Russians will be getting in a bit of a panic. Doubt they’re excited by this news.
How fortunate these two people were....if they hadn’t collapsed in a public place they would have died.
Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Russians will be getting in a bit of a panic. Doubt they’re excited by this news.
How fortunate these two people were....if they hadn’t collapsed in a public place they would have died.
I think they favour poisoning because its a silent assassin, those on the hit list won't know what has happened until it is too late, near impossible to defend against. It would strike the ultimate fear into targets as they wouldn't feel safe in any public space.
I have a hard time getting my head around what Putin and the government wanted to really achieve with the timing of this, much easier to kill Skripal in a more mundane way, at a less volatile time(World Cup in a few months with many already turning against the choice of host) if it was about sending a message to operatives.Still, quite possible-even likely- it was just the latest reminder of what happens when you betray the government, with Skripal merely an incidental target of little importance only bungled and sloppiliy done...but it also reminds me of that incident in the mid '90s when the German intelligence tried to stitch up Russia bringing polonium into the country, only for it to later be found out they had set the entire thing up.
It would be easy for British intelligence to do something like this(either colluding with or outright killing) with a Russian asset on their own territory, at their own pace. It's not a large scale operation at all. Just off the top of my head there are a few possible motives just from a British perspective from the petty(world cup) to the more strategic...something to do with brexit( i feel that would be ultimately counter-productive but the Tories are not known as the most competent long term planners are they?) or pulling the GOP away from closer ties with Russia.
It would be easy for British intelligence to do something like this(either colluding with or outright killing) with a Russian asset on their own territory, at their own pace. It's not a large scale operation at all. Just off the top of my head there are a few possible motives just from a British perspective from the petty(world cup) to the more strategic...something to do with brexit( i feel that would be ultimately counter-productive but the Tories are not known as the most competent long term planners are they?) or pulling the GOP away from closer ties with Russia.
There were also a lot easier ways to kill Litvinenko than leaving a radioactive trail all over London (and on a BA flight from Moscow). As for motives, it could have been an attempt to test just how isolated the UK has become post-Brexit and with Trump in Office which back-fired. Alternatively, it could be some over eager operative doing something he thinks his superiors will appreciate but in fact causing them a major headache.
To be fair, the Russian invasion of Crimea occurred around the time of the Sochi Winter Olympics, and that was obviously seen as an incredibly bold and reckless move.
When Putin won the last election for president he only got 64% of the votes and there were quite strong demonstrations and protests by Russians accusing the state of vote rigging and ballot tampering. After that Pussy Riot protested with their anti-Putin songs and we all know what happened with that.
This incident helped his election by uniting the Russian people against the West and in therefore in support of Putin, so increasing the turnout and increasing his popularity, which is exactly what he wanted. Even though he had managed to remove any credible opposition and was assured of a win I doubt he really wanted a repeat of the protests from 6 yrs ago. It was also extremely important to him to demonstrate that his popularity had increased.
I seriously doubt that the Russians intended the Skripals to collapse in a public place, which is of course what resulted in this huge incident. If they had collapsed and died at home it’s quite likely that they wouldn’t have been found for a while and although the poisoning accusations from the world would still have occurred and given him the support he wanted (the Russian people consider Skripal a traitor after all) it would have died down in time.
Hardly likely the West would plan this incident just before the Russian elections and intentionally give Putin an increased polling win. That just doesn’t make any sense at.all.
This incident helped his election by uniting the Russian people against the West and in therefore in support of Putin, so increasing the turnout and increasing his popularity, which is exactly what he wanted. Even though he had managed to remove any credible opposition and was assured of a win I doubt he really wanted a repeat of the protests from 6 yrs ago. It was also extremely important to him to demonstrate that his popularity had increased.
I seriously doubt that the Russians intended the Skripals to collapse in a public place, which is of course what resulted in this huge incident. If they had collapsed and died at home it’s quite likely that they wouldn’t have been found for a while and although the poisoning accusations from the world would still have occurred and given him the support he wanted (the Russian people consider Skripal a traitor after all) it would have died down in time.
Hardly likely the West would plan this incident just before the Russian elections and intentionally give Putin an increased polling win. That just doesn’t make any sense at.all.
Seems like a fair analysis .
Saying something that May would dare introduce sanctions, with all the russian money going into the Tories.
You clearly know feck all about Russia and Russians. Putin doesn't need uniting people against the West, the anti-Western tendencies have been indoctrinated into Russians for centuries, even before Soviet times.
As for Pussy Riot, they were condemned by most people for dispespectful behaviour in a church. Even many non-religious folks or those who detest Putin were appaled, and rightly so. They are nobodies and influence nothing. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. The only reason they're known outside of Russia is because they criticized the current regime. If I took a shit in Red Square and called it Putin, I'm sure BBC would be calling to interview me five minutes later. In fact, something of that nature did happen. There's this whacko called Petr Pavlensky, who supported Pussy Riot too, btw, and who among other things cut off his earlobe with a chef's knife while sitting naked on the roof of the infamous Serbsky Center to protest political abuse of psychiatry in Russia
and hammered a large nail through his scrotum affixing it to the stone pavement while again sitting naked on the stone pavement in front of the Lenin's Mausoleum.
He also once doused the front door of Lubyanka Building, which is the headquarters of the Russian Federal Security with gasoline and set fire to it with a cigarette lighter.
Whenever this nut got arrested in Russia all western human rights organizations were up in arms about it, claiming he was a true artist who was suffering at the hands of Russia's oppressive regime. In 2017 he was accused of sexual assault, fled to France and received an asylum there. Later the same year Pavlensky was arrested in Paris after setting on fire the entrance of an office of the Bank of France, located on the Place de la Bastille in Paris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/arts/pyotr-pavlensky-paris-fire.html
His Twitter post said: “The Bastille was destroyed by a people in revolution; the people destroyed its symbol of despotism and power,” it said. “The Banque de France has taken the place of the Bastille, and bankers have taken the place of monarchs.”
But apparently the French authorities didn't appreciate the symbolism of this act or the peculiarities of his artistic nature. He was charged with property damage and detained in a psychiatric unit, until a judge ordered him to be placed in pretrial detention. Here's how he's being treated since then:
https://hyperallergic.com/433022/russian-artist-petr-pavlensky-trial-france/
"Petr Pavlensky is not receiving his mail. Even letters from his children have somehow lost their way to the Russian artist’s cell in France’s Fleury-Mérogis prison complex.
The government has even denied visitation rights to friends of the family. And now, Oksana Shaligyna, the artist’s partner and collaborator, is alleging that the French government has unduly censored Pavlensky’s contact with the outside world to a degree unseen in their native Russia.
“At the moment there is a blockade of the artist from information,” Shaligyna writes in an email to Hyperallergic. “Censorship in France is tough, as 80% of the letters did not reach me when I was in prison. It turns out a lot of people have written to me, but I still have not received their letters. I received five letters out of 50.”
See? The moment you start setting on fire wrong doors in the wrong country you quickly turn from an oppressed artist/victim of Putin's regime into a full time whackjob who needs to be locked up and denied basic human rights. And no one cares. I can imagine the outcry if he was treated that way in Russia where he's repeatedly done far worse. But now somehow nobody gives a shit. I wonder why. Well, actually I don't.
Last edited:
Oh god, he has children?!
My IQ fell 15 points just from reading that. I can actually feel myself getting stupider.
Edit: Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but fecking hell, I am tired of wading through a sludge of bad conspiracy theories. Can’t we just stick to what’s in front of us, instead of inventing stuff?
Last edited:
Exactly. So indoctrinated that he knew they would be gullible enough for fall for his anti-western rhetoric and unite behind him, and predictably they have done.
I lived in Russia for 25 years, in the US for 15 and now I'm back in Russia. I know about indoctrination from both sides. Tell this propaganda nonsense to those who don't know any better.
To be fair, Russia hasn't been trying to encircle the USA or NATO with hostile governments or a military alliance since WW2.
