crime that costs you money is another thing entirely. By the late 90s the multinationals were leaving in droves, a process capital flight.

The IMF and other intra-nationals poured in billions of dollars with very generous terms just to keep Russia going. It stabilised the country, but what it didn't see was that the vacuum being left by the multi-nationals was being filled by a very specific kind of Russian - guys with connections to Russian crime and Russian intelligence services. These guys would eventually start being 'oligarchs'.

So yeah, the West made mistakes in trying to transform Russia, a lot of mistakes. But claiming they did nothing is a pure lie. Reality is Russia was a far greater mess than realised, it didn't just need foreign investment, it needed a complete overhaul of its judicial and legislative systems. When that didn't happen, no amount of Western money was going to stop criminals taking over the country.

And now, given those criminals are as well established as ever, the last anyone needs is to pretend the problem is anything other than those criminals. But you're a Russian, you still want to blame the West, somehow. And that is a big part of the problem.

 whembly wrote:

 War Drone wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Hey, I like Rex at least he looks like he's trying to do his job.

Possibly too well? He's just been sacked... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

Tillerson is often accused of being too soft on Russia as he's the former CEO of EXXON that has several billions dollars at stake in Russia that's currently being neutered by current sanctions. (not sure if I agree... but the conflict of interest is quite obvious).

If the idea that Trump is replacing him with someone who's soft on Russia... it wouldn't be with someone Mike Pompeo. In fact, tapping Pompeo may signal a more harsher relationship between Russian and the US.

What I can't wrap my head around... is what more can UK/US do? Stuff like the Maginski Act definitely hurts the Oligarch.... but, does it really faze Putin and upper leadership?

Maybe UK/US would push for US bases in Ukraine? More missile defense assets in Poland?

Kick out RU Embassy personnel for awhile?

You know, I should probably be one of the first people in line on the Rex Tillerson hate train. But honestly, given his situation, I think the man did an admirable job. He seemed like he was honestly trying to do his job the way he thought it should be done, which honestly, seemed to go against his own personal interests. I had a feeling when he broke rank with the WH and condemned Russia, he would be gone pretty quick. I may not like him or his company, but I did gain some respect for the man. I hope he walks away from the position a man with a new view on life and the world.

As far as what the UK/US can do to Russia? Well, the US probably won't do anything now. We seem to have gotten to the hand holding part of the budding relationship. The UK, sadly, may be on their own here and that is a god damned tragedy. UK leaves the EU. The US fails to back them. Honestly, seems like the UK is being singled out here. Not good, not good at all.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for economic help. This is what happens. The West doesn't bail out countries, the IMF goes in with a harsh list of demands and if you comply they might help. Western help wouldn't have exactly made the situation better at first.

Sort of. I'm not going to claim the IMF is always right, because they're far from it. But those demands are often there from hard won experience - just offering up stablising cash with no reforms can be just pouring gasoline on the fire. Assistance needs to come with demands that the problems that caused the emergency will be fixed.

There's an issue that the demanded reforms are often just boiler plate neo-classical econ with no understanding of local cultural and social issues, but the existence of demands in itself isn't an issue. And in the case of Russia the IMF probably wasn't harsh enough, perhaps if the loans came with mechanisms that would reform politics and the law they might have stopped the capital flight and given Russia a real platform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Tillerson is often accused of being too soft on Russia as he's the former CEO of EXXON that has several billions dollars at stake in Russia that's currently being neutered by current sanctions. (not sure if I agree... but the conflict of interest is quite obvious).

If the idea that Trump is replacing him with someone who's soft on Russia... it wouldn't be with someone Mike Pompeo. In fact, tapping Pompeo may signal a more harsher relationship between Russian and the US.

I think there's probably a level of strategic thinking you're applying that is beyond Trump. Tillerson called Trump a moron, and Tillerson held public positions on Iran, NK and Russia that went against Trump's mood of the day. However, this isn't because Tillerson set himself to oppose his own president, most of the positions Tillerson held were held by Trump at one time or another. Remember how much of the original fracture with Tillerson was caused by Tillerson trying to keep back channels open, and Trump chiding Tillerson and saying you could never make a deal with little rocket man? Now guess who's sitting down with Kim.

As to what this signals about Trump's future plans for Russia.... it signals nothing. Because nothing about Trump's actions today signal anything about Trump's actions tomorrow. The guy is just making stuff up as he goes, based on his mood, which changes by the hour.

What I can't wrap my head around... is what more can UK/US do? Stuff like the Maginski Act definitely hurts the Oligarch.... but, does it really faze Putin and upper leadership?

It doesn't just bother Putin. It's cost him tens of billions of dollars, and worse its cost his oligarchs hundreds of billions, which make them a lot less likely to support Putin. The whole of everything, the election interference, everything, has been about getting sanctions relief. If instead Putin's actions drove sanctions the other way, cost him and his cronies more money, then we might, eventually, get some change of action out of Moscow. Though I wonder if Putin has the standing to survive such a public humiliation himself, it may need to get to the point where his oligarchs quietly sit him down and tell him it is time to retire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Seeing said alliance is heavily anti-russia and led by country that has led illegal invasion of foreign countries with trumped up make-up excuses...yeah nothing to worry for russia there obviously.§

Be sensible. NATO is a defensive alliance. It requires an attack on one of its members, at which point other members are given casus belli to join in the fight. So after 911, when Afghanistan harboured the attackers, that caused a NATO response. In Iraq in contrast, there was no original attack, so NATO wasn't triggered, and in fact major NATO members were the strongest voices opposing the attack.

