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.

 Ghool wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.

Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.

I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.

You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.

Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.

I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.

You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.

I think that all media, not just Western media is there to manipulate people's emotions and opinions.
And yes it's all used as propaganda in all countries and all media outlets.

Do you honestly think that mass media is not meant to prey on your emotions to get you to buy the next big thing, belive that some group is worse than another?
Like I said, ALL media is meant to manipulate how you feel for one reason or another.
It ALL makes you tow the political line that it presents. Infowars and other independent media included.
Here's a bit of food for thought relating to the subject:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

If you honestly believe that any media presents 100% unbiased truth that isn't meant to manipulate you in some way, we're just going to be going around in circles.

 Ghool wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.

Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.

I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.

You think being skeptical is the same as believing the mass media in the West is deliberatly "manipulating" you to "tow the political line"? Your words, not mine. Which would make Western media no better than Russian or Chinese state media.

I think that all media, not just Western media is there to manipulate people's emotions and opinions.
And yes it's all used as propaganda in all countries and all media outlets.

Do you honestly think that mass media is not meant to prey on your emotions to get you to buy the next big thing, belive that some group is worse than another?
Like I said, ALL media is meant to manipulate how you feel for one reason or another.
It ALL makes you tow the political line that it presents. Infowars and other independent media included.
Here's a bit of food for thought relating to the subject:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

If you honestly believe that any media presents 100% unbiased truth that isn't meant to manipulate you in some way, we're just going to be going around in circles.

You're moving goalposts. First the media tries to manipulate us into towing the government line of viewing Putin as a threat to fund the military industrial complex, now you quickly change it to the political line of whatever media outlet might be discussed.

I never said any media represented a 100% objective reporting. I was countering the ridiculous notion that all Western media is towing the political line on Putin to fund the military industrial complex and manipulating everyone on it. From then onwards you tried to get out from under what you said by making up the excuse you just meant you had to be "skeptical", to now entirely trying to change what you said at first.

Guys, guys. It's "toeing" the line. As in, you stand where you're told in line with everyone else. Not that you pick up and haul a line around (tow the line). Carry on.

 feeder wrote:
Guys, guys. It's "toeing" the line. As in, you stand where you're told in line with everyone else. Not that you pick up and haul a line around (tow the line). Carry on.

You know, I never thought about the english saying, I just copied it. You learn something every day

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.

I seem to recall that once upon a time there was a wildly popular Russian leader who pushed the world a bit too far and had a terrible hunting accident. Might I suggest Candidates Tokarev and Nagant as viable solutions to some of Russia's problems?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Define statesman though?

"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman

Let us all hope Putin becomes a modern Statesman.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Define statesman though?

"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman

Let us all hope Putin becomes a modern Statesman.

That's pretty good

There’s a big difference between standard media political bias, which is always present to some degree, and media being a tool to spread state propaganda to manipulate the public. Saying ‘oh yeah, all media has some bias’ is not an argument for some of what is being claimed here.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.

I seem to recall that once upon a time there was a wildly popular Russian leader who pushed the world a bit too far and had a terrible hunting accident. Might I suggest Candidates Tokarev and Nagant as viable solutions to some of Russia's problems?

I fail to see what you are getting at.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Define statesman though?

"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman

Let us all hope Putin becomes a modern Statesman.

I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fail to see what you are getting at.

Ah, sorry, I keep forgetting you had your sense of humor shot off while vacationing in the Ukraine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?

I'll take Putin, please.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

Well, we do have a politician in Russia who has openly proposed murdering all people in the Baltic states by poisoning them with radioactive waste. He leads the ironically named the Liberal Democratic Party, the third-most popular party in Russia after United Russia and the good ol' Communist Party.

“What will remain of the Baltics? Nothing will remain! In Poland, the Baltics, they are doomed. They’ll be wiped out!”

He is a rabid Russian supremacist, warmonger, racist, antisemite, genocidal maniac and hater of migratory birds. I am not joking when I say this guy is the Russian Hitler.
Next to Zhirinovsky, Putin is the best leader and nicest guy ever. And the worst thing about Zhirinovsky? People actually support him... Luckily, not enough for him to be likely elected leader of Russia, but still a scarily large portion of the Russian population.

Just to show how crazy he his, watch him turn a question on Georgian wine imports into a threat to destroy the entire world here:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire.

This, by the way, is at the very core of the problem. Russia still wants to be a major player on the world stage, and control an empire. But it's economic heft is only slightly ahead of Spain and going in the wrong direction.

Because Russia is a small dog trying to fight out of its class, it's turned to a bunch of cheap but damaging one-sided ops. Hackings, spy murders etc. Discount malevolence.

Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.

To the extent that Russia is willing to act as a decent member of the international community, the West should maintain ordinary relations. But it is beyond stupid to think you achieve anything by just pretending Russia is decent, in the hopes that they will become so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
"A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." - Harry Truman

Let us all hope Putin becomes a modern Statesman.

That's marvelous. Stealing that for sure.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?

I'll take Putin, please.

Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?

21 people were injured in some way by that nerve agent attack.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/977945867440345089

#Russia's state TV tries to deflect blame & send a warning to runaway oligarchs & spies: host says #Berezovsky was shunned by the English society & claims "It's acceptable in the UK for the English gentlemen to kill/poison those they consider to be beneath them" (i.e. #Skripal)."

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/977945867440345089

#Russia's state TV tries to deflect blame & send a warning to runaway oligarchs & spies: host says #Berezovsky was shunned by the English society & claims "It's acceptable in the UK for the English gentlemen to kill/poison those they consider to be beneath them" (i.e. #Skripal)."

Jeez, if Skripal was already dead I could imagine that Russian state media would be trying its hardest not to dance on his grave on live TV.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?

I'll take Putin, please.

Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?

I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.

How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?

How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.

And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.

Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?

I'll take Putin, please.

Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?

I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.

How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?

How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.

And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.

Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.

I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one

No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.

Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.

Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?

You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....

The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.

How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?

How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.

And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.

Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.

I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one

No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.

Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.

Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?

You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....

The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.

Do you genuinely not understand the point he is trying to make, or are you just being obnoxious? Acknowledging that Russia's leader could be much worse is not apologetic behaviour, it is pragmatism. Relations need to improve, or else the next leader of Russia is going to be worse.

Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not hope too much. Do not forget that Putin is relatively moderate. His successor could easily be far more radical.

Whilst I do agree in general that Putin is not the worst that Russia has to offer...if someone who thinks its a good idea to use radioactive materials and nerve agents as tools of assassination is your idea of "relatively moderate"...I dread to imagine how much worse your radical would be.

How about someone who drops nerve gas on more than one spy and his daughter?
How about someone who dusts of those nuclear warheads and threatens someone with them?
About about someone that actually sends flag carrying Russian troops into the Ukrarain?

I'll take Putin, please.

Uhm... Putin already checks 3 out of those 3 boxes. A police officer was also pretty badly affected by that nerve gas attack. Putin did threaten with his nuclear weapons in the media during the Ukraine crisis and recently to brag about his new delivery system. As for flag carrying Russian troops, did you see what happened in Crimea?

I'm sorry. Pardon me for not being blindly explicit.

How about someone who rather than trolling England by murdering and injuring a handful of people and pretending they didn't do it when we think they did, someone who actually unloads nerve gas indiscriminately in busy London shopping centers, and _doesn't_ make it obvious they probably didn't do it?

How about a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we actually think the world is in geninue danger of ending? Because last I checked, we're no where near that kind of crap like that.

And yes, I did see what happened in Crimea. If all modern millitary conflicts were resolved like that, I'd be eternally greatful. I'd rather a repetition of the Ansluss of Austria, than German troops moving into Poland.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make out Putin is worse than he is, or if you're geninuely oblivious to how much, much, much worse he could be, as one of the posters above eloquently provided examples for.

Is he great for us? No. Is he dangerous? Hell yes. Is he going to start world war three and start killing hundreds of British citizens, and starting world war 3? No.

I didn't know the bar was set so low that not even the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the Kim family would cross it. Thank god Putin manages to inch over that one

No world leader ever has used chemical weapons on the civilian population of a foreign country on such a scale. Its a bar that doesn't exist, but that Putin just set a new limit for.

Last I checked the Cuban Missile Crisis was at the height of the Cold War. At the same time Putin is dillegently working on creating a new one with the deployment of chemical weapons and invading neigbours. If the West had taken a more active stand against Putin in Ukraine it might have gotten just as tense. Kruschev was nowhere near as risky as Putin is. Yet Putin has waved his nuclear weapons around multiple times to scare of the West. Putin might just be the man who is going to lead us to the next Cuban Missile Crisis at this rate.

Your bar is incredibly low, you asked for flag waving Russian troops invading countries. Now you move the goalpost to open warfare? The bar is now "thank god Putin is Hitler pre 39 and not post 39"? Really?

You basically set the bar so incredibly low for Putin that its hard to imagine anyone worse, because such a politician hasn't even existed yet and even the Kim family isn't that insane....

The idea that I'm 'oblivious' because Russia isn't ruled by satan himself is just bonkers. Just because it can be worse doesn't magically make Putin the good guy. All this apologetic behaviour because it could be worse is just vile.

While the poster above me has already answered your points very simply, I'd like to note that thank god no-one has used Chemical Weapons before -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Use_in_conflicts_after_World_War_II


Not sure how I've outlined Putin as a 'Good Guy.' He simply could be a worse guy, very easily, and while it doesn't affect me much if the guy that runs the local butchers is as bad as Hitler, if someone worse than Putin took over Russia's stockpile of nerve agents, nuclear weapons, and armed forces, it would be exceptionally bad for all of us, and it is a very real and geninue possibility such a thing may one day happen.

You're moving goalposts. I never said chemical weapons were never used. I said chemical weapons were never used against civilians of a foreign country like this. You're listing chemical weapons used in conflicts and mostly on other soldiers or on a country's own citizens. You don't see how Russia using nerve gas on UK soil in peacetime against civilians is entirely different from your wikipedia list?

I didn't mean to imply you said Putin was a good guy, apologies if it reads like that. The point was that because there could possibly be a worse option we shouldn't settle for Putin. At every moment in history there could have been a worse option, that doesn't mean we shpuld prefer the current bad one to the possibility it might be worse. Even if a worse option takes over we just fully switch over to Cold War policy. The Kims are about as bad as it gets, and the West has isolated them quite effectively. The problem in letting Putin get away with these things is that it makes a worse future only more likely, because the worse option can just see what Putin got away with and could just turn it up a notch to see what happens. Setting clear lines is important because if you don't it will slowly get worse as they test your response. Putin's actions and the meek response of the West are what is emboldening the worst this world has to offer, not the West taking a tougher stance.

The USA and 14 EU nations have coordinated expulsions of over 100 Russian diplomats. Canada and the Ukraine have also joined in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43545565

Ukraine still has Russian diplomats? 0.o

...Or did they hop into Crimea, steal a few then say "here, you can have those diplomats you sent to our country back"?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA and 14 EU nations have coordinated expulsions of over 100 Russian diplomats. Canada and the Ukraine have also joined in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43545565

...thats...quite a statement.

Apparently Tusk hinted that further co-ordinated retaliation could be in the works.

As I said before, there's more a tinge of self-interest in this united front. If the Russians feel they can do it here, they likely feel they can do it anywhere. This is pre-emptive action to send a signal that it's a step too far, and that Putin needs to stick to more traditional, less collateral, assassination methods. I have no doubt Russia will now close a US consulate, but will they risk going tit for tat with all of Europe too? We shall see...

Well Putin just won his elections and its a long 6 years to the next one. Putin can afford to back down a little for economic reasons. If he will is a good question, but its hard to see what Putin has to gain from driving this up further right now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA and 14 EU nations have coordinated expulsions of over 100 Russian diplomats. Canada and the Ukraine have also joined in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43545565

And Russia will probably respond in kind. Moscow will have so much more extra parking space now

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Having standards is considered obnoxious now? The point is that someone could be worse is an insane argument. Yeah someone could be worse than Assad for example, however Assad is the one in power and being incredibly bloody. What iffing that there could be someone worse is missing the issues with Putin at hand by a mile. That we should be happy it isn't someone worse is a terrible defense, as Putin is the guy the West has to deal with, not some hypothetical worst case scenario. It is fully apologetic behaviour because you're excusing his actions by saying "well better Putin than the hypothetically worse guy." The onus for the improvement of the Russia-Western relationship is on Putin behaving better, not on letting Putin get away with all this because it could be worse. That isn't pragmatic in the slightest, all you're doing is encouraging countries to continue to push the line of what is acceptable.

Having standards is very obnoxious when said standards prevent you from doing what is right. The West has to deal with Putin now, but Putin won't be around forever. Russia is more than just Putin, and the West needs to look beyond that guy. Because that hypothetically worse guy is not as hypothetical as you think. Bad relations lead to antagonism, antagonism leads to threat, threat leads to the election of strong, authoritarian and anti-Western leaders in Russia. Basically, the worse relations are, the worse Russia's leader will be for the West. Sometimes you need to be grateful for what you have, rather than being sour about what you would want to have. The last thing is not good for healthy relations.
The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West. It was the West that disrespected Russia and pushed it into a corner. Russia feels threatened, which means that is going to lash out to defend itself and reclaim the power and respect that it lost. It is the West that is forcing Russia's hand. Because believe me, there is no one in Russia who wants to have bad relations with the West. Everyone is hoping relations improve. Russia has tried enough to improve relations. It did not work, every attempt at approach and cooperation is struck down by the West, as ever. Now they are even sending away Russian diplomats, limiting diplomatic options even further. Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war. It needs to realise that, and it needs to step off it. In that, "standards" are nothing but an obstruction that will lead to war. The West and Russia have different standards. Only by being pragmatic about that will peace be preserved. The West needs to put some effort in improving relations with Russia, stop the threat that Russia is feeling. Acknowledging Putin is not so bad after all is the first step in that. Stop behaving antagonistically towards Putin. Stop trying to meddle in and undermine everything Russia does. Stop saying nasty things about Russia. Lift sanctions. Respect Russia and its sphere of influence. Stop pretending Russia is planning to invade the Baltics or Poland. And most importantly: Dissolve NATO. Do that, and Europe will know peace. Don't do that, and you will be wishing you still had Putin a few decades from now.