Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[Beechey]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'm suggesting no such thing.

 

I'm telling you we will just bluster and then do nothing of consequence because we have no such leverage.

I'd be willing to bet that this is not one of those times.

[Buce]

Just now, Beechey said:

I'd be willing to bet that this is not one of those times.

 

What do you think will happen then?

[Beechey]

Just now, Buce said:

 

What do you think will happen then?

At the very least, we'll expel their ambassador, all of their embassy staff, very possibly order the withdrawal of our embassy staff and put further sanctions on Russia and Putin's allies. That's about as much conventional action we can take as a first step. Furthering this, there could be visa restrictions, expelling of other Russian dignitories (like businesses) etc. Our options aren't that limited.

 

MPs have suggested invoking Article IV or V of the Washington Treaty as technically this is an act of aggression. Of course the government will not want to take any kind of military action, however.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Beechey said:

At the very least, we'll expel their ambassador, all of their embassy staff, very possibly order the withdrawal of our embassy staff and put further sanctions on Russia and Putin's allies. That's about as much conventional action we can take as a first step. Furthering this, there could be visa restrictions, expelling of other Russian dignitories (like businesses) etc. Our options aren't that limited.

 

MPs have suggested invoking Article IV or V of the Washington Treaty as technically this is an act of aggression. Of course the government will not want to take any kind of military action, however.

2

 

So nothing of any consequence then?

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

So nothing of any consequence then?

Why is that nothing of consequence? No Western country could do any more than that. I'm failing to see how this is simply an issue for our strength or size.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Why is that nothing of consequence? No Western country could do any more than that. I'm failing to see how this is simply an issue for our strength or size.

Right, that's true enough - I can't see how going in for a diplomatic brouhaha involving ambassador shuffling, though seemingly inconsequential, shows the UK as weak when any nation could do no more...not without crossing a line no one but the most insane would want to cross, anyhow.

[Vardinio'sCat]

4 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

Not really sure that this one was a spy ..  he actually just sold some info for cash on a one off basis ...   more just a greedy cvnt i think.

 

He was part of a spy swap though.

 

Sounds like a spy to me.

[Collymore]

Hang on - the kremlin basically got a way with shooting a passenger plane out of the sky killing hundreds of innocent victims, many from the west (with no retribution I may add) and people think that this poisoning is going to trigger more than a little rhetoric on our part? Please, VP knows he's untouchable with this type of stuff. 

[Vardinio'sCat]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I mentioned this earlier but I'll repeat: I get the need for the big show that's still a little deniable - but I don't get how it's seemingly been screwed up viz. the guy being still alive and there being a reasonable amount of collateral mess.

 

The seeming incompetence seems...off, to me.

 

He might be alive but not really functional any more. If you look at the Litvinyenko thing, the killers were sloppy as hell too.

 

The masterminds often just find meat heads to do the hit if they don't mind being found out. It is the guys who faked the suicides (Berizovsky?) etc that were the classy ones. Remember the British intelligence guy found in the suitcase, can't remember his name. That was done by very professional people.

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

Will Trump do anything in response to a state-sponsored attack on NATO soil?

 

Offer to hold Vladimir's coat?

[Beechey]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right, that's true enough - I can't see how going in for a diplomatic brouhaha involving ambassador shuffling, though seemingly inconsequential, shows the UK as weak when any nation could do no more...not without crossing a line no one but the most insane would want to cross, anyhow.

It's not ambassador shuffling. Expelling their ambhassador and embassy staff removes all Russian assistance to Russians inside the UK. It would effectively be sanctions in itself, as what business would want to invest in a country where they have no help if something goes wrong? It also removes all direct diplomatic ties to the UK. We could also block them at every turn in the UN Security Council, which would frustrate any international policy they want to push. We are in a tough spot though, Trump's help will probably be limited, and countries around Europe have Russian sympathisers in government (Austria's deputy PM is basically allied to Putin for example).

 

There have been lots of calls to reverse all defence cuts taken over the last 10 years though (an effective increase of around £15 billion), which would not directly change anything, but would send a very powerful message to Russia.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

Should be interesting to see Russia's official response come Wesnesday. Sounds a lot like Parliament may demand the expulsion of Russian diplomats, the closure of the Russian embassy and heavy sanctions at the least as a response, with many calling for greater spending on defence as a response.

