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.

tneva82 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was an ultimatum?

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

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 whembly wrote:
There was an ultimatum?

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

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

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

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

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

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

tneva82 wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 avantgarde wrote:

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

True. It is very understandable. But not right.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Disciple of Fate wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 avantgarde wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tl;dr I absolve Russia of all agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 whembly wrote:

 War Drone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kick out RU Embassy personnel for awhile?

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

 sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

Could you define ''cathedral city''?

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

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

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

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

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

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