The US has. The US made Russia a boogeyman to justify a perpetual war economy and obscene defense spending. Does Russia distrust the west? Actions speak louder than words, and we've marched NATO right up to their border, and let's not kid ourselves, NATO is an anti Russia alliance. Whether or not Russia was justified in being paranoid of the west, our actions have justified their paranoia, in a weird self fulfilling prophecy.
We’ve marched NATO to its borders. The other way of putting it is a bunch of ex soviet states made bloody sure to ensure their old oppressors could never do so again, at the first chance they got. Nobody forced them to join NATO. And NATO was an anti soviet defensive alliance, let’s remember that.
NATO was created to counter the Soviet threat, no? Guess what, Soviet Union hasn't been around since 1991. NATO not only still exists, it got progressively bigger since then, and it has consistenly been moving eastward since then, toward Russian borders. And the whole time while they were accepting new members and were getting closer and closer, Russian government's growing fears and concerns were dismissed in the same condescending manner: don't worry, it has nothing to do with you. Then by 2007 Putin probably felt Russia was strong enough and he'd had enough of the western BS, so he gave that famous speech in Munich about among other things, NATO expansion and how it's viewed by Russia.
oh man a putin shill lecturing us about democracy sure changed my mind today
States aren't people though; and as such, its hard to distill their actions as similar to how a person or small group of people may behave. You have to therefore look at substate forms of government (democratic v authoritarian) to get a more realistic sense of behavior. In Putin's case, he is obviously an authoritarian who fears the spread of democracy, as it would threaten his corrupt, kleptocratic system. NATO is therefore merely a device he is using to galvanize his own domestic power structure. The fear or encirclement by "the other" helps him entrench domestic support by creating a constant siege mentality.
That’s a long read but very interesting. Good investigation by Reuters too.
On the other hand, if a country freely wants to join NATO, why is it any business of Putin’s? Why does it have anything to do with Russia? This idea that former victims of Russian imperialism should somehow continue to kowtow to their former oppressors is ludicrous. Are these countries wrong for wanting to exercise their newly won independence?
This tells you all you need to know about the frivolous mythology about Putin's NATO lies. States have every right to join multilateral organizations and Russia has feck all right to intimidate Ukraine into which organization it joins. The truth is that Putin fears the spread of democracy because as an authoritarian strongman, strong democratic neighbors means democracy would eventually reach Russia, which would end his dictatorship and likely result in his execution. That's really all this is about.
If Cuba want Soviet missiles on its territory, what business is it of the United States? Why turn the whole thing into a major crisis and have the world on the brink of a nuclear conflct? What's the big deal, right?
If tomorrow Mexico decides to have Russian military bases alongside its border, what would be America's reaction? You are either stupid or naive.
I think the US' sustained attitude of hostility towards Cuba was incredibly unhelpful and probably fairly unnecessary for the most part. Although there's clearly a difference between a country in a post-Cold War era wanting to join NATO, and one actually containing nuclear missiles during the Cold War itself. Russia is free to cooperate with the West if it wants and try to exert their influence on the global stage; in that respect they still hold some clout due to their sheer size and due to their military power. Instead they don't like the idea of their neighbouring states asserting their own independence so seek to undermine them whenever they can.
I expect the US would interpret that to be a very hostile act from a friendly country and regional partner and would be right to do so.
The reason ex Soviet states elected to join NATO, was not as a statement of aggressive intent, but defensive protection. Not hostile.
The cases aren’t comparable, although I can see why they might look superficially similar to a state predisposed to see all events as hostile.
Actually the Cuban missile crisis began when the US installed short range nuclear missiles in Turkey, and Russia responded by planning to deploy similar missiles in the only place it could, Cuba.
The Cuban missile crisis directly followed the Bay of Pigs invasion by the CIA
The Cuban missile crisis ended when the US agreed to remove said short range nuclear missiles from Turkey, which it did.
No, they just don't like the idea of being surrounded by NATO military bases and missiles aimed at their territory. You could justify it during the Cold War, but it ended in 1991 with a fall of Soviet Union. So why is NATO not only still around but growing bigger? And if it has no designs on attacking Russia, why move eatward towards it? In the meantime, while Russia was suffering through a period of incredible economic and social turmoil, Americans brought NATO right to their borders, knowing full well that Russians are too weak to do anything about it. When Putin suggested in the early 2000s a possibility of Russia joining NATO it was dismissed out of hand, same as possible membership in EU. So what exactly was he supposed to do?
Truth of the matter is, America is the biggest reason someone like Putin is calling the shots in Russia now. The US mistaken policies in a post Cold War world have turned a potential ally into an enemy because they decided to ignore everybody else's interests but their own, at times in an absolutely arrogant manner.
He asked NATO when they were going to ask Russia to join and he was told that countries apply to join NATO.
Yulia Skripal has been released from hospital.
https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-yulia-skripal-being-discharged-from-hospital-11324793
https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-yulia-skripal-being-discharged-from-hospital-11324793
Not sure if this has been posted yet.
You mean, a bunch of countries that were part of the Axis, allied with the most evil regime in the history of the planet, and participated directly in a war of aggression against the USSR that killed 27+ million civilians? Who exactly oppressed whom? Yes, there were states who got caught up in the geopolitical mess following WW2, specifically the Baltics and Poland, but the rest of them? They were guilty of heinous acts of aggression against the USSR, and what the USSR did to them, was rather tame compared to what they participated in against the USSR.
Exactly, people will talk about Soviet aggression, to that I can only say what?
What Soviet aggression are we talking about? Are we talking about the Soviet aggression where the Soviets did not impose communist governments in their occupied satellites immediately after the war? The aggression where the Soviet Union refused to support a popular communist uprising in Greece that almost certainly would have succeeded if Stalin involved the USSR? Or are we talking about the Soviet aggression where the W.Allies went back on their promises to the USSR regarding post war cooperation, due to Truman being incompetent, or breaking the Potsdam agreement to disarm and de-militarize Germany?
Churchill even said in his auto-biography that the Soviets and Stalin kept their end of the deal on EVERYTHING in the post war world. It wasn't until we in the west started moving the goal posts that the Soviets began reacting. It all boiled down to fear and distrust. We feared the Soviets, so we looked at Germany as a valuable ally, so we stopped dismantling their economy and their military, and supported them and built them up. The USSR saw this as a threat, and a violation of the agreements we had made, so they started ensuring that the governments on their border, many of which were actually enemy combatants in WW2, and had actively participated in the war, were unquestionably friendly. We saw the institution of these pro communist governments in Poland, and Hungary and Bulgaria among others as a threat of communist expansion and formed NATO. They see NATO and form their own power bloc in retaliation. We put missiles in Turkey, they try to put missiles in Cuba.
The simple truth is, at the end of the war, Roosevelt had pledged billions of dollars in aid to the USSR to rebuild the Soviet economy, in what was supposed to be a carrot to keep the ice thawed between the Soviets and the West, and to be a stick, to keep the Soviets from getting punitive with countries like Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia(the slovakian part of Czechoslovakia which invaded the USSR with Germany) and Germany. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died, Truman took office, and then decided that he had to throw all the diplomacy Roosevelt had done, out the window and show the USSR who was boss. We tried to out tough the Russians, the Russians. Who is going to win that competition? The country that just blunted and destroyed the most powerful military in the world up to that point? The country that had much of its industry and agriculture destroyed? The country that lost over 27 million of its people fighting off the Germans, the Bulgarians, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the Romanians, and the Finns? I feel like this is something that a lot of people forget, that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, Germany, and Finland ALL participated in the invasion of the USSR.
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.
Nicely done. The UK government basically kidnapped a foreign citizen, denied Russian diplomats and her own family an access to her for weeks and lets her communicate with the world through British police statements which people are supposed to take as God's truth. Soon enough the poor girl will be scared, brainwashed and manipulated enough to be presented to the public and say whatever she's been told.
To be fair, his 70%+ support has also a lot to do with him killing, jailing or exiling during years all serious opposition members. Even on this election, his biggest opponent was jailed and not able to candidate, so it isn't a surprise that Putin won 70%+. The only surprise nowadays is why he even bothers to give the impression of democracy when he can easily go full Kim and either abolish elections or win them with 99% support.
You are one of the more interesting people out of there and likely would've been a nice addition to my master thesis
This inherent Russian believe it should have ANY say at all in what it's eastern neighbours are doing and it's complete ignorance towards the facts that said members joined a defensive alliance to not be opresses again is absolutely amazing. The belief by Russians that NATO is somehow an aggressive organization (it never has been) is one of the most amazing results of propaganda I have ever seen. As is the ridicioulus notion that Putin honestly thought about joining NATO. That was never on the table.As for the bolded part: because those countries wanted to join. Why is that move inherently offensive? It's absolutely not. Why should the west turn away democratic countries trying to be part of it's sphere of wealth and security? Haven't you, the typical Russian hypocrite you are, just criticized America for turning away Russia, although that never happened. But now it's bad they haven't looked for Russian "interestest". Russia still thinks it's the? Soviet Union and thinks it should be handled as such. It isn't. It's a hostile third world country that lucked out on inheriting atomic weapons. The Man City of countries.
I think this is a bit naive to say, to be honest. Obviously, in theory states have the right to do whatever they want in their territory and to join whatever alliances they want. In practice, it is stupid to expect that Russia will be happy and just stand watching if their neighbors join a political a military alliance who was created to oppose (or ensure against) Russia.
As @antihenry said, if tomorrow Cuba (or Mexico) decide to join that organization which Russia created, and then Russian soldiers and weapons get stationed there, we surely won't expect US to say, all is fine, it is Cuba's business. I mean, this actually happened half a century ago and humanity came closer to self-destruction than ever in our history.
Ukraine and co. joining economical organizations like European Union is totally fine IMO (in fact, I hope that Russia does that in the future too), but as long as the West is hostile to Russia (and vice versa) we cannot expect Russia to actually allow Ukraine to join NATO. Best thing that can happen is that the hostility to decrease over time, and eventually for the world to not need an organization like NATO (or Russia joining it, which is more or less the same thing), but we are a few decades away from it.
Ukraine joining NATO was never on the table. Stop spreading this bullshit. And no one expects them to be happy. But we should expect them to be reasonable about it. Which they aren't because they still live in 1980.
Also, you should check back at what happened during the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba joining the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union wasn't the problem there. In the end both sides had the exact same gripe with the other side: statiotining short- and mid range rockets at each others borders.
Playing the devil's advocate here:
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)
NATO was created as a counter-balance to Warsaw pact (and vice versa) and historically has been in opposition to Russia. About it, not being an aggressive organization, tell that to Iraq for example. Serbs also don't feel that way for being bombed (although personally I think that was fully justified, being a Kosovan Albanian and all that, but in the end it is a point of view).
Man City of countries are Arab countries, whose wealth has been created exclusively by winning the geographic lottery. Russia has been one of the most influential countries in the world for a long long time, and calling it a third world country is very ignorat. They aren't democratic (I would suggest that US isn't either), and corruption is high (in US is the same but is called lobbying), but third world? Come on, that is nuts. Lucked out of inheriting atomic weapons? How does that work when they build those weapons itself.
You are one of the more interesting people out of there and likely would've been a nice addition to my master thesis
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)
NATO was created as a counter-balance to Warsaw pact (and vice versa) and historically has been in opposition to Russia. About it, not being an aggressive organization, tell that to Iraq for example. Serbs also don't feel that way for being bombed (although personally I think that was fully justified, being a Kosovan Albanian and all that, but in the end it is a point of view).
Man City of countries are Arab countries, whose wealth has been created exclusively by winning the geographic lottery. Russia has been one of the most influential countries in the world for a long long time, and calling it a third world country is very ignorat. They aren't democratic (I would suggest that US isn't either), and corruption is high (in US is the same but is called lobbying), but third world? Come on, that is nuts. Lucked out of inheriting atomic weapons? How does that work when they build those weapons itself.