The attempt to characterise NATO as a threat to Russia is so, so stupid. It doesn't threaten Russia's sovereignty, it can't by a simple product of the mechanics of the agreement. But it does stop Russia's desire to expand its own influence in to the old communist bloc countries, and Russia freaking hates that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also, what does heavily anti-Russia even mean?

It means you have a set of values that happen to contradict whatever it is Russia wants to do at that particular point in time. Similarly, I get called anti-China all the time because I think they can't just ignore international rulings and claim the South China Sea. I also got called anti-American because I thought the invasion of Iraq was a really terrible idea.

The only way you can avoid being called anti-whatever, is to pick one side and just mindlessly follow them all the time. This will require some incredible rationalising skills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You know, I should probably be one of the first people in line on the Rex Tillerson hate train. But honestly, given his situation, I think the man did an admirable job. He seemed like he was honestly trying to do his job the way he thought it should be done, which honestly, seemed to go against his own personal interests. I had a feeling when he broke rank with the WH and condemned Russia, he would be gone pretty quick. I may not like him or his company, but I did gain some respect for the man. I hope he walks away from the position a man with a new view on life and the world.

Tillerson gutted the state department. Failed to fill necessary positions, and collapsed moral so bad that thousands walked away. The place will probably take a generation to rebuilt. That's a generation where US diplomatic presence just won't be there.

Tillerson should be commended for taking positions contrary to Trump, but that's a pretty low bar. Elsewhere his own actions have shattered US international presence.

 sebster wrote:

Tillerson gutted the state department. Failed to fill necessary positions, and collapsed moral so bad that thousands walked away. The place will probably take a generation to rebuilt. That's a generation where US diplomatic presence just won't be there.

Tillerson should be commended for taking positions contrary to Trump, but that's a pretty low bar. Elsewhere his own actions have shattered US international presence.

And you think this was all his plan? That is just goofy. His boss went in to office saying he was going to "drain the swamp" and promptly started doing that immediately. Saying that Tillerson was the mastermind behind all of this is outright wrong. He may have did the firing and signed the paperwork, but this came from above him. However, he did deal with the aftermath of it and in a lot of ways saved face for the US. Such as in the situation with the UK and Russia.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

Could you define ''cathedral city''?

One element of this story I haven't seen raised much is Skripal being in the UK as a result of a prisoner swap. Remember back when the FBI uncovered the network of Russian sleeper agents in the US, and everyone lost their gak because one of them was a pretty girl? Well that whole deal got sorted when the US, UK and Russia came to a deal over a prisoner swap. At that point Skripal was sitting in a Russian jail, after he'd been caught handing intel over the UK. As part of the spy swap where Russia got its 10 operatives back, Skripal was released, pardoned of his crimes, and sent to live in the UK.

So Russia killing him now, ten years after that deal seems to be a big issue not just because Russian agents went on to UK soil and tried to kill a man and his daughter, and ended up also seriously a policeman as well. It's also a big deal because it makes future intel deals with Russia near impossible. If you make a deal to trade assets, and then Russia just straight up murders the asset they released, you can't keep making deals. Co-operation breaks down. This is actually worse than it was during most of the Cold War, where at least both sides were professionals who understood the rules of the game.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Could you define ''cathedral city''?

Its a city that has grown up around a cathedral. So I guess the implication is that it is a more peaceful place, maybe even deserving of some level of sanctuary. Obviously it isn't the same as murdering someone inside a church, but I guess someone could argue it is on that scale.

Despite the Salisbury attack, Britain can’t cut off all links with Russia

An interesting piece from The Grauniad, making the point that Russian co-operation is needed to help solve a lot of problems in the modern world.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If NATO had been disbanded Russia would not have followed down the same road. Does the West carry all the blame? No. A lot of blame? Yes.

You have no evidence or proof for this claim.

On the other hand, there is the invasion and annexation of parts of the Ukraine to support that, without NATO, countries along Russia's borders are likely to be attacked by Russia if it feels like it should and can get away with it.

 sebster wrote:
One element of this story I haven't seen raised much is Skripal being in the UK as a result of a prisoner swap. Remember back when the FBI uncovered the network of Russian sleeper agents in the US, and everyone lost their gak because one of them was a pretty girl? Well that whole deal got sorted when the US, UK and Russia came to a deal over a prisoner swap. At that point Skripal was sitting in a Russian jail, after he'd been caught handing intel over the UK. As part of the spy swap where Russia got its 10 operatives back, Skripal was released, pardoned of his crimes, and sent to live in the UK.

So Russia killing him now, ten years after that deal seems to be a big issue not just because Russian agents went on to UK soil and tried to kill a man and his daughter, and ended up also seriously a policeman as well.

But why would Russia kill him 10 years after the fact? It doesn't make any sense.

They are sending a message "Don't be a traitor. We will find you and we will kill you. You are never safe". And given the wide definition of traitor (anyone who disagrees with the Russian state in any way) it is a message to a lot of people.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
All we have is Putin claiming Russia wanted to join NATO and the US declined. But Putin claims lots of things, like Ukraine shooting down flight MH17 or that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine or etc. etc. So......

As for the Soviets joining NATO, that wasn't going to happen with them still occupying the Baltic States.

You might want to look up what the word occupation means. The Baltic states were sovereign republics and integral parts of the Soviet Union with the same rights and privileges as all other Soviet republics. They had governments made up of people from their own republic, and each of them had people to the federal Soviet government. They were not occupied territories ruled by Russians. As should be immediately obvious from the events that took place around this time in those republics.

Then you might want to look up what the history of the Baltic States. The Baltic States didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union or Tsarist Russia. Between 1939 and 1941 and after 1944 when the Soviets regained the Baltics twice, to beat down opposition to the Soviet Union, tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were deported or imprisoned in peacetime. The idea that the Baltic States weren't occupied is a joke.