 

Bet Vlad's s**ting himself.

[Beechey]

Just now, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

 

Bet Vlad's s**ting himself.

Well the pressure we could apply in the UN Security Council alone will frustrate all of their international policies.

[Guest Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Offer to hold Vladimir's coat?

 

Instruct Melania to hold Vlad's coat

[maynefox]

20 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Hang on - the kremlin basically got a way with shooting a passenger plane out of the sky killing hundreds of innocent victims, many from the west (with no retribution I may add) and people think that this poisoning is going to trigger more than a little rhetoric on our part? Please, VP knows he's untouchable with this type of stuff. 

 

You're correct.

 

The West need to wake up. We are in a second (third) Cold War and those who cannot see this ... well ... you are an ostrich.

 

The EU and London cradles Putin's blood-oil money too much to do anything. As you mentioned over 200 EU citizens were killed by Russian soldiers and all the EU could do was send pitiful statements of condemnation. Putin is laughing all the way. He laughs at the weak leaders of the EU and respects the strength of dictators defying democracy. 

 

Still, something can always change.

[maynefox]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Well the pressure we could apply in the UN Security Council alone will frustrate all of their international policies.

 

The UN security council is outdated.

 

Russia vetoes the investigation of chemical weapons used in Syria for the benefit of their international policies. Only one man can stop Syria and he's deciding to exacerbate it.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

It's not ambassador shuffling. Expelling their ambhassador and embassy staff removes all Russian assistance to Russians inside the UK. It would effectively be sanctions in itself, as what business would want to invest in a country where they have no help if something goes wrong? It also removes all direct diplomatic ties to the UK. We could also block them at every turn in the UN Security Council, which would frustrate any international policy they want to push. We are in a tough spot though, Trump's help will probably be limited, and countries around Europe have Russian sympathisers in government (Austria's deputy PM is basically allied to Putin for example).

 

There have been lots of calls to reverse all defence cuts taken over the last 10 years though (an effective increase of around £15 billion), which would not directly change anything, but would send a very powerful message to Russia.

Well yeah, and they'd reply with the same to our embassy in Moscow. Maybe shuffling is the wrong word, but you get the idea - at the end of the day it's largely symbolic pressure; does an embassy presence really have as much clout as all that when things get heated with citizens of that country being involved in another?

 

The SC point is a more salient one IMO: that would be frustrating, though given the US and Russia ignore SC regs/"condemnations" on a pretty regular basis anyway, that might again be pretty limited.

 

TBH I'm not sure what the reversal of defence cuts would really do to a party who are clearly aware we could never use the forces revived through such cuts without it resulting in eventual catastrophic escalation anyway.

 

Sanctions to piss off Vlad's buddies are likely the most pressurised thing that can be done here IMO.

 

2 minutes ago, maynefox said:

 

You're correct.

 

The West need to wake up. We are in a second (third) Cold War and those who cannot see this ... well ... you are on ostrich.

 

The EU and London cradles Putin's blood-oil money too much to do anything. As you mentioned over 200 EU citizens were killed by Russian soldiers and all the EU could do was send pitiful statements of condemnation. Putin is laughing all the way. He laughs at the weak leaders of the EU and respects the strength of dictators defying democracy. 

 

Still, something can always change.

If that's true or if it isn't...what exactly can be done? 

 

It's a frustrating dilemma tbh - you're probably right in that Putin only respects other dictators, but the more dictators with egos like his around the world, the bigger risk of escalation which results in disaster. 

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

Is Russia also insignificant? Because our economy is almost 200% the size of theirs. Economic consequences for them could be severe. Your knowledge of geopolitics seems to be quite limited just judging from that post.

 

It is probably the size of the military that is as important as anything, rather than the sizes of economies. I just can't see anyone pushing Vlad around, at this point.

