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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West.

Errr....no? We can just lock Putin's government in from every angle, ignore the Russian government, and leave it to moulder until the Russian people decide to overthrow their totalitarian rulers. Or not. We're under no obligation to have anything to do with Russia if we don't want to. They don't make anything of value for the West we can't obtain elsewhere. They're no serious military threat anymore, and judging by declining birth rates and naff economic capability, won't be for a very long time.

Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war.

If Putin's Government decides that the only way it can influence the West is to invade it, Russia will cease to exist in relatively short order; be it by conventional or nuclear means. Which is why it won't happen. Putin has no desire to live in a bunker in an radioactive wasteland for the rest of his life, anymore than he wants to be unceremoniously dragged out of his nice office by a bunch of scornful GI's. And one of those two scenarios would definitely occur if Russia resorted to the military option.

This isn't the nineteenth century anymore, where authoritarian governments can craft any sort of substantial military, economic, or diplomatic muscle. Russia is a small dog yapping at the heels of the big powers once again, desperately trying to keep up and make everyone else look at it. Putin keeps up these little jabs at the West because they're all he can achieve. The problem for Putin is that once the West locks ranks and brings the Iron Curtain back down in reverse, his impotence will be revealed to his own population. And they might decide they'd prefer someone else in charge. Which is why this level of co-ordinated action is bad for him; it brings that scenario another step closer.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but
First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?

No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.

Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.

If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.

Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.

...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.

No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.

He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.

The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???

I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?

 whembly wrote:
Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.

...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.

No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.

He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.

The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???

I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?

Uhm, by that virtue countries like Pakistan and North Korea are superpowers. Being a superpower is more than just having nuclear weapons as basically half the world has the capability to produce those given incentive. By any other measurement Russia is no more of a superpower as Poland or Turkey is.

Actually Putin's ability to feth with the European markets has been severely reduced in recent years with the collapse of prices and intense EU efforts to diversify (plus Russia's economy would absolutely tank). If anything Russia ability to do so is declining steadily. Which is why Putin is kicking and screaming so loudly, its all he has left.

Of course Putin doesn't want war, that's not the point. The point is that these little jokes of his might actually lead to an escalation nobody wants. Also the appropriate response without giving Russia a casus belli? Russia just gave the UK a casus belli, not the other way around. If Russia decides to go to war over how the West responds that is fully on them.

 whembly wrote:
Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.

...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.

No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.

He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.

The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???

I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?

The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>. And this is something they won't do, because hardline stances against Bogeymen is what gets people to vote for you.

Maybe we can get through this with some back-channel diplomacy that allows the leaders to save some face like we've done in the past.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

And the Second World War. Let's think on that one for a moment.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.

...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.

No one wants a war and I truly believe Putin doesn't either.

He's just trying to see how far he can push and get away with it.

The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???

I think this coordinated diplomatic response is a strong signal... but is it enough?

The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>. And this is something they won't do, because hardline stances against Bogeymen is what gets people to vote for you.

Maybe we can get through this with some back-channel diplomacy that allows the leaders to save some face like we've done in the past.

I think this is true, but I also think states cannot back down to such open aggression. What is needed is a combined carrot and stick approach- a simultaneous response of resisting further aggression and expansion by targeting Russia in remaining, non-military ways (of which there are many, despite existing sanctions), yet also having a clear and well defined approach to regaining trust and removing sanctions, which is clearly communicated to Russia. The message should be to play international ball, or be locked down. Both aspects are necessary in the current situation.

If the Western community just backs down and goes "ok, you win, lets dial the sanctions back somewhat and look to work closer again", that basically says messily deploying a military grade weapon into a civilian population to loosely target a valueless ex-asset is an acceptable way to force the international communities' hand. Then everytime Russia gets sanctioned for doing something unpleasant, it is going to bomb/gas/poison etc. somebody in a country to try to reduce the pressure. I also think other states would learn from this that Western states can be forced to back down through attacks.

Therefore a two-fold hardline response with an escape route to regain trust is necessary. But the escape route should require meaningful concessions, at the very least admission of responsibility. Would Russia be likely to do this? Probably not, but then they are in the weaker economic position here.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>.

*tries to picture Trump in a hut on fowls legs. Fails.*

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

And the Second World War. Let's think on that one for a moment.

I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.

I probably shouldn't dive into this off-topic rabbit hole... But I suppose it is tangentially relevant.

 Haighus wrote:

I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.

...


I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.

...


I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.

I wouldn't say so- they erased a lot of the benefits for the army, but the most important parts of the British military in the early war were the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. We only introduced the Hurricane in 1937 and the Spitfire in 1938. The Messerschmitt 109 was introduced in 1937 too, but the Lufftwaffe definitely had a head start on air superiority and practice in the Spanish civil war.

Without a capable RAF and RN, Operation Sealion was actually a plausible strategy, rather than a suicide mission.

Also, what would've happened if we'd had a Dunkirk without rearming? No capability to respond in North Africa and protect the main source of oil for Britain in the West? Rearming allowed Dunkirk to be absorbed without crippling the British Army entirely.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I think appeasement prior to the Second World War did not cause it, but merely delayed it. It can be argued that the years of appeasement benefitted the British military much more than the German Military, and therefore improved the British response once hostilities began. Personally, I beleive the line should've been drawn at the Czech border, rather than Poland, but there you go.

...


I'll just point out that the loss of material that occurred at Dunkirk pretty much erased those benefits, but yeah, off topic.

Appeasement gave Germany the time it needed to arm, and Hitler the popular support he needed to avert a General's coup. The German army was barely in a state to invade Poland in 39', it would have crumbled at any serious armed resistance in Czechoslovakia.

I wonder if Putin is rearming, too?

Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The onus for the improvement of Russia-Western relations is solely on the West.

Errr....no? We can just lock Putin's government in from every angle, ignore the Russian government, and leave it to moulder until the Russian people decide to overthrow their totalitarian rulers. Or not. We're under no obligation to have anything to do with Russia if we don't want to. They don't make anything of value for the West we can't obtain elsewhere. They're no serious military threat anymore, and judging by declining birth rates and naff economic capability, won't be for a very long time.

No military threat? Russia has enough nukes to destroy pretty much the entire world, and if nukes are out of the question it still has enough conventional missiles to level every city in the world. It has a vast arsenal of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deploy them on massive scale. It has more tanks and armoured vehicles than pretty much all other countries in the world combined, the world's largest contingent of artillery including intercontinental missiles, the world's third largest air force (second-largest when including helicopters), one of the world's largest navies with a very large number of nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, highly developed and tested military doctrines, a vast pool of manpower to draw upon, a population willing to bring massive sacrifices when it feels threatened, huge stores of retired but serviceable Soviet surplus etc. etc. etc. Russia could overrun the Baltic States and Ukraine in a matter of hours, Eastern Europe in a matter of days. It may be only a shade of Soviet power, but Russia still maintains an incredibly powerful and well-organised military. And all of it on just a fraction of the budget of other countries (which is possible to the degree of integration of government and military-industrial complex in Russia), so a relatively small economic base is and has never been a problem. The Soviet Union's economy wasn't much better than modern Russia's, and yet they maintained an army that was much larger. Calling Russia 'not a military threat' is to be completely ignorant of the reality. Especially since most European countries no longer have real militaries. Please don't underestimate them. We are at a critical moment in history, and underestimating Russia is likely to lead to a very deadly mistake.

Ketara wrote:

Soon only the military option will remain to Russia. The West is on the path to war.

If Putin's Government decides that the only way it can influence the West is to invade it, Russia will cease to exist in relatively short order; be it by conventional or nuclear means. Which is why it won't happen. Putin has no desire to live in a bunker in an radioactive wasteland for the rest of his life, anymore than he wants to be unceremoniously dragged out of his nice office by a bunch of scornful GI's. And one of those two scenarios would definitely occur if Russia resorted to the military option.

Scenario one won't occur because no one in the US or Europe wants their country to be turned into a lifeless nuclear wasteland. Any (strategic) nuclear attack on Russia would mean the total annihilation of the attacking country. Nobody wants that, therefore nobody will attack Russia with nuclear weapons, and Russia will in turn not attack anyone with (strategic) nuclear weapons. A third world war will probably still be fought with conventional weapons and maybe the occasional tactical nuke, simply because nobody wants to risk total annihilation. Scenario two won't occur either. The US won't attack or invade Russia directly, and if it does, the invading soldiers will simply meet the same end the millions of other would-be invaders of Russia have met throughout history. Defeating Russia through conventional means is not really do-able. Hitler could not do it, and he had an army many times stronger than the entirety of contemporary NATO put together. The US would need ten times the military it currently has to even attempt such an attack.
In war, Russia will simply take what it wants by force and there will be nothing the West can do about it. The Baltic States and Ukraine will fall very quickly. And once they fall it will be prohibitively difficult and costly for the West to try take them back. It will be a fait accompli.
There is two ways for the West to prevent that. The first way is to rebuild their militaries back to the size they were in the 1980's. This won't happen because Western economies can't handle it. The second way is to simply be nice to Russia and stop making them feel threatened. With Russia no longer being under threat, the army and military-industrial complex would lose power, which would open paths to alternative ways of development. Putin would need to focus on improving the economy to stay in power, because he would no longer be able to use external threats, nationalism and 'though measures' to boost his popularity.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but
First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?

No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.

Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.

If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.

You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/
The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
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.

It has been laid out to you plainly and repeatedly that that is total bs. There has been multiple efforts to reset relations with Russia. Normal relations is desired by the West.

But the West also desires the international community follows international law, respects sovereignty and human rights. So when Russia invades other countries, relations and trade with Russia will be reduced at a bare minimum.

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.

Yeah, and here's the fundamental problem I explained to you earlier. You think Russia is a big dog that gets to dictate what security arrangements major powers will have. But Russia is a little dog that is getting smaller. When you try and pick fights several weight divisions above your class, you're gonna have a bad time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um... like it or not Russia is a superpower by virtue of their nuclear arsenal.

That's really not how it works. Sure, hypothetically Putin could blow up a large chunk of the planet, but so could Pakistan or Israel. It doesn't make you a world power. All nukes mean is in absolute terms you won't be invaded, but Russia is basically invasion proof anyway, with the cost of occupation and the scale of Russia no-one is going to bother with that.

Actual, practical force is something very different. That's is a combination of economic might, and the ability to project conventional military force. And on those counts Russia is a very minor player. Just think of it this way - after the Ukraine invasion the US led a sanctions effort against Russia, and RUssia responded in kind. The Russian stock market halved within days and kept falling, it eventually hit a low where the entire value of every single company on the exchange was lower than the value of Apple. In contrast, the Russian sanctions on the US had no impact at all. Not just no impact on the total market, it was impossible to find a single company that had a price drop due to Russian sanctions.

...and also, Russia can truly feth with the European markets by manipulating the Oil/Natural Gas exports.

Europe is a heavy user of Russian energy. But Europe has plenty of alternatives, the market isn't short of sellers, especially not with the explosion of natural gas supply. In contrast, Russia has no alternative to energy supply. If it isn't exporting that, then it isn't exporting anything. Russia cash stops overnight, and the country falls over.

The challenge now, with a chemical attack on UK's soil... what's the appropriate response without giving Russia casus belli for war???

It isn't about giving Russia cause, even with cause Russia doesn't want war. The challenge is in finding responses that are appropriate, and just as importantly sustainable. We need levers against Russia that won't be let up until Russia improves its behaviour. A major part of forcing that change is giving Russia a credible statement that these penalties will be maintained until Russia normalizes.

This is the problem with booting the spies. It isn't something that will continue. Other embassy staff with intelligence connections will come in, countries won't keep booting these guys as soon as their real roles are uncovered.

But sanctions cost the West little, and Russia a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The ultimate problem is that both sides have to swallow their pride/ego and actually back down a bit. Western leaders have to stop painting Russia as the Bogeyman, and Russian leaders have to stop painting the West as <insert Russian word for Bogeyman here>.

What, in the wake of the Georgian invasion the West basically gave Russia a mulligan. Then Putin doubled up with Ukraine, and the response was targeted sanctions. There's no way the West could do any less without giving up on the idea of international law entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No military threat? Russia has enough nukes to destroy pretty much the entire world, and if nukes are out of the question it still has enough conventional missiles to level every city in the world.

No, this isn't how it works. The ability to blow up the world isn't power, it's just a suicide pact. Russia isn't going to respond to increased sanctions by eradicating the human race.

Nukes mean a country is safe from invasion. It means nothing in terms of power projection.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It has a vast arsenal of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction,

I'd like to point out that Russia having a vast arsenal of chemical weapons would be in direct violation of its membership and international treaty with the OPCW. Its highly unlikely Russia has stockpiled so much without international protest.

I thought Russia didn’t have any chemical weapons, hence could not have committed this murder?!?!?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spoiler:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but
First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?

No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.

Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.

If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.

You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/
The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?

I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.

Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".

I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry
Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.

Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.

The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive. The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.

I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice
In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.

Australia now has joined the campaign of dismissing Russian diplomats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43550938

No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.

Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?

Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.

Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?

It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.

Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.

Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?

Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.

Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?

It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.

Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.

You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?

The same reason Canada, the United States, and other non-Euro powers are. A show of solidarity that these nations are firmly against what Russia did.

I've just read that New Zealand would have gotten in on the act had they had anybody worthwhile to expel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/27/new-zealand-expel-russian-spies-cant-find-any

New Zealand? New Zealand?

Jesus and all his lord saints preserve us!!!

I think Western Civilization and Western Democracies should call it a day, because if this is the calibre of politicians we're producing, we deserve to have the Goths, the Vandals, Atilla and the Barbarians, overrun us and put an end to this mockery of governance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
The same reason Canada, the United States, and other non-Euro powers are. A show of solidarity that these nations are firmly against what Russia did.

Canada and the USA makes sense in a way, seeing as they're in the same neighbourhood as Russia and fellow NATO members, but Australia?

What would you propose the West do then?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.

Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?

Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.

Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?

It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.

Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.

You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?

Issuing a statement of condemnation is one thing, but expelling diplomats? Pointless. Gesture politics at its worst.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
What would you propose the West do then?

Do what it promised to do back in the 1990s when it had a gentlemen's agreement not to roll NATO up to the Russian border and keep the hell out of Ukraine.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
The same reason Canada, the United States, and other non-Euro powers are. A show of solidarity that these nations are firmly against what Russia did.

Canada and the USA makes sense in a way, seeing as they're in the same neighbourhood as Russia and fellow NATO members, but Australia?

Australia is part of the West and is heavily invested in its US ally. Its only natural that Australia would go along with this out of American interest. Its what allies do, you back each other up even if you don't really have anything on the line. Plus its effect on international law and all that. Australia has a very large regional neighbour in the form of China that is inherently interested in what Russia and by extension itself might get away with. Not doing anything about Russia today might mean China might be doing it in its 'backyard' tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence to Australian dakka members, but Australia's response to this has to be one of the most ridiculous and crackpot things I've heard this year.

Does nobody have a map of the world in Australia?

Australia doesn't border with Russia, probably doesn't do any trade with them, is not and has never been a member of NATO, and is obviously not in the EU. And to the best of my knowledge, I can't think of any major disputes the Australians have had with Russia over anything.

Where is the geopolitical advanatge to Australia from this?

It's like Switzerland declaring war on North Korea.

Utterly, utterrly bizaare. Pointless.

You sort of answered your own question. Australia has almost no relationship to speak of with Russia, but it does with the US and UK/EU. So why not join your allies and score some diplomatic brownie points for no downside?

Issuing a statement of condemnation is one thing, but expelling diplomats? Pointless. Gesture politics at its worst.

Its an immediate tool available to countries. Other measures take time to prepare. Everybody knows its kicking out enemy intel officers. It just shows you're serious.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
What would you propose the West do then?

Do what it promised to do back in the 1990s when it had a gentlemen's agreement not to roll NATO up to the Russian border and keep the hell out of Ukraine.

Like we have gentleman's agreements (called international law) about not illegally invading and annexing parts of other countries or using chemical weapons on civilians in foreign countries? Yes, certainly the next gentleman's agreement is going to prevent all that. Russia had a gentleman's agreement with Ukraine about its borders, you should ask Ukraine how that went

So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.

Yes principles are just the thing for dealing with gangsters... cue pointless circular argument ad nausium.

tneva82 wrote:
So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.

They have evidence. It was sent to UK allies and the OPCW for testing. It could be years before any evidence becomes public as it deals with sensitive information. The idea that all these countries are going to accuse and condemn Russia cause the UK told them so is a bit weak.

Also its hilarious that accusing Russia with evidence is forgetting your principles. How about the principle of not letting other countries murder civilians in your country with chemical weapons

tneva82 wrote:
So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.

No public evidence. I very much doubt all of these countries would be taking this action only for OPCW to say "actually we have done tests and it looks like it wasn't Russia". We have been over it time and again in this thread.

What principles are you referring too? I'm not sure what principles they are forgetting.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spoiler:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

You couldn't have made that sound more sarcastic if you tried. Doing the "right thing" is rewarding Russia for bad behaviour, I'm sorry but
First of all, Putin isn't going to be around forever no, but its almost certainly going to be a successor who Putin handpicks. We both know that there are no such thing as real elections. The fact of the matter is relations aren't healthy exactly because of Russia. Putin has been given chance after chance and he keeps taking the wrong decision to sour relations again. You know why? Because Putin cares only about Putin. Do why should the West bother trying to engage in a one sided affair of keeping relations afloat when the other side is actively trying to find the boundary of what permanently torpedoes those relations?

No, the onus is clearly on Putin. Over the last decade he has been given two chances to clean up his act and repair relations with the West, Obama's reset and fighting IS. Russia is living in a past that no longer exists. Instead of cuddling them and basically throwing other nations under the bus to give them fuzzy feelings about how strong Russia still is, its time to wake them up from their daydream.

Russia used nerve gas on the soil of a foreign nation. In what can only be called the mildest of responses so far the West has ejected diplomats in a counter to the deployment of actual chemical weapons by the Russian government in a Western city. Now the Russian government could man up and take this flak, but instead it has made the choice to throw an even larger tantrum, like a spoiled child does. Because its somehow unthinkable that the state who 10 years ago used polonium in the UK to murder a Russian traitor uses another extremely lethal weapon to kill a Russian traitor in the UK again. In the face of this constant denial the Russian state media have all but confirmed Russian involvement.

If the West is on a path to war it is one that Russia is forcing it on. Trying to take away Russia's agency is nothing more than infantilizing a country for the choices it so clearly made. Saying the West has different standards just doesn't fly. Yes the West has different standards, so maybe don't try to apply Russian standards in murdering civilians in the West amd expect to get away with it. If Russia drops a nuke on London tomorrow we don't shrug our shoulders and go "oh those silly Russians". The moment Putin stops being antagonistic to the West is the moment the West can actually talk on equal terms. You're literally advocating for a policy of appeasment. We tried that and it gave us the conflict in Ukraine and the bloody mess in Syria.

Stop giving into Russia's delusions of being a superpower. Stop giving in to Russia's delusions of spheres of influence. The more you let Putin get away with behaviour like this the more you're encouraging it. If Putin goes on like this one day he will make a mistake there is no coming back from, its time to firmly draw the line before that happens.

You don't understand Russia. Russia is an empire. It always has been, it always will be. Empires have spheres of influence. If those spheres get threatened, things get violent. That is the simple reality. You can not like that reality, but you can not change it. The West can continue to threaten Russia as it does now, and it will face inevitable military retaliation. Russia has no delusions of being a superpower, it is a superpower. Regardless of who ultimately wins that confrontation, it would likely be a confrontation that leaves millions dead and Europe in ruins. The alternative is instead to treat Russia with the respect it deserves and to accept it as a member of the European community rather than as an enemy. Russia would no longer need to resort to violence in order to protect itself and its interests. That is appeasement, yes. But the only alternative to appeasement is confrontation. Appeasement sometimes leads to bad results. Confrontation always leads to far worse results.
Also, Obama's "reset". Seriously? That was even more of a joke than his "red line". There was no fundamental change in US policy towards Russia. Both sides made nice gestures, it was a good beginning. But it was not enough, and then no more efforts happened from both sides, no fundamental changes happened and it all stayed very hostile. It certainly wasn't Russia's fault that the reset went wrong. Read this for a good analysis: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/09/the-russian-reset-that-never-was-putin-obama-medvedev-libya-mikhail-zygar-all-the-kremlin-men/
The West has been given chance and chance and chance again to improve relations. It never even tried. Russia did. Russia never tried to torpedo the relation. All Russian leaders since independence from the USSR have been only interested in good relations with the West. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev. They all want to have good relations with the West. Russia really wants good relations. Just look at their response to Trump being elected (when it still seemed Trump might have a positive attitude towards Russia.) Any antagonistic action towards the West was only ever in response to a hostile action by the US or an other Western nation. That is the big difference and why the onus for improving relations is on the West. The US and its allies are the only ones who can do anything to improve it. Russia has a very hostile stance towards the West, that is true. But this hostile stance is only a recent development, caused by the actions and hostility of the West. All the West needs to do is to change its stance towards Russia, and Russia's stance towards the West will become positive again. And the best thing to show that the West is really being serious this time about having good relations (and not just talking treacherous sweet-sounding nonsense like usual) would be to dissolve NATO. If the West is no threat to Russia, it does not need a military alliance to threaten Russia with. It would restore the US' long-lost credibility in the eyes of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.
And that is really what it, this whole thing, is all about. We can talk and talk and argue about every little thing, but ultimately there is a choice to be made between confrontation and appeasement. The first leads to war, the second to peace. Do you want war or peace?

I understand history, and in history no empire lasts forever. France, Germany, the UK and now Russia are no longer capable of sustaining empire. Sadly Russia isn't able to face that reality to its own detriment. These games of make believe do nothing to help improve the lives of ordinary Russians. Reality is that the Soviets had a sphere of influence, but the reality is that Russia no longer has the strength to project one beyond weak states on its border. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union of the 1950's-70's. That isn't anything against Russia, it happens to everyone and it might eventually happen to the US too. The idea that Russia is still a superpower is not based on facts. Russia doesn't have the raw data to back up its status as superpower. Now it still has them to be a regional power, but the days that Russia could project itself around the world are long gone.

If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".

Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation.
The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I read the foreign policy piece, I don't think it supports the conclusion you think it does, besides the writing about chemistry
Blaming Libya and the Magnitsky act for the failure of the reset is pretty silly. A reset doesn't mean full on ignoring what goes on in the world to please Russia.

A reset that does not reset anything is not a reset.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Wait, how has Russia not tried to torpedo relations? Litvinenko, Ukraine and now Skripal. All of those were incredibly damaging to relations for absolutely no gain. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West he just means that the West should ignore what he does in the name of preserving any relationship the West has with Russia. Its not workeable to try and say you want better relations with one hand while giving the finger with the other.

They were damaging to relations, yes. But they were reactions to damaging actions by the West, done long after Russia lost its faith in the West. When Putin says he wants good relations with the West, he means what I explained above. A relation between equals. Western politicians meanwhile continue to talk about wanting good relations but keep performing hostile actions. Hollow words, hollow souls. Russia has made real sacrifices to allow for good relations with the West, just a comparison between a map of 1977 and 2017 should show that. Now it is the turn of the West to make sacrifices. But the West does not want to make sacrifices, it wants only to dominate.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The idea that Russia has no agency and all its actions are dictated by the West is just odd. Russia still decides what response it takes even if it was true that its actions are only responsive.

When someone punches you in the face, you punch him back. When someone shows you disrespect, you show him disrespect. When someone treats you kindly, you treat him with kindness in return. This does not mean you do not have agency.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is the West can't unilaterally trust Russia to dissolve NATO, why? Because up to a few weeks ago the West also thought it could trust Russia not to deploy a chemical weapon against civilians on the streets of the UK. The only reason Putin wants NATO gone is that it would restore Russia's power position in Eastern Europe. NATO was never going to invade Russia, you know it, I know it and Putin knows it.

Russia has been invaded unexpectedly too often to take risks like that. When there is massive military alliance on your border, and their words and actions are hostile, do you trust them or do you arm yourself? NATO is a tool for Western domination. As long as NATO exists, Russia will always be threatened, and an equal relation will never be possible.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the choice for war and peace is the superior choice
In all seriousness, there is a path between appeasement and war. It is not even a delicate path. Putin would never willingly go to war with the West and neither does the West with Russia. As long as the line is clear on what you let Putin get away with, there is no need for war. Sharpen sanctions if Putin acts out again, use political and economic power. But never ever go for appeasement and reward bad actors, or we're going to have a massive international problem on our hands with countries like China and North Korea.

That path does exist, it is the path of the Cold War. But it is a delicate path. Confrontation leads to tension, which leads to more confrontation. Too much tension and confrontation leads to war. Eventually someone has to back down and appease, or war is inevitable. The question is, will our leaders back down in time? The Cold War is on again, but I have less trust in the politicians of the present than in those of the past.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
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.

It has been laid out to you plainly and repeatedly that that is total bs. There has been multiple efforts to reset relations with Russia. Normal relations is desired by the West.

As it has been for you. There has never been any effort made by the US or any other Western country. Only empty talk. The West does not desire normal relations, that is clear from their actions. The West only desires a subservient Russia that kowtows to the US like the rest of world.

 sebster wrote:
But the West also desires the international community follows international law, respects sovereignty and human rights. So when Russia invades other countries, relations and trade with Russia will be reduced at a bare minimum.

Sure, we want good relations with you, but only if you do exactly what I want you to do. Yes, Russia sometimes invades other countries. So do Western nations. But of course, only those Western nations are allowed to invade other people. The Western imperialism evident in this statement is sickening.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Yeah, and here's the fundamental problem I explained to you earlier. You think Russia is a big dog that gets to dictate what security arrangements major powers will have. But Russia is a little dog that is getting smaller. When you try and pick fights several weight divisions above your class, you're gonna have a bad time.

"Ha, little Russia! You are too small so you have to do exactly what Uncle Sam says, or else..."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So. Still no evidence, just lots of accusations and from countries who benefits more from having russia blamed than non-russia. Guess west has forgotten their principles.

No public evidence. I very much doubt all of these countries would be taking this action only for OPCW to say "actually we have done tests and it looks like it wasn't Russia". We have been over it time and again in this thread.

What principles are you referring too? I'm not sure what principles they are forgetting.

I have evidence you are a Russian spy. No, you can't see it, it is secret.
No public evidence is the same as no evidence. The West has indeed forgotten its principles. If you are not sure what principle is being forgotten, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence