War with Russia

Author
Discussion

Tom Logan

3,191 posts

124 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Anyone know what the van on the right with the roofbar is?

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Thursday 24th August 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.

Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
More evidence that it is Putin creeping westward, not NATO advancing eastward.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-appears-to-be...


Octoposse

2,152 posts

184 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
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.

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

12,668 posts

203 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
Because Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia etc didn't fancy ending up like Georgia?

Are they allowed to speak for themselves?

Octoposse

2,152 posts

184 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
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.

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

8,596 posts

150 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
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.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
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?

Octoposse

2,152 posts

184 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
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.

DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Thursday 14th September 2017
quotequote all
(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...

skwdenyer

16,181 posts

239 months

Friday 15th September 2017
quotequote all
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?

Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Friday 1st December 2017
quotequote all
Russia keen to distance politics from sport by holding the draw for the World Cup inside the Kremlin.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Friday 1st December 2017
quotequote all
The World Cup is just a massive spy operation. Government secrets will be passed from Player to Player...all incognito, like.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
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/...



Edited by BlackLabel on Friday 26th January 07:38

Too Drunk to Funk

804 posts

76 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
Yet more anti-Russian alarmist nonsense. Please stop treating us all like a bunch of retards.

Adenauer

18,564 posts

235 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
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?

p1stonhead

25,489 posts

166 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
I don’t get it either.

Does anyone seriously think Russia wants to nuke us all? confused

superkartracer

8,959 posts

221 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
Tanks? , they could nuke the UK over and over and over , best to leave them well alone i reckon .

QuantumTokoloshi

4,161 posts

216 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
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...

Adenauer

18,564 posts

235 months

Friday 26th January 2018
quotequote all
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.

Dangerous game to play though, or?