They were invaded and occupied. Once. But the history of the Baltic states did not end there. They got a new government and the occupation ended after a few years. After that they were reasonably content in the Soviet Union (The Baltic states profited economically from membership in the Soviet Union and became its richest republics, which is a large factor in why they stayed put for so long) until unhappiness over not being independent and nationalist feelings started to become more prominent in the 1980's again, eventually leading to them seceding with Russian support. But by that point the Baltic states weren't any more "occupied" by the Soviets than Russia or Ukraine were.

A few years? It took almost 15 years to fully beat down any independent thought in the Baltics. They were reasonably content because all dissidents would face the internal security services. The idea that just because your occupier gives you a level of self rule it doesn't make you occupied doesn't really work. Following that logic Eatern Europe wasn't occupied either, although any level of dangerous independent thought saw Soviet tanks roll in. History is pretty clear on this, the Baltics didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union. They only became part of it through force and heavy handed occupation. The Soviets gave them the illusion of self rule, but slip that thight leash and the Soviets would come over and fix it.

And the Baltics might have done better economically outside than inside the Soviet Union.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for NATO expansion, its been covered over and over. If anything Ukraine and Georgia shows that those countries had the right idea to join up. Any independent foreign policy lands you on the chopping block. Its quite a dishonest argument that "oh you have nothing to fear, joining NATO is bad!" to countries who had been opressed by the Soviets less than five years ago.

Soviets that were no longer in existence. The Soviet Union was not Russia. This is russophobia at its finest. You are basically saying you can't trust Russians, even though at that point in time there was no indication whatsoever that the new Russian government (which had fought alongside the governments of all of the states you just mentioned against Soviet oppression) would ever make an aggressive move towards those states. On the contrary, it did everything to peacefully cooperate with them and recognise their sovereignty, despite the horrible way in which some of these states decided to treat the Russians that suddenly found themselves living within their borders.

The Soviets no longer existed, but the people in charge were barely different. Just because the state fell apart doesn't mean that history gets erased. In 1917 Tsarist Russia fell apart, that didn't mean the Soviet Union didn't come knocking on the Baltics door. What guarantee did they have that "this time its different, honest!"? I'm not saying don't trust the Russians, so knock it with the 'russophobia' crap. I'm saying that after only a few years of independence from the former belligerent neighbour next door, are you really going to take your chances? I could turn anything into a phobia like that, the idea that the Germans would try to invade Russia again after WW2? Germanophobia! The idea NATO will invade Russia? NATOphobia!

The people in charge were very different. The people in charge were the people who fought against the Soviets, so literally the opposite. And what guarantee they had? Well, maybe the fact that Russia supported and recognised their independence? You are not saying "don't trust the Russians" except that is exactly what you are saying. Your only argument is "The Russians did it before, so they will do it again, despite what they are saying now." That is like the total opposite of trust. And why? Poland, Germany and Sweden also invaded the Baltics at different points in the past. Yet I do not see you or anyone else claiming they will do that again. No, it is only the Russians who will do that again, because they are Russian. Like it or not, but your argument rests on nothing but bigotry.

Just because they fought the Soviets doesn't mean they were the opposite. They were power hungry and ambitious, largely in it for themselves. They cut the Soviet Union to pieces because it suited them at the time. There was nothing that guarenteed they would't start looking outward again once they had a firm grip on power.

Supported and recognized there independence? What good did that do for Ukraine? Supported and recognized sounds nice, but it came from a period of utter weakness. There was nothing that kept them from just breaking their promises later down the line. I mean even the US might do this with the Iran deal under Trump. Nothing is set is stone and leaders and policies change. There would be no airtight guarentee.

The problem with not claiming the others won't invade the Baltics is that those others are largely in the same organizations. They might do so again in the far future, but in the short term Russia is a more likely threat than Poland, Germany and Sweden. You have to recognize the false equivalance right? Three countries that are largely aligned with the Baltics versus one opposed to almost all the organizations and certain countries the Baltics are aligned with.

You should stop with the dishonesty of pushing it on 'hatred' of Russians. The reality of the matter just heavily weighs towards Russia being the most likely candidate for the short term future. While still acknowledging that its very very unlikely. Its nothing against Russia, its just recognizing 20th century history combined with how Russia sees it foreign policy and simply being the only real power next door. If China was next to the Baltics I would say this about China. For certain South American states the US plays/played the same role Russia did/does. Even the West engages in it and that heavily plays in the humanitarian intervention debates. But when talking about the Baltics, the one to talk about is Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:While it is commendable that Russia was willing to let the past rest, don't forget that the other ex-Soviet and Eastern European states had a lot more bloody history to lay to rest,which they could attribute directly to Russia's predecessor. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it does make it slightly more understandable.

True. It is very understandable. But not right.

Never right, sadly it will be decades at least before those things die down. Education plays a part, but with certain nationalistic tendencies that won't happen. Historical victimhood can be a powerful tool.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the article, I guess this line says it all in there: "West’s visceral and ancestral hatred and suspicion of Russia." Leaves a lot of room for debate!

You would want to argue such a hate does not exist? When your own comments here show exactly the opposite? When all one needs to do is to open a Western newspaper? I have lived here in the West most of my life and I see it in almost every newspaper, every broadcast, every documentary about Russia that I watch. Seriously, do you even watch Western movies? Notice how many times the bad guys are Russians? Maybe you do not see it, because you are Western and simply do not know better. Maybe it is something you think subconsciously. But we Russians do see it.

Uh my comments don't show hate, just a basic understanding of international relations. What states did in joining NATO is classic neorealism. You choose to ignore all history before 1991 and then pretend those countries acted crazy or irrational.

Hate exists, but its a two way street. Shared between many countries, Russia is no exception. Almost every state has some sort of beef. Germany pre-1945 felt they were hated. Poland felt it was hated. China felt it was hated. Main difference is how you act on it.

Yes, movies and videogames make Russians and 'Arabs' the bad guys. Its just the lazy man's storytelling, its easy and convenient. Does it speak to some deep seated towards Russia? Very questionable.

Russia catches a lot of flak in the West, for good reason. The West catches a lot less flak in Western media because its harder to recognize your own flaws and political sides play a larger role. That doesn't mean its hatred towards Russia, even though reporting is unbalanced, you can still distinguish between objective and subjective. Yet Russia has the same view of the West turned up a notch, its main English speaking outlet frequently engages in half-truths if not exactly lies.

A basic understanding of international relations requires an understanding of Russian sensibilities and viewpoints, both past and current.
I am not saying that former Soviet satellites wanting to join NATO is irrational. Quite the contrary. It was an understandable thing for them to do. You want to be part of the West, you join the Western alliance. Even Russia itself set out on that path before everything changed. But understandable does not mean right. The West should have known better. It either should have made sure to draw Russia firmly within NATO's sphere of influence or it should have respected its promises to the Soviet Union. Basically, everything except "we expand right up to Russia's borders but keep Russia out". Basically, Russia in 1991 wanted to start with a clean slate. But it was not granted that opportunity, because everyone assumed that Russians are evil and will invade them again, just because they did it once in the past.

And if that whole portraying Russians as evil isn't hatred, then what is it according to you?

Perhaps the West should have known better, but the path Russia followed wasn't set in stone either. Russia didn't have to become what it is today just because its neighbours aligned with the West.

No country is really given a clean slate. Even Japan and Germany post 45 didn't get clean slates. They had to work for it and Japan still is. You can't expect to be given a clean slate. History matters for neighbours and sadly for Russia it was seen as the primary driver of the Soviet Union.

As for NATO, the only real request to join came from Gorbachov. As far as I know besides what Putin claimed Russia never really asked.

As for media portrayel. A lot of it is just historical. Nazi movies don't imply hatred for Germans. Movies about Russians are about or inspired by the Cold War, but saying Russian is a lot easier than explaining Soviets. Then it became 'Arabs' because of 9/11. Its either historically inspired or just being very lazy for story purposes. We don't see a lot of Chinese bad guys because its not very relatable historically speaking. I wouldn't assign hatred to that, just historical relatability/laziness.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also this line: "we betrayed the eastern Europeans who longed for security, yet ended up (in NATO!) feeling less secure than they did in the years following Russia’s democratic revolution." Geeh, I wonder why they feel less secure now then right after the Soviets collapsed

Yeah, they would have felt much more secure if NATO had been disbanded and Russia incorporated into the larger democratic European community. That would have been a nice future. But I guess we are starting to get off topic now.

And what if NATO had been disbanded and Russia would still have followed the same road? As it stands the author is full of gak. We all known why even in NATO those states feel less secure now than in the days that Russia couldn't organize a funeral in a graveyard.

Putting all the blame on the West for how Russia developed and its current belligerence to its neighbours is just laughable.

If NATO had been disbanded Russia would not have followed down the same road. Does the West carry all the blame? No. A lot of blame? Yes.

I think Russia carries the most blame. It depends if you want to go all neorealist or neoliberal for weighing if Russia or its neighbours carry the same importance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Relations between the UK and Russia took a dive in 2006 when the Russians poisoned Litvinenk in London with radioactive Polonium. Things got worse thanks to the invasion of the Crimea in 2014.

There hasn't been a single incident of the UK attacking Russia in any assassination or military style.

It just seems to me that Russian actions are disproportionate and designed to push the situation worse and worse.

Its obviously a retaliation for our subliminal "visceral and ancestral hatred" towards them

Yes, ridiculing and belittling Russian feelings sure will make things better.

Im ridiculing an author who as far as I'm aware isn't Russian. Not Russian feelings, which is why it has quotation marks.

 avantgarde wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Is this a joke, largely on Dubya, Europeans and Obama? Heaven forbid some independence in national foreign affairs not get you invaded right?

I'm serious, but I take a neo-realist approach when looking at Russian behavior. I want to stress this is not a political philosophy, but a tool to view international relations. Since the Russians like power politics, neo-realism is generally good at assessing their intentions.

I like playing devil's advocate so let's look at Georgia's situation from a morale angle and then from a neo-realist angle. My contention is that from either PoV, mistakes were made. Let's set some background, at the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, Bush the Younger pushed for the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

The New York Times wrote:Referring to democratic revolutions in both Ukraine and Georgia, [Bush] said: “Welcoming them into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe. It would send a signal throughout the region” — read Russia — “that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.”

Some German officials described the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, as upset and even angry on Wednesday. She and Mr. Bush have talked repeatedly about the issue in the past two months. Mrs. Merkel had thought that a compromise was in the works, the officials said, with Washington supporting a warm statement welcoming the interest of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and encouraging them to work toward entering the membership plan program.

Germany and France have said they believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia, which firmly opposes the move.

After the 2008 NATO Summit, which Putin was invited to, the Russians reacted hostilely to the proposed membership plan for Ukraine and Georgia.

REUTERS wrote:Russia will take military and other steps along its borders if ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, Russian news agencies quoted the armed forces' chief of staff as saying on Friday.

“Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders,” the agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky as saying.“These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature,” he said, without giving details.

Russia is opposed to NATO plans to grant membership to ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia, saying such a move would pose a direct threat to its security and endanger the fragile balance of forces in Europe.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this week that Moscow will do everything it can to prevent the two countries, run by pro-Western governments, from becoming NATO members.

Morale Angle
Countries should be sovereign, representative and have self determination. This is the ideal we should strive for. Full stop.

Bush offered the Ukrainian and Georgian people a free choice and the Russians, the dicks that they are, are unequivocally saying they will use their military to prevent this choice from occurring. The US and Georgia held joint wargames to demonstrate their resolve in protecting Georgia against aggression right up to the invasion.

When the Russians entered South Ossetia, the right thing to do here was back up the Georgians since A) Bush put the NATO membership on the table B) Follow through on the ideals of national sovereignty and self determination. C) Stop the Russians to show the world donkey-cave behavior like this won't be tolerated. You can't stop all the world's evils, but you should try. Instead the US sat on the sidelines and watched the Georgians get mashed by a tyrant. What's worse is we gave the Georgians false hope. Dubya fethed up.

Neo-Realism Angle
Every country has security concerns and competing interests, from the most basic (survival) to the complicated (economic integration). Relationship deteriorate and conflicts can arise when nations do not respect the security concerns of others in pursuit of their own interests. Part of avoiding these conflicts means recognizing what a nation's main concerns are and identify which of those they're unwilling to compromise to on.

NATO leaders knew this was going to cheese off the Russians. Merkel warned Bush, Sarkozy warned Bush, Gordon Brown warned Bush and most importantly Putin warned Bush. Bush bulled forward and ignored the Russian concerns in favor of the concerns of the former soviet republics. He also refused to compromise and find some middle ground with the former soviet republics and the Russians at the behest of the senior NATO leadership.

When the Russians entered South Ossetia, the US decided the Georgians wasn't worth dead Americans and watched the Georgians fight a lopsided beatdown that could have been avoided. Dubya fethed up.

tl;dr I absolve Russia of all agency.

Its more of a neoliberal angle than moral. But you can view both Russia and its neighbours through the neorealism angle. It doesn't absolve Russia of agency. I could reverse the reasoning and absolve the US and Europe of agency in the same manner, because pulling towards NATO is the natural neorealist tendency. Simplifying it as such carries no value in assigning blame. Your PoV in neorealism is already slanted towards a certain angle/outcome.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How does rivalry between NATO and Russia justify the use of illegal chemical WMDs in a British cathedral city?

Could you define ''cathedral city''?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for economic help. This is what happens. The West doesn't bail out countries, the IMF goes in with a harsh list of demands and if you comply they might help. Western help wouldn't have exactly made the situation better at first.

Sort of. I'm not going to claim the IMF is always right, because they're far from it. But those demands are often there from hard won experience - just offering up stablising cash with no reforms can be just pouring gasoline on the fire. Assistance needs to come with demands that the problems that caused the emergency will be fixed.

There's an issue that the demanded reforms are often just boiler plate neo-classical econ with no understanding of local cultural and social issues, but the existence of demands in itself isn't an issue. And in the case of Russia the IMF probably wasn't harsh enough, perhaps if the loans came with mechanisms that would reform politics and the law they might have stopped the capital flight and given Russia a real platform.

I'm don't mean harsh negatively. The IMF has a reputation for very rough overhauls. The problem with the IMF certainly in the past was its one size fits all approach. Of course demands and terms had to be made, that would only be normal.

Like you said, the IMF deals in boiler plate econonics, its left a lot of resentment in the 90's and was a driver of China being able to step into its semi-role as an alternative to the IMF. As the IMF was/is heavily viewed as a battering ram for US economic interests. Which to be fair is right to an extent, certainly in the IMF handling of the Asian Financial Crisis.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You would want to argue such a hate does not exist? When your own comments here show exactly the opposite? When all one needs to do is to open a Western newspaper? I have lived here in the West most of my life and I see it in almost every newspaper, every broadcast, every documentary about Russia that I watch. Seriously, do you even watch Western movies? Notice how many times the bad guys are Russians? Maybe you do not see it, because you are Western and simply do not know better. Maybe it is something you think subconsciously. But we Russians do see it.

Seriously? This is your evidence that the west hates Russia? The fact that a lot of films during and just after the cold war had Russians as bad guys? Obviously they also have the UK because of the number of British villains:




It's so much of a cliché that Jaguar made an advert using it. I'm afraid that this does not speak of anyone hating Russia but of a persecution complex.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also, what does heavily anti-Russia even mean?

It means you have a set of values that happen to contradict whatever it is Russia wants to do at that particular point in time. Similarly, I get called anti-China all the time because I think they can't just ignore international rulings and claim the South China Sea. I also got called anti-American because I thought the invasion of Iraq was a really terrible idea.

The only way you can avoid being called anti-whatever, is to pick one side and just mindlessly follow them all the time. This will require some incredible rationalising skills.

True, I once spent an hour trying to explain to a German how UNCLOS worked, the ruling on the SCS and the actions of the US and China in the region after he was calling me an American imperialist (as a Dutch person ) He grudgingly had to agree with me afterwards.

As for anti-China. I have heard that plenty as well for going against the narrative of "America's coming war with China", a documentary the journalist's name escapes me at the moment.

Logic and reason need not apply for these issues.

Well, the first retaliatory step has just been announced:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43402506

The UK will expel 23 Russian diplomats after Moscow refused to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent was used on former spy in Salisbury, the PM says.

Theresa May said the diplomats, who have a week to leave, were identified as "undeclared intelligence officers".

Inevitable, really. I'd expect this to just be the opening act in a potentially very messy spiral of tit-for-tat.

Ruh-oh...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-nato/nato-calls-on-russia-to-give-full-details-on-nerve-agent-program-idUSKCN1GQ1O1

NATO is officially "on it".

 Steve steveson wrote:
They are sending a message "Don't be a traitor. We will find you and we will kill you. You are never safe". And given the wide definition of traitor (anyone who disagrees with the Russian state in any way) it is a message to a lot of people.

Why wait 10 years to make that message? If you wanted to make a show of force why not assassin him a month or two after the prison exchange?

Interesting read:

Is Russia's Nerve Gas Attack in Great Britain An Act of War?

by Austin Bay
March 13, 2018
The British government has directly accused Russia of using a very sophisticated chemical weapon ---a "poison gas" in common idiom -- in a failed attempt to murder a former Russian defector and his daughter.

A vengeful Kremlin assassination team prowling Britain sounds like a scene in a Cold War spy novel and the botched March 4 homicide has Cold War echoes. The targets, former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were sitting on a park bench in Salisbury, England.

However, immediate 21st century contexts matter. Vladimir Putin's Russia is an especially relevant context. Putin's Kremlin is currently engaged in global political and cyber agitation while waging so-called "hybrid war" in Ukraine and Syria.

Putin's Kremlin practices what some analysts call "gray zone warfare."

Waging a gray zone campaign requires maintaining "plausible deniability" -- in order to escape retribution, be able to deny responsibility for the dirty and destructive operations.

Propaganda, crime, covert influence operations, cyber intrusions and old-fashioned bribery are gray zone weapons.

The Putin-led Kremlin employs all of them and more. The April-May 2007 Russian sustained cyber assault on Estonia illustrates plausible deniability. Estonia traced the economy-crippling attacks to "state agencies in Russia." Russia denied the charge, attributing the attacks to criminals and vandals.

Violence is an integral gray zone tool. In Ukraine, Russia has used agitators, mercenaries, assassins, special operations soldiers and occasionally Russian conventional forces. But violence is risky. In order to avoid international reprisals that seriously damage Russian interests, gray zone violence must be constrained. The bloodshed must be kept below that hazy threshold where an adversary suddenly retaliates with damaging consequences.

More or less, Russia has managed to do that in Ukraine. Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 stayed below the threshold. That invasion mimicked the "creeping war of aggression" Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic launched in 1991 when Serbia attacked Croatia. Serbia would launch an attack, take a small piece of territory, and then hunker down to absorb the political blowback from the UN and Western Europe.

Putin's Kremlin has employed assassins in Western Europe. Since 2003, 14 people in Britain with Russian connections have died under mysterious circumstances. They were either Russian expatriates (several were former intelligence agents) or individuals with connections to Russian businesses or opposition political figures. Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko is perhaps the most famous. In 2006 the former security officer drank tea poisoned with polonium-210 and died in agony. In 2016 a British investigators concluded that it was "highly probable" he was assassinated by the FSB, Russian domestic security service.

But the use of an illegal chemical weapon that could be employed on a battlefield makes the March 4 crime qualitatively different. The assassins used Novichok -A-230, an "enhanced" nerve agent dispersible as a liquid or powder. Reports claim it is eight times more toxic than VX liquid nerve agent. In February 2017 North Korean assassins used VX to murder Kim Jong Nam, dictator Kim Jong Un's half-brother.

I think this is one reason British Prime Minister Theresa May has framed the March 4 incident as no ordinary assassination. May argued that the incident can be characterized as a state-directed chemical weapon attack that occurred on British territory -- in other words, an act of war. She mentioned invoking NATO Article 5 as a response to incident.

NATO Article 5 -- also called The Three Musketeers Clause -- commits the alliance to defend an ally when its territory is attacked. The daring French musketeers promised one for all and all for one. Article 5 makes a similar serious commitment. It has only been invoked once: after al-Qaida's attack on the U.S.

I doubt that Britain will invoke it. However, Britain is telling Putin's Kremlin "gray zone war" is still war. And the March 4 incident is a very pale white shade of gray.

Let's imagine it this way. If this is not an act of war, then presumably Russia could repeat the offense... right?

How many times does a foreign power get to use a weapon of mass destruction on your home soil before it becomes an act of war?

The question is not whether or not using a WMD on your home soil is an act of war. The question is what is the appropriate response so that it deters future attacks??

EDIT: fixed broken link/quote

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
They are sending a message "Don't be a traitor. We will find you and we will kill you. You are never safe". And given the wide definition of traitor (anyone who disagrees with the Russian state in any way) it is a message to a lot of people.

Why wait 10 years to make that message? If you wanted to make a show of force why not assassin him a month or two after the prison exchange?

Because Russia's economy continues to go down the drain and Putin wants something to distract people and get him more time to line his pockets. So, assassinate someone in a way that makes it obvious it was you, wait for the host country to respond and then paint them as the aggressor in your state media.

Little mentioned about the other guy who died during PM Questions. However this is of course an ongoing investigation (by counter-terrorism, rather than the regular police I believe) as was there mention of re-opening the cases on a number of suspected assassinations (if they're just outright saying the Russians are the perpetrators here it'll be a Monty Hall if the same is applied to all those other blatant murders).

Hopefully over the rest of the week, give that Britain's now committed to saying that this was Russia (beside's Corbyn, who in appearances got shunned by most of the other MPs for his comments), we'll see further responses from the rest of the EU and America.

Naturally we should all prepare for cyber attacks, which Russia will of course deny whilst saying, "oh, it wasn't us, but you deserved it. Must have been the Ukrainians doing it again!".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Little mentioned about the other guy who died during PM Questions.

My guess would be that this is because they don’t want to take any chances. If this is mentioned at all officially and it turns out not to be Russia and turns out the guy had a heart attack or was murderd by someone else the Russian government would be all over that and point to it. I would guess that they will not be mentioned together until someone is as sure as they can be of Russian involvement.

Edit: already posted. Whoops. :(

 War Drone wrote:
Well, the first retaliatory step has just been announced:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43402506

The UK will expel 23 Russian diplomats after Moscow refused to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent was used on former spy in Salisbury, the PM says.

Theresa May said the diplomats, who have a week to leave, were identified as "undeclared intelligence officers".

[

I'm not sure what the appropriate response to this would be, but this feels pretty underwhelming.

 Ouze wrote:

 War Drone wrote:
Well, the first retaliatory step has just been announced:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43402506

The UK will expel 23 Russian diplomats after Moscow refused to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent was used on former spy in Salisbury, the PM says.

Theresa May said the diplomats, who have a week to leave, were identified as "undeclared intelligence officers".

[

I'm not sure what the appropriate response to this would be, but this feels pretty underwhelming.

Transcript of today's PM Questions (scroll a bit down a bit, that page gives the minutes for the whole meeting)

The UK will expel 23 Russian diplomats after Moscow refused to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent was used on a former spy in Salisbury, the PM says.

Theresa May said the diplomats, who have a week to leave, were identified as "undeclared intelligence officers".

She also revoked an invitation to Russia's foreign minister, and said the Royal Family would not attend the Fifa World Cup later this year.

Russia denies being involved in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal.

The Russian Embassy said the expulsion of 23 diplomats was "unacceptable, unjustified and short-sighted".

Former spy Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, 33, remain critically ill in hospital after being found slumped on a bench on 4 March.

Det Sgt Nick Bailey also fell ill responding to the incident, and is in a serious but stable condition, but is thought to be improving.

Also:

A freeze on Russian State Assets in the UK (not confirmed if that includes those of private citizens, though investigating the extent of Putin's specifically was mentioned).

Reviewing prior deaths of Russian nationals which were likely committed by the Russian state, in addition to the death of another Russian official yesterday.

Potentially some form of cyber response.

With further sanctions pending.

(Oh and the Labour Party leader managing to isolate himself from most of parliament with his comments)

The government's currently speaking to their allies in regards to how to respond. The French have backtracked a bit however in asking for more evidence (which the UK Intelligence Agency presumably have, as it'll be them who're dictating the language here). The full list of sanctions s due to be announced at some point today (7PM GMT?), which likely will be followed up a response from the EU member states later.

And there goes any hope for Corbyn winning the next election. That will follow him forever now.

Nice to see the Russian government continues with the same line as they always have.

What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN is on Sky News now saying that there are rumours about the UK retaliating with a cyber attack against Russia...Why??? What the feth will that achieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If NATO had been disbanded Russia would not have followed down the same road. Does the West carry all the blame? No. A lot of blame? Yes.

You have no evidence or proof for this claim.

On the other hand, there is the invasion and annexation of parts of the Ukraine to support that, without NATO, countries along Russia's borders are likely to be attacked by Russia if it feels like it should and can get away with it.

An invasion and annexation which came after we deliberately and openly encouraged (if not directly supported) a rebellion against the ruling Government that once served as a neutral buffer state friendly to Russia.

Don't pretend that we weren't being provocative when we sent EU officials to Kiev to express explicit approval of the revolution.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

In what way did we pick a fight with Russia. They, with no provocation, deployed a WMD in the middle of a British city and your answe is “well we best ignore them then”? They used a sodding nerve agent in a UK city. What exactly did the UK do? Nothing. Russia belie they can act as they wish and your answer is “well, leave them to it”?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

In what way did we pick a fight with Russia. They, with no provocation, deployed a WMD in the middle of a British city and your answe is “well we best ignore them then”? They used a sodding nerve agent in a UK city. What exactly did the UK do? Nothing. Russia belie they can act as they wish and your answer is “well, leave them to it”?

You guys tried this once before. 1938/39 time frame right?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN is on Sky News now saying that there are rumours about the UK retaliating with a cyber attack against Russia...Why??? What the feth will that achieve?

Militarily, any escalation is going to get into "armageddon" territory very quickly, and the Russian military isnt in any position to engage in a major open conflict woth NATO, so thats unlikely. The things they're engaging in is stuff that pushes the envelope but isnt going to actually kick off any greater direct force response. Their targets are chosen carefully, theyre people who used to occupy positions of power in Russia and arent native UK citizens, and theyre not particularly hardened. On the nation-state scale of things, this is someone flicking you in the nose, something that really gets your attention but is ultimately not going to actually hurt you.

Given that the military escalation scenario is most likely off the table for those reasons, unless we get really stupid leadership, we are left with economic and diplomatic conflict.

Neither of which Russia is poised to succeed at if the chips really fall. Russia is painfully dependent on imports for critical modern technology and information (literally every modern piece of electronics in the Russian navy uses imported components or systems unavailable domestically), and is heavily dependent on commodity resource exports for revenue, while London remains the financial capital of the world and the next closest on that list, New York, is not far behind and is firmly in the UK's camp, making the economic warfare aspect rather one sided.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

In what way did we pick a fight with Russia. They, with no provocation, deployed a WMD in the middle of a British city and your answer is “well we best ignore them then”? They used a sodding nerve agent in a UK city. What exactly did the UK do? Nothing. Russia belie they can act as they wish and your answer is “well, leave them to it”?

No, I'm not saying we should fething ignore them. Its far too late for that. I'm saying it should never have gotten to this point in the first place, we've been poking them for decades for no clear national benefit and this is their response.

"Oh, you want to feth with us? Then this is how nasty we will get. Are you ready for this?".

You didn’t answer the question. How have we poked them? Russia have time and again acked in this way and every time you get the same reaction from them of indignation and denial. It’s not the UK that has killed political opponents overseas
or people claiming political asylum or sent military jets to violate national airspace of other countries. Russia has. For years they have been poking at other countries. This is 100% on Russia. They are not some innocent party being picked on by the west. It is not a warning to say don’t provoke them, it’s a warning to say “we can do what we want. Don’t get in our way, no matter what country we invade, what human rights we violate or how we attack you”.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What I don't understand is... why the feth are we picking a fight with Russia? We have no national interest in pursuing a conflict with Russia. They keep sending us warnings, and we keep ignoring them. Now they're using chemical weapons against us. Thats a deliberate escalation, and a clear warning not to feth with them. They're telling us that if we want a fight, they're happy to give us one and it'll be nastier than we can stomach.

In what way did we pick a fight with Russia. They, with no provocation, deployed a WMD in the middle of a British city and your answer is “well we best ignore them then”? They used a sodding nerve agent in a UK city. What exactly did the UK do? Nothing. Russia belie they can act as they wish and your answer is “well, leave them to it”?

No, I'm not saying we should fething ignore them. Its far too late for that. I'm saying it should never have gotten to this point in the first place, we've been poking them for decades for no clear national benefit and this is their response.

"Oh, you want to feth with us? Then this is how nasty we will get. Are you ready for this?".

Or, it could be seen as "we really dont have the ability to confront or compete with you directly, we're gonna do some shady stuff coupled with intensive propaganda/maskirovka efforts, and hope it spooks people enough to let off or at least distract them from our other shennanigans".

Yeah, they can kill dissidents using Bond-style gimmicks, beyond that, whats the next level of in-kind escalation on their part that doesnt potentially involve armageddon in a few hours time? There isnt really one for Russia. Theyre doing what they think they can get away with, not sending subtle warning messages.

More to the point, lots of this stuff isnt always done for external audiences, in many ways they're playing the NK game, using external threats and conflicts to shore up internal power and silence dissent, not so much a direct response to something the UK did of late...the exactness of which could be anybodies guess.

I'm of an age where I'd never guess that the political right of the West would be cheerleaders for Russia, but here we are. What a brave new world.

I'm a bit sad because I work with some Russian companies. One of them makes one of our most successful apps. Another of them distributes our graded readers to the Moscow school district.

I don't believe the ordinary Russian in the street wants to go around nerve gassing large market towns. They want to get on with their life and get some prosperity and happiness

I don't believe they want to feth with the British any more than the British want to feth with them. There isn't anything worthwhile to be gained from this kind of feth-ery by anyone except Putin and his cronies.

I broke the swear filter again!

We supported the expansion of NATO, (an anti-Russia military alliance) deep into Eastern Europe and the former Warsaw Pact right up to the borders of Russia; long after Russia admitted defeat in the Cold War, dissolved the Soviet Union and relinquished its hold over the former Warsaw Pact nations as a gesture of goodwill. A direct threat against Russia's security.

We recruited Skripal in 1995, 5 years after the Cold War ended and we were supposed to be defrosting relations with Russia.

There was our stupid fake rock spy plot in Moscow in 2006.

We encouraged a Revolution in Ukraine, a nominally neutral buffer state with a Government that was friendly towards Russia. A direct attack on Russia's national interests.

We're currently pursuing a policy of regime change against Syria, a military ally to Russia

We meddle in internal Russian politics by supporting and funding Russian dissidents and opponents of the Government (a Government I do not like btw, but do not see how their politics is any of our business). We give them safe harbour in Britain. Then we cry foul when Russia reciprocates and meddles in our internal politics, like the 2017 US election, or accusations of Russian troll Ops.

Do I think Putin is a tyrant? Yes.
Do I think Russia is corrupt? Yes.

But I do not see how we have any National interest in picking a fight with them, especially when we're friends with equally as nasty despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, we turn a blind eye to many other dictators in the world, and we engage in assassination programs ourselves. We use drone strikes on British Jihadi's in Syria for christ's sake. How much collateral damage do we cause?

I just don't understand why we insist on squaring up to Russia when there are more pressing issues like the migrant crisis, the rise of Islamism and the ongoing implosion of the Arab World.

Russia is weak and Russia feels threatened (for good reason), so Russia is using everything at its disposal to deter us.

I view Russia as a wounded animal, snarling and lashing out as we approach it.

Why not just leave it the feth alone? Maybe hash out a few treaties to agree geo-political zones of influence, agree not to expand NATO further into Eastern Europe, agree not to go around trying to depose the dictators of designated countries that Russia is allied with, and in return they'll respect the territorial sovereignty of its neighbours, stop assassinating Russian defectors on Western soil etc.

I'd prefer Diplomacy over a second Cold War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I broke the swear filter again!

This seems to happen regularly, and I've seen people get crucified by mods for "circumventing" the swear filter when it appeared to me that they were merely complacent and assumed that the word variant they used would be covered. I've certainly done that myself from time to time.

Can the swear filter not be updated regularly every time a new loophole crops up? If F***ery breaks the filter, can the site admins not update the filter to default to Feth-ery?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
I'm of an age where I'd never guess that the political right of the West would be cheerleaders for Russia, but here we are. What a brave new world.

Nobody is cheerleading for Russia here (except perhaps Iron Captain ).

As for me, I'm simply scratching my head wondering why we're looking to pick a fight with them. This nerve gas attack didn't happen in a vacuum, it didn't come out of the blue. This is a direct retaliation against our policies and past hostile actions against Russia, and a warning not to feth with them any further.

I think we have far more pressing issues to deal with. At least we did, until we provoked them so far that they started using nerve agents. It feels to me like this is becoming a self fulfilling problem, like a negative feedback loop.