 

I can see how the dirty money (belonging to Putin's circle) in London could be affected, although I bet it isn't actually held in the owner's names, so it could be complicated. But apart from that I don't see quite how the economic consequences could be severe for Russia itself. It's not like Trump, or even the EU are going to throw everything at the problem

 

Perhaps I am missing something here...

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Beechey said:

It's not ambassador shuffling. Expelling their ambhassador and embassy staff removes all Russian assistance to Russians inside the UK. It would effectively be sanctions in itself, as what business would want to invest in a country where they have no help if something goes wrong? It also removes all direct diplomatic ties to the UK. We could also block them at every turn in the UN Security Council, which would frustrate any international policy they want to push. We are in a tough spot though, Trump's help will probably be limited, and countries around Europe have Russian sympathisers in government (Austria's deputy PM is basically allied to Putin for example).

 

There have been lots of calls to reverse all defence cuts taken over the last 10 years though (an effective increase of around £15 billion), which would not directly change anything, but would send a very powerful message to Russia.

3

 

 

It really wouldn't.

[Beechey]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

It really wouldn't.

Erm, yes, it would. Us reversing defence cuts would place us above Russia in terms of military spending, and strength through perceived power is how Russia operates internationally. Our military is already more capable than theirs, but us having 4 instead of 2 aircraft carriers, or 12 instead of 6 destroyers, or 25 instead of 13 frigates changes the balance of power in the North Sea and North Atlantic.

 

Alternatively, we could purchase more F-35s ans base some permanently in Eastern Europe, for example.

[maynefox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If that's true or if it isn't...what exactly can be done? 

 

It's a frustrating dilemma tbh - you're probably right in that Putin only respects other dictators, but the more dictators with egos like his around the world, the bigger risk of escalation which results in disaster. 

Well the first step is for the West to realise what the Putin regime actually is. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, MH17, election hack, murdering of British citizens on our soil, locking up LGBT and political opponents, the list goes on. A tougher stance is needed. Unfortunately, this was Obama's greatest foreign policy failure letting Putin stretch his muscles into Syria.

 

1) realisation
2) sanctions - people on here saying they don't do much. They do. Putin's kleptocracy is built on corruption and money. Target the individuals who prop up his mafia state, not the Russian people, via Magnitsky Act. The Act introduced by Bill Browder is ground breaking and gaining traction. I am an avid supporter of it. Sanctions made by the EU are yearly come basis, all made unanimously - in 2015 when Alexis Tsipras was buddying with Putin almost resulted in the yearly-renewal of sanctions to be dropped. EU needs to do more, but I appreciate countries such as Germany are in a difficult position, geopolitically. American sanctions are the one. It is why (see my previous posts) Putin's agents are lobbying to remove them from U.S. law. But Trump is Putin's puppet so difficult.

 

On an individual level I, and my family, are boycotting the World Cup. I have said this even with a national newspaper for a couple of years now. I won't take part in an replica of Berlin 1936.

 

R.e the egotistical dictators, yes this is worrying.

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Erm, yes, it would. Us reversing defence cuts would place us above Russia in terms of military spending, and strength through perceived power is how Russia operates internationally. Our military is already more capable than theirs, but us having 4 instead of 2 aircraft carriers, or 12 instead of 6 destroyers, or 25 instead of 13 frigates changes the balance of power in the North Sea and North Atlantic.

They have several thousand nuclear weapons to answer any losing conventional conflict. As everyone knows that would be the endgame, I don't think a few more ships will alter the balance of power overmuch.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

They have several thousand nuclear weapons to answer any losing conventional conflict. As everyone knows that would be the endgame, I don't think a few more ships will alter the balance of power overmuch.

And we have enough nuclear warheads to flatten every single meaningful Russian city on Earth. Hey, maybe we could order more than four Dreadnought-class SSBNs?

 

More frigates would limit the Russian Navy's ability to operate their submarine fleet in the Atlantic though, by patrolling the GIUK Gap.

[Vardinio'sCat]

25 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Well the pressure we could apply in the UN Security Council alone will frustrate all of their international policies.

 

Right, ok. I can see that might be a possibility, What policies are Russia desperately keen for the Security Council to agree on at the mo then?

[Vardinio'sCat]

27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Instruct Melania to hold Vlad's coat