Russia's at it again

[antihenry]

So Russia can do whatever it wants because the US/UK invaded Iraq 15 years ago? People have died in the Ukrainian conflict and Putin also killed lots of people in his invasion of and subsequent dirty war in Chechnya. Plus the unknown number of people killed in Syria. But that’s all irrelevant anyway - two people were poisoned in Salisbury and the balance of probabilities points to Russia. Your whataboutery argument is an endorsement of Russia’s information war, supported by stooges like Assange, to spread a culture where facts are entirely subjective and therefore no one can ever be held accountable for anything because everyone swims in the same sewer.

What invasion of Chechnya? WTF are you talking about? Chechnya was a separatist region of Russia, not a recognized state someone decided to invade.

And no, Russia cannot do whatever he wants just because USA and its allies do so. In both cases we are talking about violation of an international law. But there's a big difference between bloodlessly taking over a territory (in a reaction to a West backed government coup in Kiev) where majority of the population are Russians and welcomed Russia and two thirds of the local military contigent stayed on and just became part of Russian military and where Russian fleet had always resided on one hand and invading a country thousands of miles away from your borders, topple its president and government and start a war that took half a million lives, forced millions of people out of their homes and gave rise to the worst terrorist organization to date, on the other.

You want to compare Crimea to Iraq? How about Libya or Syria? There's no war in Crimea, schools, roads and kindergatens are built, life is as normal as it can possibly be. A new modern airport is being built along with a biggest bridge in Europe that will connect continental Russia with the peninsula. Millions of people come to Crimea every year to spend their vacations on various Black Sea resorts.

Libya used to be one of the most economically advanced countries in the region under Gaddafi and now it's a slave trade central of Northern Africa. So much has already been said about Iraq and Syria, there's no point in repeating the same things over and over, the facts are there for everyone to see.

 

[nickm]

Honest question for you. You are aware that Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Finland all participated in the invasion of the USSR in WW2 right? That they are all in part culpable for the 27+ million civilians, TWENTY-SEVEN PLUS MILLION Soviet citizens that died in that war? Finland was not part of the Axis officially, but Finland participated as an ally of Germany's all the same.

How far would your country go if 27 million of its citizens died due to a coalition of countries invading you, to prevent it from happening again, for the 4th time in 200 years, and the 2nd time in 30.

We don’t have to guess. Britain took heavy losses in both world wars. They cost us in blood and destroyed us as the worlds major power. Did we occupy Germany for any longer than was needed to put the country back on its feet? Did the US occupy Japan for any longer than was needed to put it back on its feet? I’m sorry but using ww2 to justify the continued occupation, infact subjugation of Eastern Europe for 40 or so years wont do.

Compare: both Germany and Japan became key parts of the post war western order and rich influential nations. Easten Europe ran from Russia the first chance they got. And who can blame them.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

As in the Cold War. When the economic cost of maintaining some kind of military parity was so high that the system rotted. It’s the same situation - any direct confrontation would be madness but, constrict them enough (and try to hit the families of the gilded inner circle), then more and more people will ask what’s the point. Plus Putin is not getting any younger, increasing the possibility of regime in-fighting.

By next year, Putin will have been in power longer than any Russian or Soviet leader since Stalin (overtaking Brezhnev's 18 year reign). His regime isn't crumbling anytime soon. The entire country operates around institutions he's molded to support his own position. The Russian constitution is overtly authoritarian in that it allows for such practices to take place, for supreme presidential power. Russia has never known democracy and I think it naive to assume that it will post-Putin.

 

[Red Defence]

We were told by the British authorities that she was still in a coma until a phone conversation with her cousin was played on Russian TV show. You know what she said in that conversation when her cousin said she wants to visit her? "They(UK) won't grant you a visa". Not that she doesn't want her family to visit her, like the recent Scotland Yard statement claims, but that her relative won't be allowed into the country. Interesting, huh? Only after this tape was played out the Brits suddenly changed their story and came out with the news of victims being in recovery. There were no more phone calls though, that was a feck up, but I doubt they'd be that sloppy again. Now I fully expect Yulia Skripal to finally appear before cameras when and only when she's considered coached enough to say what needs to be said according to the script prepared for her.

You’ve got this completely wrong. You have changed the facts to suit your agenda,

We were told by the British authorities on the 29th March 2018 that she was improving rapidly.

The tape was played on the 5th April 2018 (7days later).

Did you honestly expect the UK to grant her cousin a visa at the moment? Yulia is a vital witness and is still ill. Firstly investigators need to speak to her to determine as many facts as possible without any subtle (or not so subtle) warnings about saying anything...or in other words interfering with a witness. Everyone knows that in time Yulia and her father will be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want but only when they have given their evidence without interference. You keep witnesses safe, you do not allow the possibility of them receiving veiled threats about the future welfare of themselves or their family if they speak out. Least we do here, don’t know whether Russia does the same. Phone call wasn’t a “feck up”. They gave Yulia the opportunity to speak to her cousin to show that she was alive and was ok. You’re right though, there won’t be any more, least not while her cousin seems intent on playing their private conversation to the whole world. I’d be pretty furious if my cousin did something like that. Pity she did that.

 

[MoskvaRed]

What invasion of Chechnya? WTF are you talking about? Chechnya was a separatist region of Russia, not a recognized state someone decided to invade.

And no, Russia cannot do whatever he wants just because USA and its allies do so. In both cases we are talking about violation of an international law. But there's a big difference between bloodlessly taking over a territory (in a reaction to a West backed government coup in Kiev) where majority of the population are Russians and welcomed Russia and two thirds of the local military contigent stayed on and just became part of Russian military and where Russian fleet had always resided on one hand and invading a country thousands of miles away from your borders, topple its president and government and start a war that took half a million lives, forced millions of people out of their homes and gave rise to the worst terrorist organization to date, on the other.

You want to compare Crimea to Iraq? How about Libya or Syria? There's no war in Crimea, schools, roads and kindergatens are built, life is as normal as it can possibly be. A new modern airport is being built along with a biggest bridge in Europe that will connect continental Russia with the peninsula. Millions of people come to Crimea every year to spend their vacations on various Black Sea resorts.

Libya was one of the most economically advanced countries in the region under Gaddafi and now it's a slave trade central of Northern Africa. So many has already been said about Iraq and Syria, there's no point in repeating the same things over and over, the facts are there for everyone to see.

It’s either international law or it’s not. So if Chechnya is technically legal although substantively speaking it’s colonialism redux (a Muslim land Russia conquered 200 years ago and won’t give up because it wants to control the Caucuses), then Crimea is illegal even though in Crimea most of the population welcomed Russia. And that’s without getting into the de facto annexation of Eastern Ukraine (and South Ossetia before that).

 

[Revan]

So Russia can do whatever it wants because the US/UK invaded Iraq 15 years ago? People have died in the Ukrainian conflict and Putin also killed lots of people in his invasion of and subsequent dirty war in Chechnya. Plus the unknown number of people killed in Syria. But that’s all irrelevant anyway - two people were poisoned in Salisbury and the balance of probabilities points to Russia. Your whataboutery argument is an endorsement of Russia’s information war, supported by stooges like Assange, to spread a culture where facts are entirely subjective and therefore no one can ever be held accountable for anything because everyone swims in the same sewer.

That is not my point. My point is that we cannot trust anymore in face values countries who blatantly lied in order to go in totally unjustified wars which has resulted in more deaths than anything Russia has done under Putin. Some investigation (ideally, international investigations under some UN mission) needed to be done before UK (most likely closely supported/guided from US) became the witness, judge, prosecutor and the executor and most of EU/NATO countries decided that it was definitely Russia who did it.

I have no time for Putin, but at the same time I wouldn't believe without any evidence what US and Uk say. And no, I do not think that balance of probabilities points to Russia considering that Russia had the same agent jailed in Siberia during the time when president of Russia was ... surprise surprise, Vladimir Putin.

 

[Ian Reus]

I wouldn't believe without any evidence what US and Uk say.

Same. Their record in this department is far from 100% in the last 20 years.

 

[berbatrick]

We don’t have to guess. Britain took heavy losses in both world wars. They cost us in blood and destroyed us as the worlds major power. Did we occupy Germany for any longer than was needed to put the country back on its feet? Did the US occupy Japan for any longer than was needed to put it back on its feet? I’m sorry but using ww2 to justify the continued occupation, infact subjugation of Eastern Europe for 40 or so years wont do.

Compare: both Germany and Japan became key parts of the post war western order and rich influential nations. Easten Europe ran from Russia the first chance they got. And who can blame them.

Are you totally ignoring the Treaty of Versailles?

In theory, they shouldn't have a say, in practice they have. Same as how US and EU have a say on what happens in other parts of the world (like Balkans, or Middle East)

More comparable to the Russian situation in terms of geography, and more explicit, was the Monroe Doctrine, created in the early 1800s and used openly till the 1980s.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

And we obviously believe that Arab spring was totally natural, not West-initiated, and that the only interest of Western countries (mostly US, UK and France) was to spread democracy in those countries, and to stop genocides.

Had more to do with global warming restricting the ability to feed a growing population, most likely in the face of drought.

Which means it would be a somewhat natural outcome.

 

[nickm]

Same. Their record in this department is far from 100% in the last 20 years.

Maybe. But unlike say in Russia, there have been a number of different governments from different parties in both the US and UK over those 20 years. You have to recognise the people who cynically spun and exaggerated the evidence for WMDs over Iraq haven’t been in power for a long time. Russia - if there’s one thing you can rely on, it’s the same bunch of liars year after year after year...

 

[Red Defence]

I'm sure she's being pressured, brainwashed and manipulated by the British intelligence, given her personal circumstances and her family's history and being shut off from the outside world it's quite easy to do in her condition. We don't know what she's being told. We only know that the British government outrageously refused Russian diplomats and her close family any contact with her, which is a gross violation of international laws and her rights as a citizen. And it's quite obvious why. This thing has been a total disaster and an ever growing pack of lies right from the start. From the deadly nerve agent that supposedly can only be produced in Russia but somehow can be treated in a British hospital to full recovery , to diplomats expulsion without presenting any proof of Russia's involvement to constantly changing stories of where and how the victims were exposed to the poison, etc. etc.

Firstly the British government has not refused to give access to Russian diplomats as such...the choice is Yulia’s, but as a protected victim and witness she will be protected from those who may be connected to anyone who may wish her harm...in this case it’s the Russian state and until there is more evidence that cannot be narrowed down to a specific individual just yet.

Secondly you won’t know what Yulia is being told because you’re not meant to know. When a murder attempt has been made on an individual the investigators tend not to relay details of their conversations with the victim to her suspected assailants. They’re not that daft.

Thirdly, the deadly nerve agent presence has been comfirmed by the OPCW and neither of the Skripals has achieved, and may never achieve full recovery, so goodness knows what you find so amusing. It’s a serious matter for them. There were no official “constantly changing stories of where and how the victims were exposed to the poison” either, just headline grabbing stories from various newspapers trying to sell their newspapers, but I’m sure you know that.

As for her being pressured, brainwashed and manipulated....best not to judge the British by Russian standards.

 

[Revan]

Maybe. But unlike say in Russia, there have been a number of different governments from different parties in both the US and UK over those 20 years. You have to recognise the people who cynically spun and exaggerated the evidence for WMDs over Iraq haven’t been in power for a long time. Russia - if there’s one thing you can rely on, it’s the same bunch of liars year after year after year...

US politics is closely related (and guided) from billionaires who throw a shitload of money on presidents/senators/etc getting elected. There are big donors who give money to both political camps.

Then you have the army and intelligence which have their own reasons, and a lot of them who were back then, are still there.

---

The main difference is that when Russia invades a country they basically say 'we did it because we can' with some nonsensical excuse, while US makes a 'Wag the Dog' movie preparing the people for a few months before they eventually do it, in order to get public support for that. By doing so, they also create a lot of excuses.

---

I have no idea about the incident in question, but (1) the immediate response of UK and co. that the agent was poisoned with a mythical nerve agent which can be created only in Russia without a real investigation makes me doubt it, (2) both of victims being treated successfully in UK's hospitals, I would have said that it is difficult to treat people who have been attacked by a killing nerve agent that no-one bar Russia knows what it is, and (3) Russia could have killed him when they had him in jail. Or just not exchange him years later.

To be fair, it looks a very Putin-ish move, but considering the timing, it also looks a lot like someone doing something very Putin-ish in order to incriminate Putin and Russia.

---

About the other incident (there is another thread going here, but there have been overlaps), I strongly think that it was one of the terrorist groups who did the chemical bombing instead of Assad, but yet again, US decides immediately and without any investigation that it was Assad. There is a recurring theme to fulfill an agenda, I would say.

 

[antihenry]

It’s either international law or it’s not. So if Chechnya is technically legal although substantively speaking it’s colonialism redux (a Muslim land Russia conquered 200 years ago and won’t give up because it wants to control the Caucuses), then Crimea is illegal even though in Crimea most of the population welcomed Russia. And that’s without getting into the de facto annexation of Eastern Ukraine (and South Ossetia before that).

Substantively speaking, several US states belonged to Mexico 200 years ago. Substantively speaking, Crimea has been a part of Russia since late 18th century. Substantively speaking, Ukraine, as a state, got its foundations first from the Tsarist Russia and later was established in its current form, with territories annexed or otherwise taken from such places like Russia, Poland and Hungary by a guy called Joseph Stalin. See, it all depends from where you're looking.

 

[Cheesy]

Substantively speaking, several US states belonged to Mexico 200 years ago. Substantively speaking, Crimea has been a part of Russia since late 18th century. Substantively speaking, Ukraine, as a state, got its foundations first from the Tsarist Russia and later was established in its current form, with territories annexed or otherwise taken from such places like Russia, Poland and Hungary by a guy called Joseph Stalin. See, it all depends from where you're looking.

Crimea was legally part of Ukraine till you invaded it. Quite simple really - if you're claiming Chechnya is yours and can't legally secede if it wishes to, then the same must apply to Crimea who can't just leave Ukraine because you decide to take it.

 

[antihenry]

Crimea was legally part of Ukraine till you invaded it. Quite simple really - if you're claiming Chechnya is yours and can't legally secede if it wishes to, then the same must apply to Crimea who can't just leave Ukraine because you decide to take it.

Kosovo was part of Serbia too before Americans decided to give it independence, and no one bothered to ask Serbs what they thought about it. It's a fecking mess now, go Google it what a paradise on Earth this place has become.

I did say what happened in Crimea was a violation of an international law. Just like Kosovo. But when the "good guys" do it, it's fine. When the evil Putin does it, it's a crime of the century.

Overthrowing the legitimate president of Ukraine was against the international law, too. That was the direct cause of the events in Crimea that soon followed. Why is it OK to do one and not the other? Because Obama and friends are 'on the right side of history' and Russians are inherently bad? Is that it? I'm just trying to see the logic.

 

[Cheesy]

Kosovo was part of Serbia too before Americans decided to give it independence, and no one bothered to ask Serbs what they thought about it. It's a fecking mess now, go Google it what a paradise on Earth this place has become.

I did say what happened in Crimea was a violation of an international law. Just like Kosovo. But when the "good guys" do it, it's fine. When the evil Putin does it, it's a crime of the century.

Overthrowing the legitimate president of Ukraine was against the international law, too. That was the direct cause of the events in Crimea that soon followed. Why is it OK to do one and not the other? Because Obama and friends are 'on the right side of history' and Russians are inherently bad? Is that it? I'm just trying to see the logic.

Good, we've established that then.

The situation in Kosovo was hugely different, and I'm sure you're well-aware of that but are just obfuscating.

 

[Honest John]

Kosovo was part of Serbia too before Americans decided to give it independence, and no one bothered to ask Serbs what they thought about it. It's a fecking mess now, go Google it what a paradise on Earth this place has become.

I did say what happened in Crimea was a violation of an international law. Just like Kosovo. But when the "good guys" do it, it's fine. When the evil Putin does it, it's a crime of the century.

Overthrowing the legitimate president of Ukraine was against the international law, too. That was the direct cause of the events in Crimea that soon followed. Why is it OK to do one and not the other? Because Obama and friends are 'on the right side of history' and Russians are inherently bad? Is that it? I'm just trying to see the logic.

Ok, let's recolonize half of Africa because the same can be said about that.

 

[antihenry]

Firstly the British government has not refused to give access to Russian diplomats as such...the choice is Yulia’s but as a protected victim and witness she will be protected from those who may be connected to anyone who may wish her harm...in this case it’s the Russian state and until there is more evidence that cannot be narrowed down a specific individual just yet.

Except we don't know what Yulia's choice is, do we? The British government have refused an access to Yulia right from the start, what are you on about? It's been weeks and we still haven't heard anything from her personally, we've only read the Scotland Yard statement released on her behalf. The only time we actually heard her voice was in her conversation with her cousin from Russian TV and she said nothing about not wanting to see her but did mention that she wouldn't be allowed into the country. How would Yulia know that? And that's exactly what happened. And after that, no more calls, then this release comes out stating she doesn't want to see anybody and no-one speaks for her. No one, except the government that keeps her away from her family and her country's officials, that is. Imagine for a moment, if it was the other way around and the British citizen was abducted in Russia after a supposed failed assassination attempt and Russian state would act exactly the way London has been doing so far. It would have been a shitstorm of a tremendous magnitude and everyone would demand and pressure Moscow to release the British citizen in question immediately, and it would be Russians that would have had to answer some uncomfortable questions, not the other way around like what we're witnessing now. But the world is more or less used to the idea that certain countries can bend the rules any way the want, the same rules they put in place and vehemently demand other, 'less civilized' countries to follow. If you're a part of that exclusive club of countries, those rules apply to you only to a certain degree and at times not at all.

Secondly you won’t know what she is being to Yulia told because you’re not meant to know. When a murder attempt has been made on an individual the investigators tend not to relay details of their conversations with the victim to her suspected assailants. They’re not that daft.

Do the investigators tend to isolate the victim from her closest living relative and let her communicate with the world only through press releases from the police department? Why should anyone believe that British government is doing that in order to protect her and not in order to cover up their own lies? The crime did take place in Salisbury after all, not in downtown Moscow, why should we believe official London and dismiss every other version of events that doesn't fit their narrative?

Thirdly, the deadly nerve agent presence has been comfirmed by the OPCW and neither of the Skripals has achieved, and may never achieve full recovery, so goodness knows what you find so amusing. It’s a serious matter for them. There were no official “constantly changing stories of where and how the victims were exposed to the poison” either, just headline grabbing stories from various newspapers trying to sell their newspapers, but I’m sure you know that.

If the deadly nerve agent presence has been confirmed by the OPCW, then what exactly does it prove? It doesn't prove it was made in Russia or that it was used exclusively by Russians, and that's the story May and Johnson have been telling the world from day one. What we do know is that the British authorities knew the formula right from the get go and judging by how both victims managed to survive and recover, they also had the antidote and knew how to administer it. So what was the purpose of lying about 'Only Russia had the means etc' and subsequent expulsion of hundreds of diplomats without presenting any proof of Kremlin's involvement to date? The only trump card left for May and her sorry team of idiots to play is to manipulate the Skripals and that means keeping them away from public until they'll be ready to tell the story that fits the BS we've been hearing for weeks now, I'm sure they're working overtime on that.

As for her being pressured, brainwashed and manipulated....best not to judge the British by Russian standards.

The British should be judged by the same standards as everybody else. You're not better or worse. And when I say Brits in this case I mean not people in general, but government, politicians, state intelligence etc. and I don't trust those type of people no matter where they're from or what country they represent because they're cynical bastards who do terrible things to advance their interests simply because they think they can get away with it, and they all lie when it suits their purpose.

 

[antihenry]

Good, we've established that then.

The situation in Kosovo was hugely different, and I'm sure you're well-aware of that but are just obfuscating.

Do you mean ethnic cleansing? The Ukrainian nationalists who were instrumental in overthrowing Ukrainian president Yanukovich back in Ferbruary 2014 were on their way to Crimea to "pacify" the Russian population of the peninsula when Russians took over Crimea. Do you know what would have happened there if they didn't? In May 2014 it happened in Odessa when close to 50 pro - Russian Ukrainian citizens were burned alive in the center of the city.
https://www.rt.com/news/386785-odessa-massacre-three-years-on/

Putin's reasons for getting Crimea back probably had much more to do with geopolitical interests of the country, but the danger of what transpired in Odessa happening in the traditionally most pro-Russian region of Ukraine was very real.

So you can always explain and justify any case as an exception to the rule. Problem is, once you set a precedent, everybody else will say, if they can, why can't we? So it's either one rule for all, or no rules.

 

[Ubik]

Russia tested nerve agent on door handles before Skripal attack, UK dossier claims

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ndles-before-skripal-attack-uk-dossier-claims

 

[Raoul]

Too many people communicating with one another without the government being able to listen in apparently

 

[Red Defence]

Too many people communicating with one another without the government being able to listen in apparently

Well, that’s autocracy for you.

 

[Red Defence]

Except we don't know what Yulia's choice is, do we? The British government have refused an access to Yulia right from the start, what are you on about? It's been weeks and we still haven't heard anything from her personally, we've only read the Scotland Yard statement released on her behalf. The only time we actually heard her voice was in her conversation with her cousin from Russian TV and she said nothing about not wanting to see her but did mention that she wouldn't be allowed into the country. How would Yulia know that? And that's exactly what happened. And after that, no more calls, then this release comes out stating she doesn't want to see anybody and no-one speaks for her. No one, except the government that keeps her away from her family and her country's officials, that is. Imagine for a moment, if it was the other way around and the British citizen was abducted in Russia after a supposed failed assassination attempt and Russian state would act exactly the way London has been doing so far. It would have been a shitstorm of a tremendous magnitude and everyone would demand and pressure Moscow to release the British citizen in question immediately, and it would be Russians that would have had to answer some uncomfortable questions, not the other way around like what we're witnessing now. But the world is more or less used to the idea that certain countries can bend the rules any way the want, the same rules they put in place and vehemently demand other, 'less civilized' countries to follow. If you're a part of that exclusive club of countries, those rules apply to you only to a certain degree and at times not at all.




Do the investigators tend to isolate the victim from her closest living relative and let her communicate with the world only through press releases from the police department? Why should anyone believe that British government is doing that in order to protect her and not in order to cover up their own lies? The crime did take place in Salisbury after all, not in downtown Moscow, why should we believe official London and dismiss every other version of events that doesn't fit their narrative?




If the deadly nerve agent presence has been confirmed by the OPCW, then what exactly does it prove? It doesn't prove it was made in Russia or that it was used exclusively by Russians, and that's the story May and Johnson have been telling the world from day one. What we do know is that the British authorities knew the formula right from the get go and judging by how both victims managed to survive and recover, they also had the antidote and knew how to administer it. So what was the purpose of lying about 'Only Russia had the means etc' and subsequent expulsion of hundreds of diplomats without presenting any proof of Kremlin's involvement to date? The only trump card left for May and her sorry team of idiots to play is to manipulate the Skripals and that means keeping them away from public until they'll be ready to tell the story that fits the BS we've been hearing for weeks now, I'm sure they're working overtime on that.





The British should be judged by the same standards as everybody else. You're not better or worse. And when I say Brits in this case I mean not people in general, but government, politicians, state intelligence etc. and I don't trust those type of people no matter where they're from or what country they represent because they're cynical bastards who do terrible things to advance their interests simply because they think they can get away with it, and they all lie when it suits their purpose.

I do feel I’ve already explained the issues regarding Yulia’s safety.

As for not knowing what she really thinks.....would it make any difference if she stood there in front of the whole of the Russian embassy and told them that she didn’t want them near her and didn’t want any more contact with them? No of course it wouldn’t. You’d still use the argument that they didn’t really know what she actually thought and that the UK had brainwashed her. The only way that Russia will believe that she has not been abducted, kidnapped, brainwashed or whatever the favourite allegation is at the moment, is if she welcomes all her relatives, friends and consul members with open arms.

For the moment you’ll just have to accept that you’d complain whatever she said or did. Fortunately Yulia seems to be a sensible young lady and has taken the wisest course of action.

 

[MoskvaRed]

That is not my point. My point is that we cannot trust anymore in face values countries who blatantly lied in order to go in totally unjustified wars which has resulted in more deaths than anything Russia has done under Putin. Some investigation (ideally, international investigations under some UN mission) needed to be done before UK (most likely closely supported/guided from US) became the witness, judge, prosecutor and the executor and most of EU/NATO countries decided that it was definitely Russia who did it.

I have no time for Putin, but at the same time I wouldn't believe without any evidence what US and Uk say. And no, I do not think that balance of probabilities points to Russia considering that Russia had the same agent jailed in Siberia during the time when president of Russia was ... surprise surprise, Vladimir Putin.

The fact that Skripal was in a Russian jail is only relevant if you think the main objective of the exercise was to kill Skripal. If you believe the main objective was to test the strength of the Western alliance by picking on a country that has become isolated over the last 18 months, then the argument that they could have killed him 12 years ago is irrelevant as Skripal was just (a disposable) means to an end.

 

[Red Defence]

Details of the letter sent from the U.K. to NATO regarding the nerve agent attack on the Skripals.

No doubt the Skripals will now be aware of intelligence that the U.K. hold regarding (and probably more than we have been told) Russian covert activity in relation to them, which may go some way to explaining their reluctance to have any dealings with the embassy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-how-spying-gru-salisbury-yulia-a8302986.html

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Russia tested nerve agent on door handles before Skripal attack, UK dossier claims

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ndles-before-skripal-attack-uk-dossier-claims

Russia clearly carried out this attack, it's bothering me that people keep looking at it from a "who done it" perspective. It was the Russians. It's easy to see and understand why. It's happened many times in the past and during Cold War.

 

[Pexbo]

Russia clearly carried out this attack, it's bothering me that people keep looking at it from a "who done it" perspective. It was the Russians. It's easy to see and understand why. It's happened many times in the past and during Cold War.

You obviously haven’t seen the BBC video where they enact a chemical attack in Europe using Hollywood actors.

 

[Nucks]

We don’t have to guess. Britain took heavy losses in both world wars. They cost us in blood and destroyed us as the worlds major power. Did we occupy Germany for any longer than was needed to put the country back on its feet? Did the US occupy Japan for any longer than was needed to put it back on its feet? I’m sorry but using ww2 to justify the continued occupation, infact subjugation of Eastern Europe for 40 or so years wont do.

Compare: both Germany and Japan became key parts of the post war western order and rich influential nations. Easten Europe ran from Russia the first chance they got. And who can blame them.

Wait, did you actually compare the British losses in WW2 to the USSR? Britain did not face a war of eradication. The USSR lost more people, IN SINGLE BATTLES, than the UK lost in the entire war. So no, you have no fecking point to draw moral equivalency here. The Nazi's invaded the USSR with the intent of exterminating the vast majority of the population, and enslaving whatever minority was left. It, along with its crime dynasty allies, inflicted 27+ MILLION casualties on the USSR. The UK lost 370k. 27,000,000 vs 376,000. Do the fecking math.

Aside from the Baltics and Poland, Eastern Europe got what it got because of what it did. Did they deserve it? I don't know. However, how the feck do you reconcile 27 million dead, and a bloc of countries responsible, with 370k dead? Western Europe invaded the USSR in 1812. Again in 1853, again in 1914, again in 1941. At what point does a country say, ok, enough is enough. What happened to those countries responsible, was pretty lenient all things considered, and yea, for the generations that followed, it sucks. It sucks that their countries were occupied and dominated by a larger more powerful country, but their countries carried out the most egregious offensive war in history, they lost, and they paid the price.

So, drawing a comparison between the suffering of the UK, and the suffering of the USSR, is laughable. While the UK sat on its island, never in actual danger of being invaded, the USSR was losing MILLIONS of people every year.

I simply can't take you seriously. Carry on with your delusions friend.

 

[2cents]

Some great color photos from around Tsarist Russia in this thread:

 

[Nucks]

It’s either international law or it’s not. So if Chechnya is technically legal although substantively speaking it’s colonialism redux (a Muslim land Russia conquered 200 years ago and won’t give up because it wants to control the Caucuses), then Crimea is illegal even though in Crimea most of the population welcomed Russia. And that’s without getting into the de facto annexation of Eastern Ukraine (and South Ossetia before that).

When is Britain giving back Northern Ireland? When is the US giving back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California? When is...

The point is, pretty much every country is occupying territory it took by force from someone else. Crimea has belonged to Russia longer than it belonged to Ukraine. Who gets it? I don't know. The key issue here is, it's OK when the west does it, ala Kosovo, it's not ok when Russia does it, ala Crimea. In before whataboutism /eyeroll

How about this, the very Chechen separatists who started the first war in their bid for freedom, came back to Moscow, when Salafi/Wahabist radicals infiltrated the separatist movement and attempted to establish an Islamist Caucasus Caliphate, and have been fighting that insurgency with the help of Moscow ever since? Or how about, how those Salafi/Wahabist radicals, joined ISIS in huge numbers from Chechnya and Dagestan in the early part of this decade.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Revan]

When is Britain giving back Northern Ireland? When is the US giving back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California? When is...

The point is, pretty much every country is occupying territory it took by force from someone else. Crimea has belonged to Russia longer than it belonged to Ukraine. Who gets it? I don't know. The key issue here is, it's OK when the west does it, ala Kosovo, it's not ok when Russia does it, ala Crimea. In before whataboutism /eyeroll

How about this, the very Chechen separatists who started the first war in their bid for freedom, came back to Moscow, when Salafi/Wahabist radicals infiltrated the separatist movement and attempted to establish an Islamist Caucasus Caliphate, and have been fighting that insurgency with the help of Moscow ever since? Or how about, how those Salafi/Wahabist radicals, joined ISIS in huge numbers from Chechnya and Dagestan in the early part of this decade.

International law didn't exist when those countries got those territories you mentioned.

Kosovo's case is different considering that 90% of the population wanted independence after there were massive war crimes against them and an ethical cleaning when half of the population was deported. And then there was a long dialogue lead by an UN emissary (which Russia approved). When he recommended independence, Russia backtracked and threatened a veto.

It is far different to Georgian miniscule provinces and Crimea/East Ukraine where neither of those things happened.

 

[Red Defence]

Well I’ll go to the foot of our stairs! What a surprise!

 

[Nucks]

International law didn't exist when those countries got those territories you mentioned.

Kosovo's case is different considering that 90% of the population wanted independence after there were massive war crimes against them and an ethical cleaning when half of the population was deported. And then there was a long dialogue lead by an UN emissary (which Russia approved). When he recommended independence, Russia backtracked and threatened a veto.

It is far different to Georgian miniscule provinces and Crimes/East Ukraine where neither of those things happened.

Fair enough on the first point, but, I think you fill find a lot of people will criticize Russia over the Muslim Caucasus republics and their ongoing separatist movements.

I don't want people to get the wrong idea about me. I'm basically devils advocate. Someone poses an argument to me, and my nature is to examine the other side, it's probably due to my education in history, I like to know why something is the way it is as much as I possibly can, so that going forward I am looking at both sides of the argument as equally as I can so that my opinion on what is going on, and how I think it can or should be solved is as informed as possible. I tend to come across as pro Russian, because there is really not an equal dialogue on what is going on and I tend to think "Russia is evil" or "Russia is bad, therefore anything we do is good if we are combating them" is just an ignorant, pig headed way to deal with Russia or any state. It lacks nuance, and it will only result in us going further down this rabbit hole. I have US and Canadian citizenship, and I wouldn't trade that for Russia, wouldn't want to live in Russia, wouldn't want Putin as my head of state. I just think that the "we do it so it is good and right" way of thinking is not beneficial and it pervades a lot of foreign policy and popular thinking on this subject.

Lastly, I think Kosovo and Crimea are pretty much exactly equivalent in terms of what happened, not why it happened, but what happened. Kosovo was given permission by NATO to vote on its own independence. Crimea was given permission by Russia to vote on its own independence, which it opted to exercise in rejoining Russia. If we want to call into question the validity of these elections, I think even if there was voter fraud, Crimea is so overwhelmingly pro-Russia, that even without the election being rigged, which it very may have been, it would have voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

 

[Revan]

Lastly, I think Kosovo and Crimea are pretty much exactly equivalent in terms of what happened, not why it happened, but what happened. Kosovo was given permission by NATO to vote on its own independence. Crimea was given permission by Russia to vote on its own independence, which it opted to exercise in rejoining Russia. If we want to call into question the validity of these elections, I think even if there was voter fraud, Crimea is so overwhelmingly pro-Russia, that even without the election being rigged, which it very may have been, it would have voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The only similarity between Kosovo and Crimea is that both have a majority who didn't want to leave under the state they were living.

However the differences are big. Serbia did an ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and killed around 10k civils, Ukraine didn't do that at all. There was a lengthy process for Kosovo's status and only when it became clear that Russia wants to keep the status quo forever, Kosovo declared independence (9 years after its liberation, more than 2 years after intensive negotiations, and 8 months after UN emissary - who was supported from Russia until he made his proposal - recommended independence), nothing similar happened in the case of Crimea. Resolution 1244 of UN also mentioned that final status should be based on the will of people (to be fair, it mentioned Rambouillet talks which call in the will of people), again nothing similar happened in Crimea's case. A UN court in Hague declared that the declaration of independence was not illegal based on International Law and resolution 1244. Again no similarity in Crimea's case. US and Co. stopped a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, and they didn't gain territory or win anything by doing so (in fact they lost a lot of money on doing so), Russia on the other hand gained territory by invading Crime. The entire process, motivation and epilogue have been totally different. Which is why 110+ countries recognise Kosovo and only Russia and Belarus called legal the annexation of Crimea.

Being devil's advocate and rejecting us vs them mentality and we are good and right while Russians are evil and wrong is fine, but making parallels when there are none is an another matter.

 

[Oscie]

Countdown to Corbyn calling for an independent investigation into the OPCW's findings?

 

[Pexbo]

Countdown to Corbyn calling for an independent investigation into the OPCW's findings?

You need to get out more.

 

[nickm]

Wait, did you actually compare the British losses in WW2 to the USSR? Britain did not face a war of eradication. The USSR lost more people, IN SINGLE BATTLES, than the UK lost in the entire war. So no, you have no fecking point to draw moral equivalency here. The Nazi's invaded the USSR with the intent of exterminating the vast majority of the population, and enslaving whatever minority was left. It, along with its crime dynasty allies, inflicted 27+ MILLION casualties on the USSR. The UK lost 370k. 27,000,000 vs 376,000. Do the fecking math.

Aside from the Baltics and Poland, Eastern Europe got what it got because of what it did. Did they deserve it? I don't know. However, how the feck do you reconcile 27 million dead, and a bloc of countries responsible, with 370k dead? Western Europe invaded the USSR in 1812. Again in 1853, again in 1914, again in 1941. At what point does a country say, ok, enough is enough. What happened to those countries responsible, was pretty lenient all things considered, and yea, for the generations that followed, it sucks. It sucks that their countries were occupied and dominated by a larger more powerful country, but their countries carried out the most egregious offensive war in history, they lost, and they paid the price.

So, drawing a comparison between the suffering of the UK, and the suffering of the USSR, is laughable. While the UK sat on its island, never in actual danger of being invaded, the USSR was losing MILLIONS of people every year.

I simply can't take you seriously. Carry on with your delusions friend.

Calm down dude. I’m not trying to minimise Russian suffering, which was terrible. I am however trying to show that others lost a lot too, enough to justify in their own minds if they wanted to, the kind of actions russian took towards Eastern Europe. They didn’t, and in fact they did the opposite. So no, I don’t buy your argument.

 

[Raoul]

Russian journo mysteriously gets thrown out a window after reporting about Russian contractors in Syria

 

[Ubik]

Russian journo mysteriously gets thrown out a window after reporting about Russian contractors in Syria

Dodgy defenestration.