War with Russia
Discussion
Jim Mattis, in Ukraine, Says U.S. Is Thinking of Sending Weapons
Meanwhile it seems being a Russian diplomat isn't great for your health and well being.
Russia's ambassador to Sudan has been found dead in the swimming pool of his home. Mirgayas Shirinskiy, 62, died from an acute heart attack, the Russian foreign ministry said.
Meanwhile it seems being a Russian diplomat isn't great for your health and well being.
Russia's ambassador to Sudan has been found dead in the swimming pool of his home. Mirgayas Shirinskiy, 62, died from an acute heart attack, the Russian foreign ministry said.
article said:
Six months ago, Russia's ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin died after collapsing in his office in New York.
Mr Churkin, 64, reportedly became unwell and was taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital where he died on 20 February.
In January Alexander Kadakin, Russia's ambassador to India, died aged 68 from heart failure.
And in December, Russia's ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov was shot dead at an art exhibit in Ankara by a police officer.
Mr Churkin, 64, reportedly became unwell and was taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital where he died on 20 February.
In January Alexander Kadakin, Russia's ambassador to India, died aged 68 from heart failure.
And in December, Russia's ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov was shot dead at an art exhibit in Ankara by a police officer.
More evidence that it is Putin creeping westward, not NATO advancing eastward.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-appears-to-be...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-appears-to-be...
Cobnapint said:
More evidence that it is Putin creeping westward, not NATO advancing eastward.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-appears-to-be...
Article seems a bit light on research and analysis, and detail in respect of the actual position of the border. To be fair, reading it again, it doesn't even claim to be authoritative - a liberal scattering of "appears to . . " and a nod to Yahoo news as the entire source.http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-appears-to-be...
Gives the game away a bit with the throwaway line "Moscow's main goal in such seizures is to stymie Georgia's efforts to join the EU and NATO". OK, that's from the Georgian embassy, but it again raises the question in my mind as to why the fk did NATO expand Eastwards at all, and accept any members that were once part of the Soviet Union and are on the borders of the Russian Federation? If someone could pretend I'm an idiot and explain to me - as to a child - how that was and is in the interests on the existing members?
Apart from raising the risk of NATO being drawn into a major armed conflict by including potential flashpoints under 'our' umbrella, it actually makes the whole mutual defence alliance less credible. It was pretty certain that we would have gone to war to defend, say, Belgium or Denmark. But Estonia, really, when push comes to shove? Which makes the undertaking to Belgium, Denmark, etc, less credible, as it's the same pledge.
I'd also argue that it's even unfair to, say, Estonia (nothing personal guys, other democracies are available), by encouraging a false reality that there is any sensible alternative to choosing a path of co-existence with a much larger neighbour.
(And the article is equally skewed in what it doesn't acknowledge . . . that our commitment to the principle of self determination of peoples seems to lock itself in the loo when those peoples' first language is Russian).
skyrover said:
Because Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia etc didn't fancy ending up like Georgia?
Are they allowed to speak for themselves?
Indeed so - they might, quite legitimately (although I would argue erroneously) have believed that their interests were best served by joining NATO.Are they allowed to speak for themselves?
Why the existing members would have believed it was in their interests to extend NATO's remit to the borders of the Russian Federation is a trickier one.
Cobnapint said:
The 'remit' is only an insurance policy though isn't it. Many people, including paranoid Putin, misrepresent NATO membership as something that entails rolling several hundred tanks in and pointing them in an easterly direction.
Octoposse's point is still valid though.Having a buffer zone would seem more advantageous than not? Though with modern warfare being what it is, perhaps illusory and is Russia the real enemy?
Cobnapint said:
The 'remit' is only an insurance policy though isn't it.
Just renewed my insurance (Admiral Multicover since you asked). Lots of questions about whether my house was next to a watercourse, large tree, any history of flooding or subsidence. They assess risk rather than handing out policies with the cornflakes. To do otherwise risks the whole enterprise and makes even the soundly written policies look flaky.
And we did specifically promise Russia there were 'no plans' to expand NATO up to her borders. Ah, the old 'no plans' ploy. Suckers.
(not sure where else to put this)
The Amercian embassy in Cuba has come under repeated sonic attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/14/myst...
The Amercian embassy in Cuba has come under repeated sonic attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/14/myst...
DMN said:
(not sure where else to put this)
The Amercian embassy in Cuba has come under repeated sonic attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/14/myst...
Read about that a few weeks ago. Who is doing the attacking, that's the question, and what do they hope to achieve by it?The Amercian embassy in Cuba has come under repeated sonic attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/14/myst...
Be afraid, be very afraid! The Russians are coming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/25/crippli...
Edit: non paywall link:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/25/crippli...
Edit: non paywall link:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
Edited by BlackLabel on Friday 26th January 07:38
I've been wondering what's going on for a few weeks now.
Last week on Radio 4 they were talking about how many more tanks the Russians have than the British and how potentially bad that could be.
This morning also on Radio 4 they were telling us how the Russians could cripple the UK using the internet, or something like that.
What's going on, why are the British Government prodding Putin with a sharp stick?
Last week on Radio 4 they were talking about how many more tanks the Russians have than the British and how potentially bad that could be.
This morning also on Radio 4 they were telling us how the Russians could cripple the UK using the internet, or something like that.
What's going on, why are the British Government prodding Putin with a sharp stick?
How else do you get funding for the military? You need a bogeyman, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria will not work, cannot argue for more submarines when the opponent has an AK 47 and an RPG (Really Pissed Goat).You need a "peer" threat to get your tanks, planes and ships financed. Welcome to the invasion threat by Russia. Vodka swilling Bogeyman.
If they had said a danger of Russians taking over Chelsea and Kensington, they may have a valid point...
If they had said a danger of Russians taking over Chelsea and Kensington, they may have a valid point...
QuantumTokoloshi said:
How else do you get funding for the military? You need a bogeyman, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria will not work, cannot argue for more submarines when the opponent has an AK 47 and an RPG (Really Pissed Goat).You need a "peer" threat to get your tanks, planes and ships financed. Welcome to the invasion threat by Russia. Vodka swilling Bogeyman.
If they had said a danger of Russians taking over Chelsea and Kensington, they may have a valid point...
Now it's starting to become clear, thanks.If they had said a danger of Russians taking over Chelsea and Kensington, they may have a valid point...
Dangerous game to play though, or?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff