War with Russia
Discussion
TameRacingDriver said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42834662
We are looking like idiots. The whole thing makes me cringe. What has this country become?
Agree. The army chief, and now Gavin Williamson (who?). We are looking like idiots. The whole thing makes me cringe. What has this country become?
How on earth did he get this high? Christ alive, he makes Corbyn sound sensible!
The worrying part, the real worrying part, is a lot of people will believe this s
t.Paranoia is back and alive.
TameRacingDriver said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42834662
We are looking like idiots. The whole thing makes me cringe. What has this country become?
Well with 3rd rate tossers like May and Hammond at the helm We are looking like idiots. The whole thing makes me cringe. What has this country become?
we could be anything below average .....
Tall poppy syndrome rules OK...
astroarcadia said:
The Russian minister is correct that details of these infrastructure assets are no secret.
Apollo North landing station etc all easy to locate with a quick google.
Infrastructure assets are always targets. Most developed countries would be completely fApollo North landing station etc all easy to locate with a quick google.
ked if you too out the electrical supply. 
JagLover said:
The theory in the Sunday Times is that the defence secretary made his rather bizarre remarks to distract from the extra-marital affair that was in the news this week.
What a Tw*T
He doubled down on looking a prize pillock, he obviously got where he was in life without any family connections.What a Tw*T
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Cobnapint said:
JagLover said:
This
Russia seems to make a convenient bogeyman for the establishment as it is too weak to be any threat to us.
Yes, because Putin is definitely didn't invade Crimea and isn't fRussia seems to make a convenient bogeyman for the establishment as it is too weak to be any threat to us.
king about in Eastern Europe, Eastern Ukraine, Syria, the US elections, or paying for biased news outlets in the UK like Sputnik or RT. We are imagining it all. It isn't happening.it is not like EU and the US fermented revolution in Ukraine or spent 5 billion dollars "supporting democracy" is it? Damn Russians, getting nervous about their eastern border, not like they have been invaded that way before, costing over 40 million lives, geez such weirdos ! NATO would never move eastwards, Putin is clearly showing aggression.
Influencing elections? Not like the Uk and US will invade a country on a false premise, throwing it into decades of violent civil war, only an autocratic warmongers would do that, must have been Putin influencing the elections. Clear aggression by Russia in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, the sneaky vodka drinkers.
Finally, shall we talk "Russian cyberwarfare" I leave you with a single word, Stuxnet.
Yes, Russia is the certainly the problem, and we need to prepare for invasion, just in case our SLBM's are not enough to turn most of the planet into glass
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 26th January 15:46
ATG said:
Go talk to a few Georgians or Ukrainians and get yourself some perspective.
Rather depends on which 'Georgians' and 'Ukrainians' you talked to. The ones who speak Russian, think of themselves as Russian, want to be Russian and - in Crimea - are now Russian might wonder why 'Self Determination of Peoples' shouldn't apply to them. The ones in what used to be parts of Georgia don't want to back under the control of a government which flattened whole city blocks in the name of national unity. Ever. It was politically impossible for Putin to ignore the change of regime in Ukraine and have his constituency watch Russian families 'fleeing Fascists' on TV every night. We knew that yet fighting-to-the-last-Ukrainian still seemed like a preferable plan to acknowledging the reality that Crimea is again part of Russia. There has been a political settlement on the table for years now.
Leaving morality aside, the political objective of undermining Putin is spectacularly mins-conceived - once the Russian people (rightly or wrong) perceive that he is no longer able strong enough to stand up for the interests of Russia and the Russians it leaves space for a rival who CAN, not someone more 'malleable'.
We're hardly doing much of a service to the states on Russia's borders, especially those with substantial Russian populations, by peddling the dangerous fantasy that the best way forward for Thames isn't cooperation, compromise and coexistence with a much larger neighbour who isn't going anywhere. Let alone the weakening of NATO credibility by extending the guarantee from states no one would ever doubt our willingness to go to war to protect their territorial integrity, to those we have neither the military capacity nor indeed the conceivable political and popular will to.
DMN said:
Octoposse said:
'Self Determination of Peoples'
Not sure forcing people to vote a certain way can be classed as 'Self Determination'.And if 'our' concern was indeed about how flawed the process was, then perhaps we should have engaged with Russia to improve it? I certainly failed to detect any acknowledgement of 'Self Determination' as a relevant principle in US, UK, NATO or EU policy towards the area.
Octoposse said:
There is absolutely no doubt that the result reflected the opinion of the majority of the people in Crimea, who were - and are - Russian.
And if 'our' concern was indeed about how flawed the process was, then perhaps we should have engaged with Russia to improve it? I certainly failed to detect any acknowledgement of 'Self Determination' as a relevant principle in US, UK, NATO or EU policy towards the area.
It hasn't been a much of relevant principle in international relations since Wilson and his 14 points and the few year's afterwards. And if 'our' concern was indeed about how flawed the process was, then perhaps we should have engaged with Russia to improve it? I certainly failed to detect any acknowledgement of 'Self Determination' as a relevant principle in US, UK, NATO or EU policy towards the area.
The current view is that borders should be preserved unchanged for all time, regardless of the views of the inhabitants. Even if those borders were internal administrative boundaries of long dead empires.
Octoposse said:
We're hardly doing much of a service to the states on Russia's borders, especially those with substantial Russian populations, by peddling the dangerous fantasy that the best way forward for Thames isn't cooperation, compromise and coexistence with a much larger neighbour who isn't going anywhere. Let alone the weakening of NATO credibility by extending the guarantee from states no one would ever doubt our willingness to go to war to protect their territorial integrity, to those we have neither the military capacity nor indeed the conceivable political and popular will to.
Having spent most of last year living and working in such a state I can state that for the state in which I was living, you are way off the mark.The ethnic Russians living close to the boarder were the least likely to have Russian leaning tendencies. They can see and visit the real Russia and they know that they are better off where they are. Interestingly, it is the ethnic Russians who live furthest from the border who tend to display more Russian nationalist tendencies.
Why is this? Ethnic Russians consume Russian language media from RT, Sputnik, etc. The more distal from the border the more the understanding of Russia is driven by the media consumption. The all sweetness and roses, the great motherland picture which is painted by the Russian media can easily be verified by looking out of the window if you live on the border. Not so when you live 300km away.
There is no fantasy in the neighbouring states as to the perceived threat from Russia. It is constant. Social manipulation through Russian state sponsored actors which influences schooling so ethnic Russian children are denied the opportunity to learn their birth state's language, nor English as a second language. This severely hampers their social and economic mobility, and is supporting a cross generation underclass of people. High unemployment and social discontent in 18-25yr olds is one of the primary indicators of social unrest and riots. Media manipulation including fake news which paints an anti Russian narrative from the home state all serves to keep ethnic Russians disaffected as they are easier to manipulate when you want them.
ATG said:
.. Go talk to a few Georgians or Ukrainians and get yourself some perspective.
What did the "few Georgians or Ukrainians" say to you when you talked to them?Just out of interest.
And whereabouts in Georgia and/or Ukraine do they originate?
I think generally (applies to any commentor on PH) that if you do not have first hand experience of goings on in international/geo-political affairs, then all anyone can talk about is speculation rather than fact.
Edited by Atomic12C on Monday 29th January 14:11
Octoposse said:
ather depends on which 'Georgians' and 'Ukrainians' you talked to. The ones who speak Russian, think of themselves as Russian, want to be Russian and - in Crimea - are now Russian might wonder why 'Self Determination of Peoples' shouldn't apply to them. The ones in what used to be parts of Georgia don't want to back under the control of a government which flattened whole city blocks in the name of national unity. Ever.
It was politically impossible for Putin to ignore the change of regime in Ukraine and have his constituency watch Russian families 'fleeing Fascists' on TV every night. We knew that yet fighting-to-the-last-Ukrainian still seemed like a preferable plan to acknowledging the reality that Crimea is again part of Russia. There has been a political settlement on the table for years now.
Leaving morality aside, the political objective of undermining Putin is spectacularly mins-conceived - once the Russian people (rightly or wrong) perceive that he is no longer able strong enough to stand up for the interests of Russia and the Russians it leaves space for a rival who CAN, not someone more 'malleable'.
We're hardly doing much of a service to the states on Russia's borders, especially those with substantial Russian populations, by peddling the dangerous fantasy that the best way forward for Thames isn't cooperation, compromise and coexistence with a much larger neighbour who isn't going anywhere. Let alone the weakening of NATO credibility by extending the guarantee from states no one would ever doubt our willingness to go to war to protect their territorial integrity, to those we have neither the military capacity nor indeed the conceivable political and popular will to.
I think that is spot on. We saw an increase in belligerence and manipulation encroaching in into the Russian sphere before the situation deteriorated too much in the Middle East. Russia and it's historical needs are not going to disappear, and certainly won't be alleviated by constant pushing. A new tack needs to be taken, but what?It was politically impossible for Putin to ignore the change of regime in Ukraine and have his constituency watch Russian families 'fleeing Fascists' on TV every night. We knew that yet fighting-to-the-last-Ukrainian still seemed like a preferable plan to acknowledging the reality that Crimea is again part of Russia. There has been a political settlement on the table for years now.
Leaving morality aside, the political objective of undermining Putin is spectacularly mins-conceived - once the Russian people (rightly or wrong) perceive that he is no longer able strong enough to stand up for the interests of Russia and the Russians it leaves space for a rival who CAN, not someone more 'malleable'.
We're hardly doing much of a service to the states on Russia's borders, especially those with substantial Russian populations, by peddling the dangerous fantasy that the best way forward for Thames isn't cooperation, compromise and coexistence with a much larger neighbour who isn't going anywhere. Let alone the weakening of NATO credibility by extending the guarantee from states no one would ever doubt our willingness to go to war to protect their territorial integrity, to those we have neither the military capacity nor indeed the conceivable political and popular will to.
stevesingo said:
Having spent most of last year living and working in such a state I can state that for the state in which I was living, you are way off the mark.
The ethnic Russians living close to the boarder were the least likely to have Russian leaning tendencies. They can see and visit the real Russia and they know that they are better off where they are. Interestingly, it is the ethnic Russians who live furthest from the border who tend to display more Russian nationalist tendencies.
Why is this? Ethnic Russians consume Russian language media from RT, Sputnik, etc. The more distal from the border the more the understanding of Russia is driven by the media consumption. The all sweetness and roses, the great motherland picture which is painted by the Russian media can easily be verified by looking out of the window if you live on the border. Not so when you live 300km away.
There is no fantasy in the neighbouring states as to the perceived threat from Russia. It is constant. Social manipulation through Russian state sponsored actors which influences schooling so ethnic Russian children are denied the opportunity to learn their birth state's language, nor English as a second language. This severely hampers their social and economic mobility, and is supporting a cross generation underclass of people. High unemployment and social discontent in 18-25yr olds is one of the primary indicators of social unrest and riots. Media manipulation including fake news which paints an anti Russian narrative from the home state all serves to keep ethnic Russians disaffected as they are easier to manipulate when you want them.
This sounds much more realistic as to what is actually going on, rather than some of the 'it's all NATO's fault' bThe ethnic Russians living close to the boarder were the least likely to have Russian leaning tendencies. They can see and visit the real Russia and they know that they are better off where they are. Interestingly, it is the ethnic Russians who live furthest from the border who tend to display more Russian nationalist tendencies.
Why is this? Ethnic Russians consume Russian language media from RT, Sputnik, etc. The more distal from the border the more the understanding of Russia is driven by the media consumption. The all sweetness and roses, the great motherland picture which is painted by the Russian media can easily be verified by looking out of the window if you live on the border. Not so when you live 300km away.
There is no fantasy in the neighbouring states as to the perceived threat from Russia. It is constant. Social manipulation through Russian state sponsored actors which influences schooling so ethnic Russian children are denied the opportunity to learn their birth state's language, nor English as a second language. This severely hampers their social and economic mobility, and is supporting a cross generation underclass of people. High unemployment and social discontent in 18-25yr olds is one of the primary indicators of social unrest and riots. Media manipulation including fake news which paints an anti Russian narrative from the home state all serves to keep ethnic Russians disaffected as they are easier to manipulate when you want them.
ks we get on here.Halb said:
I think that is spot on. We saw an increase in belligerence and manipulation encroaching in into the Russian sphere before the situation deteriorated too much in the Middle East. Russia and it's historical needs are not going to disappear, and certainly won't be alleviated by constant pushing. A new tack needs to be taken, but what?
I do partly agree with this but I don't think it was deliberate, more miscalculation IMO.Take the Ukraine/Crimea situation. The EU were pushing Ukraine to join and supported the pro EU political movement. NATO were also open to Ukraine joining. Trouble was, no one thought of what Russia would think about this. Ukraine in the EU and a partner with NATO would put the Russian Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol in a precarious position.
Russia simply could not allow this to happen and had to act. The EU/NATO sleep walked in to that one.
Cue the mobilisation of the disaffected youth from the poorer less economically mobile areas (yes ethnic Russians how through Russian state sponsored social manipulation of education and economic activity) through the fear of persecution by the ethnic Ukrainians spread through Russian language news stations and social media manipulation. Mass demonstrations and false flag activities by Russian state sponsored actors raised the unrest to a point of Russia being able to step in under the UN Right to Protect.
Essentially the Russian state had spent years allowing and even supporting disaffection of the ethnic Russians living in Crimea. Then used that sentiment against a threat to the Russian state.
