Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spetulhu wrote:
So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink

aha, it was -20C or colder all over most part of Russia on the election day, no surprise ))) this thread is funny reading... such things as first hand experience, broader research or evidence only complicate things, divert attention from attitudes to facts and make world look too complex, so why bother when a few selected news outlets have already made it simple again...eh? )))

 Steve steveson wrote:
States are not people. ...No nation has to share intelegence information with another nation if it does not want to and nations do not have a right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial or any of that stuff. All our government has to do is satisfy itself of the evidence to act and all it has to do with other countries is satisfy their governments.

this is coming really close to 'no evidence is needed at all' and consequences of such approach have proven to be extremely dramatic... here is a telling selection of 2002-2003 rhetorics preceding action on Iraq...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/07/iraqs-weapons-of-mass-destruction-who-said-what-when/
and all these leaders were wrong, the evidence was either fake or non-existent, more than 60,000 non-combatant civilians were killed, on their land, in their homes, being individuals as well as a part of their nation... just think - 60,000... not 2, not 25... a hell of a price for all these 'there is no doubt' and 'know for a fact'...

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evidence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed on a massive scale...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine

well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If it was all above board and legit, why did Russia feel the need to lie about its involvement?

sure no disrespect was meant here ))) has Russia lied about its involvement in Syria?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.

As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...

by the way, there are dictators and dictators... some are bombed, some are not... some are not bombed for a long time, but then suddenly bombed... some of those who are not bombed by any standards aren't better then Assad, so what's the matter?

as for Ukraine, so much depends on what sources of data you use... some of mine are still living on both sides of the red line, some of those who live in Lugansk got bombed by nationalistic militia 'battalions' with cluster bombs... they're certainly not Russian army - unless Russian army has dentist's squads under cover infiltrated in 1970's...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...

Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?

of course I do... but the issue has'n ever been even brought to the attention of the council... unlike many other nasty clashes between Russia/China and other councel members... like it or not, Russia played major role in persuading Assad to cooperate on Syrian WMD destruction... but taking into account that more then 80% of Syria was under ISIS at a certain point, and the means of warfare used by ISIS, I'd rather believe it is ISIS, not Assad, who uses it

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except for all of these occasions, which by strange co-incidences were vetoed by Russia.

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

they all are on terms of settlement (but this is big politics) and WMD, not on legitimacy of Russian action...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever... andn in your logic, give a single humanitarian reason not to humanitarily intervene on, for instance, Saudi?

as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


I do, yes. I think we have wildly differing definations of successful. Vietnam was at best, a Pyrrhic Victory.

I mean the very purpose of such interventions - successful for people of the land, for their wellbeing, security, rights, future...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).

When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.

well, Pol Pot died in peace around 1998, after all evil things he did, after brining 1to 3 mn deaths upon Vietnameese people... and if you happen to look closer into this story you'd be surprised to see no one ever suggested any interventions against him...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?

Haiti is a single poorest country in the Western hemisphere... can't comment on Timor and Sierra Lione, never went into details on these, as those were so local and remote... Yugoslavia... complete failure - but this is too complex a story to go into detail here... Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.

then why not go and check how exactly those 60,000 Iraqi civilians got killed, what happened to Iraqi infrastructure and how it was related to official doctrine of this war? no bombing of hospitals or power plants? no bombing of households? alas...
and in Syria, if you get to look for this data, like here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/30/us-coalition-airstrikes-iraqi-syrian-civilians
I'm deliberately giving you this link, so that this is of at least some credibility to you... some other sources, more direct, would be harder to accept and easier to brush away...

and we haven't even scratched the surface of a question of how ISIS and their allies get arms... those arms that kill people...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.

and what exactly did they hate Vietnam for? and why they didn't hate outright faschist Pol Pot and his regime? tough questions... may be because this was a proxy war and certain powers supported Pol Pot despite whatever he did... maybe because this was Cambodia who first crossed Vietnamese border... maybe because thai, vietnamese, tyams and any other opposition to nationalistic policies of Pol Pot were just killed in masses, what western sources omit... tough questions... western sources pose it as Vietnamese intervention... other sources give it the other way - ethnic cleansings and provocations by Pol Pot regime and retaliation from Vietnam...

and hasn't Vietnam been a 'bad guy' for 'most countries' before, when its people were subjected to one of the most un-human treatment, in 60s, and they're still suffering from what was done...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...

Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:

now... when a modern high-precision missile hits a hospital, an embassy or a residential area... does it mean anything when a party who fired it claims it was unintentional, not deliberate... no it doesn't... one doesn't cause deaths 'unintentionally' on the hemisphere opposite to where it's borders lie...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.

Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.

“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said. 

think of this...
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR‎), founded in May 2006, is a UK-based information office whose stated aim is to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria... The organisation is run by Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim (does it tell you something?) who owns a clothes shop.... In 2012, Süddeutsche Zeitung described the organisation as a one-man-operation with a single permanent worker, Rami Abdulrahman... SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" or anti-Assad and has been criticised for refusing to share its data or methodology.... this is your source...

but look here and coalition-caused casualties may be up to 4,000...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/isis-syria-iraq-civilian-casualties.html

look here and US Coalition looks worse than Russia...
https://airwars.org/data/

I didn't give you Syrian or Russian sources, you won't believe anyway... what makes me believe those is that Syria-Russia do not rely that havily on air strikes, but have a solid boots-on-the-ground operation represented by Syrian army... this is a good reason to believe civil casualties are minimized to some extent, something you can't do when relying solely on air strikes

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Most are captured in Syria or Iraq, when they overran the Iraqi army. The conspiracy theories are just silly that go around.

ha ha... make some research, start here...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726

and think of who exactly has been buying oil from ISIS...

 Steve steveson wrote:
People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.

This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.

if you check the thread I was only responding to other people who introduced those themes... and there is a pattern of bullying without evidence relevant to the thread topic... and look at the thread name, there was a ? mark but it somehow got to be ignored although there have been no new official data inputs so far... no disrespect was meant, though )))

 sebster wrote:

What's most frustrating about this is that if you wanted to take a position against Vietnamese action in Cambodia as a successful intervention there's an easy case to make that it wasn't an intervention at all. Because Vietnam started the operation not out of humanitarian concern but due to border raids by Cambodia that had killed more than a thousand Vietnamese civilians. But because you don't know any of this, instead you went with an argument that it didn't count because Pol Pot got away.

again, you do me wrong... somebody (not me) suggested Vietnamese intervention as an example of a successful "humanitarian intervention"... I wrote - "Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention"... I meant the later stage of the conflict... the point is not whether it was successful or not, but was it a "humanitarian intervention" or just a war... having read quite a lot on this, I believe it was just war... as well as any affair in which your border is crossed by an enemy and you retaliate by driving him back...

 sebster wrote:


I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.

"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."

Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
.

where are you citing from? because the best I managed to find was this http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/twice-in-one-day-ban-ki-moon-condemned-obamas-actions-on-syria.html ... the interview was taken by Spanish newspapers and I failed to find the original publication, only secondary quotations...somehow...

would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Did you check that blog? Its riddled with dead links (which we need to believe actually existed in the first place, for example the El Pais link goes to Apple.com) and 'translations' by an obviously subjective writer. It doesn't have credible value.

sure I did, I'm quite capable of it... and there are no un-biased news sources presently, it seems, so one has to work with a broader base and assess critically every piece of news... there are many other sources who reported this in the same manner, but all are secondary and are giving fragmented quotation of this part... here at least the text is more solid...

but the funny part is that I can't find the original article in El Pais, albeit there is no doubt there was this interview in October 2015... and El Pais site gives zero results on 2015... so I wonder what other sources quote and in what way those are more credible...

 sebster wrote:

The best you managed was a random blog, with its own translation, that put the quote up in the middle of a political screed. Suffice to say, the translation wildly misinterprets the original statement. Here's a link with a much more reliable version http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/attacks-syria-rebel-strongholds-kill-91-report-548190740

the article on your link also gives secondary and very fragmented quotations and doesn't provide any link to the source which is somehow so hard to find... so, in what exactly way is it 'more reliable', rich of 'context' and not 'modified'? and what if I give you links on Indian news - would they be unreliable to?

 sebster wrote:

 elk@work wrote:
and there are no un-biased news sources presently

And there it is, as always.

I think we're probably done here, to be honest. There's really nothing to be gained from trying to discuss things with people who reject critical judgement.

again you rush ahead to judge ))) thanks Disciple for the link, but I don't find this translation to read or mean matterially far from what I originally posted on whether or not Assad must be replaced by the west... then, in your quotation you ommited 'Western contries', jumped to conclusion I'm using the quotation to put the blame solely on Western countries (which I never wrote or implied, please check) and proceeded with personal insults... so much for critical judgement )))

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.

in Russia, this temporarily receded into the background after Kemerovo tragedy... but the main line is that Kremlin waits for renewal of dialogue and something to work with - samples, OPCW analysis results...

 Steve steveson wrote:

I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.

in fact, there was a single protest on Sunday in Kemerovo, people were outraged due to a wave of fake news in social networks reporting hundreds killed in the fire... those turned out to be lies... but certain news outlets like Radio Freedom went to report rallies in memory of deceased as anti-government protests... which is not true, at leats, I can say so of one I went to here in Moscow...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Putin is quite right in domestic terms to focus on the Kemerovo fire, which was a dreadful tragedy we all sympathise with. Particularly Londoners, who are still concerned with the fallout of the Grefell Tower fire, a similar disaster.

Russians are much better served by better fire regulations and less corruption in construction than by following up quarrels with the UK, particularly as it turns out the UK has much stronger backing from allies than Putin probably expected.

thank you... ironically, Kemerovo disaster is to some extent attributable to recent liberalisation of small and meduim businesses regulation... and now, would this liberalisation stay in place or be revised, there will be an openning for critisizing state policies

yesterday Boris Johnson referred to Dostoevsy and his 'Crime and punishment'...

“It is rather like the beginning of Crime and Punishment in the sense that we are all confident of the culprit – and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-russia-spy-salisbury-attack-crime-and-punishment-a8278576.html

this gives me a valid reason to mention a quotation from the same piece of writing, p.351 in the book on my shelf:
100 rabits do not make a horse, 100 allegations do not make an evidence...

thank you Austria for your common sense )))

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed
Never thought Russians would be praising that government

Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
For those praising Austria, lets not forget that their government actually contains a party that is Nazi adjacent, with some members having been caught on social media with full on Nazi/SS sympathies. Common sense indeed
Never thought Russians would be praising that government

Has Russia 'praised' Nazi in that government? Has Russia praised that government? have other EU leaders refused to deal with that government?... what do you mean by this? I'm just grateful somebody tries to help rebuild communications and dialogue

No, not Russia, hence why I said Russians, as in you and Iron Captain. Its just ironic considering Russia's history with Nazis.

this new guy from Austria came to Russia, in general he makes more sense then Johnson who is like our Zhirinovsky (a bit crazy radical guy) but worse as, unlike Zhirinovsky who is being held off from big offices, Johnson is allowed to talk to people on an international level...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.

it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...

here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.

it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...

here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power

Again, its not crazy, there is a level between just letting things happen and war. Nobody is advocating war. The dial has settings between 0 and 11.

no dialogue between nuclear powers is not crazy? are you sure? And, unlike some countries, Russia doesn't have a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike... does it make sense to push back everything I say just because I'm from Russia?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.

I think that what has been happenning recently is as close to 'no dialogue' as it hasn't been ever in the Cold War... as for preventive (or, pre-emptive), for me this is very straightforward - this is any doctrine allowing to be the first who fires nukes before another country uses nukes or WMD.. very simple - to beging nuke war before other country even attacks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.

No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard, they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.

well, I was 30 and older when those things happened, so was quite aware of what was happening... now it's worse... it's like a dawn and a dusk - they may look the same, but certain things tell the difference... I'd be happy to learn later I was wrong on this...

please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ...
http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf

just so, no 'threat', 'prevent', 'deter' and my favourite 'To ensure US and international operations are successful'... so we need dialogue

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.

Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.

I believe you know how many civil airplaines and ships were shot by US (not some alleged US-backed rebels or what), when and where, and nobody went to war with US, so please don't throw this in my face... And as soon as this is said that Russia leaved something unsaid in its doctrine, that means other nuclear powers also must be suspected of leaving things unsaid in their doctrines... does it make things better, does it make my or your case stronger? nope

I can bear all the level of insults and disrespect to my country and its people I read here... but I can't bear warmongering of any kind...

back to my earlier point, any mediation between two nuke powers in conflict is a good thing... could I use any other words you won't feel obliged to debate?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.

what I earnestly don't understand... how would giving Russia a sample compromise or derail UK case... even if Russia would run its analysis and deny - there are so many laboratories who would prove UK case, no one would care what Russia says...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it.

in Gulf wars there were 2 airplains and a ship... 'by mistake' and 'accept/deny' do not matter, really

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)

this is a common attitude and a premise in this thread that Russia is bad and guilty just because it has done things... hell, it has done things, I know Russian history just too well... and I know many other respectable countries that have done things, even worse things... the 'good guys'... and all this 'ever good guys against the ever bad guy' attitude is annoying