4 ms·

I went to a private talk in the last few days presented by an experienced member of the UK Foreign Office; said speaker regularly advises ministers and the Fore

I went to a private talk in the last few days presented by an experienced member of the UK Foreign Office; said speaker regularly advises ministers and the Foreign Minister. The question of Russia came up very strongly, and as I understand it (everything that follows is effectively what that speaker said) the feeling is that they're going to just keep doing things, testing the limits, seeing what they can do without repercussion. The deployment of chemical weapons on the streets of the UK in peacetime (which, the talker suggested, would have been absolutely off the table during the Cold War) is just another step in seeing how far the West can be pushed without doing anything. Shielding the government of Syria so they can routinely deploy chemical weapons in their civil war is another example; Russia will just keep taking liberties until they find where the limit is (if there is a limit). Not so long ago, the deployment of chemical weapons was considered a very serious thing; Russia has put them back on the table while the West sits on its hands. I have to wonder if there is a limit, or if we will continue to put prosperity above security to the point that Russia has free reign to do what it likes (up until it runs into someone who will object, beyond Europe).

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
But to what end? What is their endgame? The USSR testing boundaries in the Cold War made sense because they needed real data for their concrete plans to cross the Rhine and conquer Western Europe - that’s what the Cold War was all about! Now it’s 2018 and I know Russia has lost their designs on Germany and France and seem primarily motivated to maintain a buffer territory, but testing limits is only going to move Russia’s neighbors into NATO - whereas if they at least played-by-the-rules and not acted so hostile and belligerent then it’s possivle they’d still hold a far more legitimate sway over eastern Ukraine and maybe even the Balkans.
- 220V_USKettle 9y ago
  "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!" -Cosmo
- EliRivers 9y ago
  Again, going on the opinions of others (who are in positions such that they should know, but ultimately it's all opinion) a lot of it (by no means all) is about prestige and being seen and respected as a world power again. Which is not just for show; if people respect you as a world power, they are far more likely to do what you want. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept (for example, about how far NATO would wander into Eastern Europe) and when Russia objected, they were ignored. The very significant modernisation of their military and the recent adventurism is part of that. Nobody is ignoring Russia anymore. They did play by the rules; it got them side-lined and ignored, promises broken.
  - gandhium 9y ago
    > Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept For example, not expanding NATO wasn't even a promise, it was a rumour. OTOH, Russia broke several international _agreements_ and started waging wars with their neighbours. Can you really equal those? Waging war and ephemeral promises?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- hollerith 9y ago
  The leadership of Russia might be worried that the same techniques used by Western NGOs to depose the leadership of the Ukraine in 2014 will be used to depose them. The endgame might be that they remain in control of the government of Russia.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    I believe (but of course cannot prove) you underestimate Putin. Real political threats get neutered (Alexei Navalny et al), tame opposition parties get induldged. The West is by no means sweetness and light in their attitude towards and dealings with Russia, but foment a revolution in Russia through the use of NGOs? Fantasyland.
  - gandhium 9y ago
    Sorry, leadership in Ukraine wasn't "deposed". President simply fled the country.
fdsak 9y ago
How you believe that behind those CWs it was Russian ? In last few Decades we have not found a single truth from Western so-called civilized leadership, all lies, straight. Just take the example of WMD. Even this time if its truth that Russia is behind those CW, let it be because they lied to international community in the past so blatantly that all their words look lies.Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere. I am pretty sure that UK is lying again, by the way.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Although interesting to see that it was the Swedes who did it, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. It's an interesting double-game they play; Russia needs people to know it was them, but they also need to be able to deny it.
  - fdsak 9y ago
    Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical. Why use a missile when you can kill the bird with a slingshot ?
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical. Ah, I see. You're derailing the conversation. You've tried to change it to "because murdering an ex-spy with a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury is not an appropriate response to the West's actions in the middle east, it can't have been Russia who did it." You've been rumbled. Jog on.
      - fdsak 9y ago
        You've been rumbled. Jog on My argument was two pronged. 1) UK lied in several cases or most of the cases and now UK==lier so Once a lier always a lier 2) Its not me or Russian who rumbled , but instead it is and it was West( France in case of Libya, UK in case of Iraq, US in case of Syria) has be rumbled.

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

But to what end? What is their endgame? The USSR testing boundaries in the Cold War made sense because they needed real data for their concrete plans to cross the Rhine and conquer Western Europe - that’s what the Cold War was all about! Now it’s 2018 and I know Russia has lost their designs on Germany and France and seem primarily motivated to maintain a buffer territory, but testing limits is only going to move Russia’s neighbors into NATO - whereas if they at least played-by-the-rules and not acted so hostile and belligerent then it’s possivle they’d still hold a far more legitimate sway over eastern Ukraine and maybe even the Balkans.

220V_USKettle 9y ago
"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!" -Cosmo
EliRivers 9y ago
Again, going on the opinions of others (who are in positions such that they should know, but ultimately it's all opinion) a lot of it (by no means all) is about prestige and being seen and respected as a world power again. Which is not just for show; if people respect you as a world power, they are far more likely to do what you want. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept (for example, about how far NATO would wander into Eastern Europe) and when Russia objected, they were ignored. The very significant modernisation of their military and the recent adventurism is part of that. Nobody is ignoring Russia anymore. They did play by the rules; it got them side-lined and ignored, promises broken.
- gandhium 9y ago
  > Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept For example, not expanding NATO wasn't even a promise, it was a rumour. OTOH, Russia broke several international _agreements_ and started waging wars with their neighbours. Can you really equal those? Waging war and ephemeral promises?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
hollerith 9y ago
The leadership of Russia might be worried that the same techniques used by Western NGOs to depose the leadership of the Ukraine in 2014 will be used to depose them. The endgame might be that they remain in control of the government of Russia.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  I believe (but of course cannot prove) you underestimate Putin. Real political threats get neutered (Alexei Navalny et al), tame opposition parties get induldged. The West is by no means sweetness and light in their attitude towards and dealings with Russia, but foment a revolution in Russia through the use of NGOs? Fantasyland.
- gandhium 9y ago
  Sorry, leadership in Ukraine wasn't "deposed". President simply fled the country.

fdsak 9y ago

How you believe that behind those CWs it was Russian ? In last few Decades we have not found a single truth from Western so-called civilized leadership, all lies, straight. Just take the example of WMD. Even this time if its truth that Russia is behind those CW, let it be because they lied to international community in the past so blatantly that all their words look lies.Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere. I am pretty sure that UK is lying again, by the way.

EliRivers 9y ago
Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Although interesting to see that it was the Swedes who did it, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. It's an interesting double-game they play; Russia needs people to know it was them, but they also need to be able to deny it.
- fdsak 9y ago
  Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical. Why use a missile when you can kill the bird with a slingshot ?
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical. Ah, I see. You're derailing the conversation. You've tried to change it to "because murdering an ex-spy with a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury is not an appropriate response to the West's actions in the middle east, it can't have been Russia who did it." You've been rumbled. Jog on.
    - fdsak 9y ago
      You've been rumbled. Jog on My argument was two pronged. 1) UK lied in several cases or most of the cases and now UK==lier so Once a lier always a lier 2) Its not me or Russian who rumbled , but instead it is and it was West( France in case of Libya, UK in case of Iraq, US in case of Syria) has be rumbled.