Syria is similar, as the toppling of Assad would also lead to the loss of a warm sea port in the Med and access to oil.
stevesingo said:
Halb said:
I think that is spot on. We saw an increase in belligerence and manipulation encroaching in into the Russian sphere before the situation deteriorated too much in the Middle East. Russia and it's historical needs are not going to disappear, and certainly won't be alleviated by constant pushing. A new tack needs to be taken, but what?
I do partly agree with this but I don't think it was deliberate, more miscalculation IMO.Take the Ukraine/Crimea situation. The EU were pushing Ukraine to join and supported the pro EU political movement. NATO were also open to Ukraine joining. Trouble was, no one thought of what Russia would think about this. Ukraine in the EU and a partner with NATO would put the Russian Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol in a precarious position.
Russia simply could not allow this to happen and had to act. The EU/NATO sleep walked in to that one.
Cue the mobilisation of the disaffected youth from the poorer less economically mobile areas (yes ethnic Russians how through Russian state sponsored social manipulation of education and economic activity) through the fear of persecution by the ethnic Ukrainians spread through Russian language news stations and social media manipulation. Mass demonstrations and false flag activities by Russian state sponsored actors raised the unrest to a point of Russia being able to step in under the UN Right to Protect.
Essentially the Russian state had spent years allowing and even supporting disaffection of the ethnic Russians living in Crimea. Then used that sentiment against a threat to the Russian state.
Syria is similar, as the toppling of Assad would also lead to the loss of a warm sea port in the Med and access to oil.
The EU wanted Ukraine to get closer to them as this would undermine Putin. I have met a few from Ukraine, it was 50/50 and di depend on where they came from as to who they supported and surprisingly it was not age related.
If the EU had been successful the Russian Black Sea fleet would have had nowhere to go with access to the med easily. It would never be allowed by any Russian leader and now they tested him the EU have abandoned those who are fighting against him.
Like in Syria they will tut tut as they kill people but that is all they will do.
spaximus said:
I don't think the EU or NATO sleepwalked into it, they were testing the resolve to do anything and looking to see if the population would rise up.
The EU wanted Ukraine to get closer to them as this would undermine Putin. I have met a few from Ukraine, it was 50/50 and di depend on where they came from as to who they supported and surprisingly it was not age related.
If the EU had been successful the Russian Black Sea fleet would have had nowhere to go with access to the med easily. It would never be allowed by any Russian leader and now they tested him the EU have abandoned those who are fighting against him.
Like in Syria they will tut tut as they kill people but that is all they will do.
Sleep walked might have been a little strong, but certainly see what the obvious outcome would be. As for testing Putin's resolve, why would they? Intent?The EU wanted Ukraine to get closer to them as this would undermine Putin. I have met a few from Ukraine, it was 50/50 and di depend on where they came from as to who they supported and surprisingly it was not age related.
If the EU had been successful the Russian Black Sea fleet would have had nowhere to go with access to the med easily. It would never be allowed by any Russian leader and now they tested him the EU have abandoned those who are fighting against him.
Like in Syria they will tut tut as they kill people but that is all they will do.
stevesingo said:
Sleep walked might have been a little strong, but certainly see what the obvious outcome would be. As for testing Putin's resolve, why would they? Intent?
I suspect they wanted to see if he could be provoked into something worse than the action he took. I think they hoped that the people of the Ukraine would want to join and then throw out the Russian leaning government when told they could not. This is one huge chess game and as I see it Putin is winning. In Syria he backed Assad, the West backed rebels who turned out to be Isis and when Putin and Assad started wiping them out with some pretty heavy duty weapons, the West turned down the rhetoric as they wanted Isis destroyed but not really by him.
Everytime politicians play these games someone dies.
spaximus said:
stevesingo said:
Sleep walked might have been a little strong, but certainly see what the obvious outcome would be. As for testing Putin's resolve, why would they? Intent?
I suspect they wanted to see if he could be provoked into something worse than the action he took. I think they hoped that the people of the Ukraine would want to join and then throw out the Russian leaning government when told they could not.spaximus said:
This is one huge chess game and as I see it Putin is winning. In Syria he backed Assad, the West backed rebels who turned out to be Isis and when Putin and Assad started wiping them out with some pretty heavy duty weapons, the West turned down the rhetoric as they wanted Isis destroyed but not really by him.
Everytime politicians play these games someone dies.
Putin wisely waited and was opportunistic, in that it was a complete mess and the West in their half arsed effort, with the help of Saudi and Turkish meddling made a complete horlicks of it.Everytime politicians play these games someone dies.
Foreign policy is all about securing the long term future of nation states, that it affects other states, so be it. We have our foreign policy and Russia has theirs. The frustrating thing is the UK keeps making a pigs ear of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff