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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


We supported the expansion of NATO, (an anti-Russia military alliance)

Anti Soviet Union and its eastern bloc, not specifically anti-Russia.

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.

At the direct behest and desire of the nations in question.

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

and Russia never recruited spies and turncoats of its own in the post Soviet era...?

Remember, Skirpal came over to the UK in a *trade*.

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.

Are the Ukrainians attitudes and preferences irrelevant then? Lets be real, Yanukovich was tossed from power...*twice*, and was monstrously corrupt. The dude was not going to keep power short of bloodshed. If Russia wanted to maintain power, they should have done a better job managing the shop.

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

Sure, and Russia has largely solved that problem for itself, Assad is going nowhere.

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.

Nobody is blind to this, but you dont see the UK or US taking out people in Russia.

The CIA isn't offing Snowden in a Bond-esque style in a cafe in Moscow.

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

Most of which have fewer direct implications for the UK as a nation state than issues with Russia in the grand scheme of things.

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

Russias problem is that, while not a weak nation, it is in no position to directly confront the opponents its playing against. Offing dissidents and engaging in propaganda manipulation is about as high stakes as they can go without the consequences and odds starting to turn dramatically against them.

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

Russia is not wounded. Russia is isolated, in many ways by its own hand. When the issue of NATO membership was raised by Poland in 2009, the Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, literally said "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power."

That response largely sums up the issue entirely.

Russia wants to be and act like the superpower that the Soviet Union was. The problem is that Russia doesnt actually have Superpower capabilities beyond its nuclear arsenal, especially with the loss of so many of the former Imperial/Soviet territories now their own independent nations. Russia keeps playing games against players who have an order of magnitude more resoirces and losing a fair number of matches, suffering consequences as a result.

If we're talking about "why would you do that" questions, a good one to ask is "why on earth is Russia picking fights with a group that outnumbers them 7-1 and can outspend them 24-1?" The most likely answer is that they are playing to internal audiences for much of this and external messages are being carefully managed to be pointed without actually triggering any direct and similar response.

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

that only works as long as the people in those zones agree to them (which many have not). Otherwise we're just talking more old school colonialism.

Agree not to go around trying to depose the dictators of designated countries that Russia is allied with,

so anyone who pisses off a NATO nation goes and makes nice with Russia and is then immune to response?

Not that I disagree with the idea that developed nations should spend less time engaged in such activities, but if anyone can just say "I'm with Russia" as a "get out of jail free card", thats going to result in derpy outcomes.

and in return they'll respect the territorial sovereignty of its neighbours, stop assassinating Russian defectors on Western soil etc.

Ultimately, if Russia really wants to go down that path, theyre going to quickly find themselves overmatched.

I'd prefer Diplomacy over a second Cold War.

pretty much everyone would. Its not necessarily in the interest of those in power however. Frozen conflicts have been a hallmark of Russian foreign policy for decades, and the "we're cold now but we could go hot anytime" idea is what NK has been driving on for many years because without it and the external threat the internal regime would not survive.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


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.

I don't see how a defensive alliance is a direct threat to Russia. Just like I don't see how an economic bloc like the EU maintaining relations with Ukraine is a direct threat. Must be a funny definition of the word threat,

Russia spies as much on the West if not more.

Also god forbid we try to stop a bloodthirsty maniac like Assad, its one of the best examples for humanitarian interventions. When are you allowed to step in to stop mass murderers exactly? When they aren't allies of convenience with Russia?

Russia ignited the revolution in Ukraine by applying direct pressure to their patsy to reject the EU, which spectacularly backfired. But its the EU supporting protests that really did it!

But once again its off to the "bigger issue" Olympics, as if only one issue can matter at one time, as if Russian agents trying to almost indiscriminately kill on British soil isn't as pressing as any of them.

The idea that Russia is weak and the victim is ridiculous. They aren't a wounded animal, they are the rabid animal of the international world. You can't leave them alone, because they manage to insert themselves for no reason,such as killing someone without any reasonable cause.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Sadly, it's much the same way with many of the countries politicians like to vilify. The people are, generally, just people like you and me: they work all day, come home to their families, have dinner, fart around the house a bit, and go to sleep. I see people jump all over Iron_Captain for his pro-Russia views, but when I see his posts in other topics, he could very well be just another guy living down the street from me.

I broke the swear filter again!

My solution to that is to actually type the word "feth" in my posts instead of the real f-bomb.
The side effect of doing that, though, is that I actually said "fething" out loud earlier today.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I broke the swear filter again!

My solution to that is to actually type the word "feth" in my posts instead of the real f-bomb.
The side effect of doing that, though, is that I actually said "fething" out loud earlier today.

Same here, right down to picking up saying feth in real life.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I don't see how a defensive alliance is a direct threat to Russia.

I don't agree that its a defensive alliance. We build a "defensive alliance", then continuously provoke Russia, impinge on its sphere of influence and directly attack its military allies? Thats like getting your friends to back you up when you go to pick a fight with another kid in the school yard who was originally minding his own business (Russia in the 90's) until you decided to start a feud.

Russia spies as much on the West if not more.

Oh gee, I wonder why?

Also god forbid we try to stop a bloodthirsty maniac like Assad, its one of the best examples for humanitarian interventions. When are you allowed to step in to stop mass murderers exactly? When they aren't allies of convenience with Russia?

There are countless other bloodthirsty maniacs in the world who are just as bad if not worse than Assad who we don't lift a finger against. So, please forgive me if I view our selective outrage with a degree of suspicion.

Russia ignited the revolution in Ukraine by applying direct pressure to their patsy to reject the EU, which spectacularly backfired. But its the EU supporting protests that really did it!

The EU supporting protests was a gross breach of diplomatic etiquette and an interference in the internal politics of a sovereign nation. They should have taken a more neutral stance in public, and kept their views to private channels. How would we feel if Russia started sending Russian officials to anti-government protests in Iceland or Norway? We'd be pretty outraged I imagine.

But once again its off to the "bigger issue" Olympics, as if only one issue can matter at one time, as if Russian agents trying to almost indiscriminately kill on British soil isn't as pressing as any of them.

Again, I repeat, this assassination did not come in a vaccum out of the blue. There were policies and actions that we took which helped precipitate this, at least in part.

To be clear, I do think that that the deployment of nerve agents on British soil is a hugely pressing issue. A line has been crossed, outright terrorism with a public incident that incurred mass casualties. Sadly, I think we're too far gone to de-escalate now. What I am arguing is that it should never have gotten to this point, we shouldn't have backed Russia into a corner like this.

The idea that Russia is weak and the victim is ridiculous. They aren't a wounded animal, they are the rabid animal of the international world.

We've had people in this thread on your side of the debate arguing that Russia is weak, suffering from economic sanctions and heavily dependent on foreign imports. Weak countries can still be rabid animals. What happens when you back a rabid animal into a corner and provoke it? You get bit.

Like with North Korea, we should be containing Russia and focusing on diplomacy. Butter them up, reassure them, hash out a few treaties. Unless we have the stomach for a dirty war of cyber attacks, assassination, chemical weapons and terrorism; if not an outright conventional armed conflict. Because that is where the path we are treading will lead. This nerve agent attack was a clear warning that Russia is ready and willing to fight dirty.

We aren't. We should be careful what we wish for.

You can't leave them alone, because they manage to insert themselves for no reason,such as killing someone without any reasonable cause.

No reasonable cause? I condemn the method used, but the guy was a traitor to his country who ratted out hundreds of Russian spies. I might not personally agree with assassinating traitors, but I acknowledge the logic behind Russia's actions. They clearly don't have the same moral scruples as we do.

Plenty of Americans want to do the same with Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (who, hilariously isn't American and therefore can't possibly be a traitor to America, not that anyone cares). If a spy in America betrayed his country in the same way as Skripal, he'd probably face the death penalty depending on the State, or he'd be sent to rot in Guantanamo bay. There are plenty of politicians who'd jump at the chance to assassinate American traitors.

And don't pretend we don't carry out assassinations too. We have entire drone programs dedicated to assassinating Jihadi's, some of whom are even our own citizens. Those drone strikes also cause collateral damage.

Russia had this guy in jail and then released him. Killing him with a nerve-agent after they released him and he wasn't a threat anymore isn't the same as using drones to kill somoene who's actively fighting in an insurgency against your country. This has been mentioned already, repeatedly.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I don't see how a defensive alliance is a direct threat to Russia.

I don't agree that its a defensive alliance. We build a "defensive alliance", then continuously provoke Russia, impinge on its sphere of influence and directly attack its military allies? Thats like getting your friends to back you up when you go to pick a fight with another kid in the school yard who was originally minding his own business (Russia in the 90's) until you decided to start a feud.

Provoke it by not adhering to 19th century standards of spheres of influence? Who says it wouldn't be the Western sphere of influence if were going all archaic?

Also how did NATO directly attack its military allies again? I must have missed them being allies with Afghanistan, seeing that it was the only NATO invasion.

Its more like a bully picking on kids, but when those kids get bigger kids to help them the bully runs away crying to the teacher about how mean the other kids are.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Russia spies as much on the West if not more.

Oh gee, I wonder why?

Yeah, lets not kid ourselves and pretend Russia only does it because the West does it. Based on the last spy swap Russia does it a lot more.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Also god forbid we try to stop a bloodthirsty maniac like Assad, its one of the best examples for humanitarian interventions. When are you allowed to step in to stop mass murderers exactly? When they aren't allies of convenience with Russia?

There are countless other bloodthirsty maniacs in the world who are just as bad if not worse than Assad who we don't lift a finger against. So, please forgive me if I view our selective outrage with a degree of suspicion.

Remind me again, which bloodthirsty maniacs are currently worse than Assad,racking up the body count to 500.000+? If it was up to me we would lift a finger more often, but then the same people who claim "selective outrage" line up to complain that its "not our responsibility".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Russia ignited the revolution in Ukraine by applying direct pressure to their patsy to reject the EU, which spectacularly backfired. But its the EU supporting protests that really did it!

The EU supporting protests was a gross breach of diplomatic etiquette and an interference in the internal politics of a sovereign nation. They should have taken a more neutral stance in public, and kept their views to private channels. How would we feel if Russia started sending Russian officials to anti-government protests in Iceland or Norway? We'd be pretty outraged I imagine.

As opposed to Russia directly pressuring their patsy to undermine the EU agreement that was to be signed soon? Also "interference in internal politics", you better not show your support for protesters being murdered by the government, you might be accused of interfering!
Russia can send its officials anywhere they like if Norway or Iceland decide to shoot up some protesters. Of course if the EU invades Norway/Iceland in response, I assume that the EU will receive the same vigorous defence by you.

The bar for Russia seems incredibly low compared to what the West has to jump over for you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

But once again its off to the "bigger issue" Olympics, as if only one issue can matter at one time, as if Russian agents trying to almost indiscriminately kill on British soil isn't as pressing as any of them.

Again, I repeat, this assassination did not come in a vaccum out of the blue. There were policies and actions that we took which helped precipitate this, at least in part.

To be clear, I do think that that the deployment of nerve agents on British soil is a hugely pressing issue. A line has been crossed, outright terrorism with a public incident that incurred mass casualties. Sadly, I think we're too far gone to de-escalate now. What I am arguing is that it should never have gotten to this point, we shouldn't have backed Russia into a corner like this.

It did come out of the blue. As multiple people, me included, have pointed out, this guy had done his time and was traded for 10 Russian agents. How did the West do anything to precipitate this? There was no goddamn rational reason to do this, Russia wasn't in any corner. This man no longer had any value to any intelligence community. How does that not come out of the blue? This man was literally assassinated for the national equivalent of "gaks and giggles".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The idea that Russia is weak and the victim is ridiculous. They aren't a wounded animal, they are the rabid animal of the international world.

We've had people in this thread on your side of the debate arguing that Russia is weak, suffering from economic sanctions and heavily dependent on foreign imports. Weak countries can still be rabid animals. What happens when you back a rabid animal into a corner and provoke it? You get bit.

Like with North Korea, we should be containing Russia and focusing on diplomacy. Butter them up, reassure them, hash out a few treaties. Unless we have the stomach for a dirty war of cyber attacks, assassination, chemical weapons and terrorism; if not an outright conventional armed conflict. Because that is where the path we are treading will lead. This nerve agent attack was a clear warning that Russia is ready and willing to fight dirty.

We aren't. We should be careful what we wish for.

Russia is weak in a sense that it no longer is a superpower. It serves perfectly well as a regional power, but Russia doesn't want to be that. Sanctions are a direct result of past belligerent actions. All of this is self inflicted, Russia chooses to take these actions in a desperate attempt to cling to past superpower glory, gutting their economy in the process.

A good measure for this is China, China doesn't give a feth what happens inside national borders and situations like Syria. But even China took a pause when it came to Crimea, because even if China doesn't show it in public, it crossed a line to them.

You're basically arguing we should look the other way when Russia is doing gak. Because once Russia knows it can get away with it its going to do something worse. You're letting a state hold the international community hostage. This assassination attempt is exactly why buttering them up doesn't help. You can't give Russia what it wants, because what it wants is its little empire back.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You can't leave them alone, because they manage to insert themselves for no reason,such as killing someone without any reasonable cause.

No reasonable cause? I condemn the method used, but the guy was a traitor to his country who ratted out hundreds of Russian spies. I might not personally agree with assassinating traitors, but I acknowledge the logic behind Russia's actions. They clearly don't have the same moral scruples as we do.

Plenty of Americans want to do the same with Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (who, hilariously isn't American and therefore can't possibly be a traitor to America, not that anyone cares). If a spy in America betrayed his country in the same way as Skripal, he'd probably face the death penalty depending on the State, or he'd be sent to rot in Guantanamo bay. There are plenty of politicians who'd jump at the chance to assassinate American traitors.

And don't pretend we don't carry out assassinations too. We have entire drone programs dedicated to assassinating Jihadi's, some of whom are even our own citizens. Those drone strikes also cause collateral damage.

The guy was an ex-traitor. He already told everything of value, had no more value and was traded for 10 Russian agents. If you don't understand how this wasn't rational I can't help you understand. This is on an entirely different level from killing active agents or jihadists. This like going into a retirement home and shooting an 80 year old in the face because he used to be KGB. Furthermore its another self inflicted wound on Russia, because now the Western community might no longer see the value in spy swaps, so Russia basically sold all their caught agents down the river.

Also stop bringing up the US, you do realize the US had dozens of cases from the 90's onward on the level of Skripal and those people are still alive and certainly not in Guantanamo, also convicted for being active, not ex agents. If they really wanted Snowden or Assange dead, they would be,if Russia was after them they would have been dead years ago. This is beyond normal, you don't seem to grasp the implications.

Don't you get it? Putin is a murderer. For someone like him tge point of killing is killing. He may have done this because he had a bad day, he just hadn't ordered a murder in a while, he was just reminded of this guy.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
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.

Cutting the ranks of the State dept is the exact reason why he got the job. Trump was looking for someone to apply his vision of mass cuts, Tillerson interviewed and said he wanted to make mass cuts. The Tillerson went about making mass cuts.

There's really no wiggle room here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I can't say for certain, but I'd think Skripal's killing sends a pretty powerful message to any other spies who might be thinking of defecting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
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.

Ah I see, with 'harsh' read in that context I agree with everything you've said. Nothing to see here anymore, moving along


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
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?

2010 was a very different time in relations between Russia and the West. And Russia might have a lot more reasons to be concerned about leaks than they had previously. Certain secrets they really don't want to see come out. A recent certain... dossier.... on Russian operations in the US in 2016 comes to mind.

It's a long bow, of course, but if you wanted to stop people turning over intel, then killing former flipped agents would be the way to tell anyone thinking about that the Western intel services can't keep you safe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

And Skripal revealed 300 spies active across Western countries. You're actually trying to claim that the UK flipping a spy to reveal other spies embedded in the UK and other countries is a hostile act by the UK. Absolutely ridiculous.

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

Yeah, spy networks using technological devices to spy on other countries is totally beyond the pale.

We encouraged a Revolution in Ukraine

This is something Russia claims a lot. It's total bs.

We're currently pursuing a policy of regime change against Syria

The Syrian government has abducted, tortured and murdered its own citizens. Letting that happen because Russia wants Assad in control is moral nihilism.

We meddle in internal Russian politics by supporting and funding Russian dissidents and opponents of the Government

Yes, but there are basic rules about the extent of these practices. The UK's operations were like someone pinching a pen from work to use at home - technically a crime, but something very common and extremely minor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
If we're talking about "why would you do that" questions, a good one to ask is "why on earth is Russia picking fights with a group that outnumbers them 7-1 and can outspend them 24-1?" The most likely answer is that they are playing to internal audiences for much of this and external messages are being carefully managed to be pointed without actually triggering any direct and similar response.

More and more I find everything coming back to a single quote from All the President's Men. To paraphrase - "Forget the myths the media's created about the Kremlin. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

Putin has tactical nous and the instincts of a KGB officer, so he's focused on a lot of these intelligence ops, but they're all either opportunistic, or as an immediate response to some negative event. But there's no strategic thinking involved, no idea how to reach a conclusion, move to a new status quo. As a result Putin keeps acting, suffers diplomatic and economic retaliation, and then just gets angrier about it.

It's a downward spiral Putin lacked the strategic thinking to avoid, and now lacks the thinking to get out of.

The Syrian government has abducted, tortured and murdered its own citizens. Letting that happen because Russia wants Assad in control is moral nihilism.

They used barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilians. Yes there were rebels in the area. If we agree with the rebel’s or not is irrelevant. They used indiscriminate weapons on areas filled with civilians. And now people are arguing that we should look the other way because Putin likes Assad.

Russia have annouced they will retaliate by ejecting some British embassy staff, as expected. I don't think there is much more Russia can do, apart from bluster.

There are business links, like Gazprom and the BP joint company, which are good for both sides. Putin and the UK would be stupid to put any boots into these kind of operations.

There aren't British emigres and oligarchs wanting to live in Moscow or buy up lots of property over there, whom the Russians can go after with visa bans or "dirty money" restrictions. In this area the UK has the upper hand.

Though, are the British embassy staff actual staff, or like the Russians, spies? I remember reading that the Russians deliberately overstaff their embassies as anyone working there has diplomatic immunity. Thus the result is that tonnes of Russian officials also do spy work on the side.

In that case I wonder if the rest of Europe's going to start throwing out their Russian officials as well?

Tangentially Moldova's just sentenced one of their MPs over being a Russian spy.

A certain number of staff in any embassy are "spies", or intlligence officers.

If you work in an embassy, you have to be accredited to the foreign government.

This means they have got your ID and can follow you outside the embassy, so you aren't going to be doing any James Bond style spying.

If we must insist on punishing Russia, go after the Russian Oligarchs and dirty Russian money in London. Close tax loop holes, crack down on money laundering, put restrictions on Russian property investment etc.

Should have done that a long time ago to be honest, for reasons completely unrelated to the Russian Government's actions over the last few years.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Though, are the British embassy staff actual staff, or like the Russians, spies? I remember reading that the Russians deliberately overstaff their embassies as anyone working there has diplomatic immunity. Thus the result is that tonnes of Russian officials also do spy work on the side.

Everyone does it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/02/davidkelly.media. The line between diplomat and intelligence agent has always been a blurred one anyway.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

In that case I wonder if the rest of Europe's going to start throwing out their Russian officials as well?

Yes. It is possible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Russia have annouced they will retaliate by ejecting some British embassy staff, as expected. I don't think there is much more Russia can do, apart from bluster.

There are business links, like Gazprom and the BP joint company, which are good for both sides. Putin and the UK would be stupid to put any boots into these kind of operations.

There aren't British emigres and oligarchs wanting to live in Moscow or buy up lots of property over there, whom the Russians can go after with visa bans or "dirty money" restrictions. In this area the UK has the upper hand.

I was thinking about this this morning on the train after listening to radio 4 on the way to the station. This is fully expected. What more can they do? Russia have two options, tit for tat expulsions, which is not surprising and not realty a problem. Harming business would harm them more. We can freeze all these assets, and possibly more. What are they going to do in response to that? Seize the petty cash tin from the British Embassy? They either have to stop at these expulsions and accept that we have the upper hand when it comes to assets or up the stakes.

As for upping stakes, I see two options. Either start arresting diplomats and UK citizens in Russia or a cyber attack. Neither of which will go well for them.

The biggest risk is that they take the pain and carry on with killing people on the hit list.

 Steve steveson wrote:

The Syrian government has abducted, tortured and murdered its own citizens. Letting that happen because Russia wants Assad in control is moral nihilism.

They used barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilians. Yes there were rebels in the area. If we agree with the rebel’s or not is irrelevant. They used indiscriminate weapons on areas filled with civilians. And now people are arguing that we should look the other way because Putin likes Assad.

Why specifically Syria? Why do you insist that we intervene there, but not the countless other hot spots and dictators around the world?

Ok well that escalated fast France and Germany support the UK allegations.

But they at least seem to be following the legal protocol giving Russia 10 days to reply.

Unlike the Fire place salesman and the rest of the Tories this morning with there childish statements. Got to think there are some pissed Russians who will be unhappy at the outcome of there donations to the Cons.

USA believes that Russia is behind the attack.

The US, Germany, and France all jointly say that there is 'no plausible alternative explanation' to it having been someone other than Russia.

In other words, we've emailed all our allied governments the respective dossiers of the investigation. Which further weakens any daft theory about it being the UK Government or some terrorists. Germany and France don't tend to go gung-ho about this sort of thing without proof (see Iraq).

Our defence Secretary has also told the Russian Government to 'Shut up and go away'. Fairly blunt language, and I'm not sure it's the best approach; but given that Russia will deny everything regardless of what our government says and any proof? I'm not sure there's much point showing any respect whatsoever for the country that just unleashed a military grade chemical weapon on the UK populace. They clearly have none for us.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

The Syrian government has abducted, tortured and murdered its own citizens. Letting that happen because Russia wants Assad in control is moral nihilism.

They used barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilians. Yes there were rebels in the area. If we agree with the rebel’s or not is irrelevant. They used indiscriminate weapons on areas filled with civilians. And now people are arguing that we should look the other way because Putin likes Assad.

Why specifically Syria? Why do you insist that we intervene there, but not the countless other hot spots and dictators around the world?

I’m not going to get in to whataboutism. The fact is that Syria committed human rights abuses on a massive scale. The fact that Russia is likes Assad is neither here nore there. You could equally ask why Russia has protected Assad in the UN and not other countries. It’s not relevant. The point is This faux victim act of Russia is getting very old.

I too felt that the Defence Minister's interjection was less diplomatic than the situation demands.

My view is that the Russian government will provide plenty of rude bluster to the situation, and the UK government's policy should be to remain completely polite.

(Clued-up foreigners will know that you can tell when the Brits are insulting you -- it's when they are being particularly polite.)

I've come up with a great way to piss in Russia's soup.

Fast-track Ukraine's joining of NATO, and then send several thousand peacekeepers to help support them them in regaining control of their country. Pledge to enforce the treaty regarding Ukraine's borders that we all signed.

We don't have to send troops anywhere near the frontline, but if we supply enough money, tanks, and logistical support to the Ukrainian army, they'll roll over the informal 'little green men'. Then Russia gets to either declare war on a NATO country (which he won't do, he's an opportunist as opposed to suicidal) , or have a nice new NATO ally sitting on his border. See how he likes them apples. If he wants to play Cold War games, we can damn well play them too.

 Ketara wrote:
I've come up with a great way to piss in Russia's soup.

Fast-track Ukraine's joining of NATO, and then send several thousand peacekeepers to help support them them in regaining control of their country. Pledge to enforce the treaty regarding Ukraine's borders that we all signed.

We don't have to send troops anywhere near the frontline, but if we supply enough money, tanks, and logistical support to the Ukrainian army, they'll roll over the informal 'little green men'. Then Russia gets to either declare war on a NATO country (which he won't do, he's an opportunist as opposed to suicidal) , or have a nice new NATO ally sitting on his border. See how he likes them apples. If he wants to play Cold War games, we can damn well play them too.

...that's gunna be a huge provacation... and honestly, pretty proportionate response imo.

But, let's be honest... that's a really dangerous escalation. Are you sure you want to advocate that?

 whembly wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I've come up with a great way to piss in Russia's soup.

Fast-track Ukraine's joining of NATO, and then send several thousand peacekeepers to help support them them in regaining control of their country. Pledge to enforce the treaty regarding Ukraine's borders that we all signed.

We don't have to send troops anywhere near the frontline, but if we supply enough money, tanks, and logistical support to the Ukrainian army, they'll roll over the informal 'little green men'. Then Russia gets to either declare war on a NATO country (which he won't do, he's an opportunist as opposed to suicidal) , or have a nice new NATO ally sitting on his border. See how he likes them apples. If he wants to play Cold War games, we can damn well play them too.

...that's gunna be a huge provacation... and honestly, pretty proportionate response imo.

But, let's be honest... that's a really dangerous escalation. Are you sure you want to advocate that?

Russia has escalated to this point. We've sat and watched as they meddled in Georgia. 'Nah, one off' we thought. Then in Ukraine. 'They do need their naval base', we thought. Then they started messing around with the US election. 'Pfff, it's just Trump' everyone said. Then they started an air campaign in Syria. 'Well, they do have an ally there...', we said more tentatively. Then they started directly meddling in the Brexit vote, and the British and French elections as best they could. 'This is starting to look a bit dicey, but it's just the internet. Right?' 'Look at all our nice new nukes! That'll teach the world to respect us!' said Putin as he shook his fist at the cameras.

Now they're unleashing military grade chemical weapons on the civilian population here.

It has become really quite clear that the Cold War is back on. Not because we're responsible. Not because we want it. But because Putin's government has escalated to this point. We've actually reached the point where it can't be ignored, or fobbed off as a 'temporary freeze' anymore.

No. We're back to containment. Namely, line the border with allies and nukes, and lock them down as much as possible, until the Russians figure out what their government has done and makes it stop.

 whembly wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I've come up with a great way to piss in Russia's soup.

Fast-track Ukraine's joining of NATO, and then send several thousand peacekeepers to help support them them in regaining control of their country. Pledge to enforce the treaty regarding Ukraine's borders that we all signed.

We don't have to send troops anywhere near the frontline, but if we supply enough money, tanks, and logistical support to the Ukrainian army, they'll roll over the informal 'little green men'. Then Russia gets to either declare war on a NATO country (which he won't do, he's an opportunist as opposed to suicidal) , or have a nice new NATO ally sitting on his border. See how he likes them apples. If he wants to play Cold War games, we can damn well play them too.

...that's gunna be a huge provacation... and honestly, pretty proportionate response imo.

But, let's be honest... that's a really dangerous escalation. Are you sure you want to advocate that?

Gotta admit.

This could totally be the best plot for the next novel with Tom Clancy's name slapped on the cover

I’m game. That sounds like the perfect response.

I just wish we weren’t dependent on Russian gas. Blocking that would also really stick it to them.

Ukraine will not be joining NATO anytime soon. No nation in conflict and without stable borders is getting into NATO, and Russia has made sure that Ukraine wont be free of conflict for some time, same with Georgia, for exactly such a reason.

Unless Ukraine just wants to unilaterally cede sovereignty of the Luhansk/Donetsk region and leave it up for grabs. That could work, amputate some to save the rest, but it is unlikely to happen and could be easily exploited by Russia to its own ends.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ukraine will not be joining NATO anytime soon. No nation in conflict and without stable borders is getting into NATO, and Russia has made sure that Ukraine wont be free of conflict for some time, same with Georgia, for exactly such a reason.

Why not? We've already held several joint exercises (see Fearless Guardian), and NATO has thrown a few million at them modernising communication and logistics. They've officially renounced
their 'non-aligned' status. In June last year, they passed legislation where they made joining NATO a 'priority'.

http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html

If the US, France and Britain all say 'you're in' tomorrow, they will be. Given what we could throw at them in terms of resources, even if the UK has to foot the entire bill, we could give them an army that would steamroller any anonymous 'little green men'. Leaving Russia a choice; either officially declare war on Ukraine (which they won't do if we have ten thousand soldiers parked in the country and they've joined NATO) or get the hell out. We'd probably have to leave them the Crimea, but that's no great loss.

If Putin wants to act like he's the Soviet Union, fine. We can goddam well treat him like we did it.

I am pleased that the UK has only made a limited political boycott of the World Cup. In 1980 the UK did not boycott the olympics, which was the right thing to do as it separated sport from politics. Instead the UK team refused to join the opening celebrations and no public figures were sent to attend.

England wont last long in the World Cup anyway, but that isn't the point.



Now the better option for NATO expansion is in the Baltic. The UK and US now have troops in the Baltic to deter utin from any land grabs there, and the Blatic states are all too aware of what is going on and will not sleepwalk into a situation like there was in the Crimea,

Ukraine is half full of Russians anyway and is more difficult, but most of them headed east which means that the population is being thinned of Russian influence and the national government is therefore getting more and more united in an anti-Russian stance. Ukraine joining NATO would be a good idea, and there is much that could be done to secure the country with support.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am pleased that the UK has only made a limited political boycott of the World Cup. In 1980 the UK did not boycott the olympics, which was the right thing to do as it separated sport from politics. Instead the UK team refused to join the opening celebrations and no public figures were sent to attend.

England wont last long in the World Cup anyway, but that isn't the point.



Now the better option for NATO expansion is in the Baltic. The UK and US now have troops in the Baltic to deter utin from any land grabs there, and the Blatic states are all too aware of what is going on and will not sleepwalk into a situation like there was in the Crimea,

Ukraine is half full of Russians anyway and is more difficult, but most of them headed east which means that the population is being thinned of Russian influence and the national government is therefore getting more and more united in an anti-Russian stance. Ukraine joining NATO would be a good idea, and there is much that could be done to secure the country with support.

I'm proud to say that the Netherlands is fully boycotting the European Championship, no need to get bogged down in the details about if we did or didn't qualify

What do you mean by the "better option for NATO expansion is in the Baltic"? The Baltic States are already in NATO.