Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Brumerican]

4 hours ago, villakram said:

It's almost like Iraq never happened. Oh, but that was only the mass laughter of brown people we don't know.

 

I've spent about an hour looking online for Def Comedy Jam's Baghdad special.

[tinker]

Boris Johnson has proded a scorpion on our behalf. If Russia upped the anti against us (sink a warship, down a plane, fly over our airspace......) which one of our allies would stick by us under the present situation? USA would run a mile and the EU wouldn't give a shit. 

Wars start like this , Boris and May are  not fracking  useless there negligent to a point that risks us all, Putin is a very  dangerous man especially with everyone elses foreign policies being all over the place.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by tinker

[Brumerican]

2 minutes ago, tinker said:

Boris Johnson has proded a scorpion on our behalf. If Russia upped the anti against us (sink a warship, down a plane, fly over out airspace......) which one of our allies would stick by us under the present situation? USA would run a mile and the EU wouldn't give a shit. 

Wars start like this , Boris and May are  not fracking  useless there negligent to a point that risks us all, Putin is a very  dangerous man especially with everyone elses foreign policies being all over the place.

 

 

They regularly fly over our airspace and send subs round our coastline.

[Chindie]

Russia literally invaded a country a couple of years ago and annexed a bit of it and got sanctions in response with some grumbling.

War isn't going to happen because they poisoned a spy and some politicians said stupid stuff. Everybody knows it.

[Awol]

Good to see the Russian Ambassador in London holding court again today and denying Russia has ever even made Novichok.

As far as Western intelligence agencies and governments are concerned this is a bald faced lie. The Russians know they know, it’s more Milwall syndrome than disinformation now.

Is ‘compound trolling’ a thing? 

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

Is ‘compound trolling’ a thing?

I hear there's a growing interest in it.

[tinker]

35 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

They regularly fly over our airspace and send subs round our coastline.

There's an established protocol for both and Russia have in large followed it. We are never going to get the full facts of whatever happens but read between the lines and watch for the unusual. I have seen at least one thing this week that indicates fighter jets have been pulled into unusual activities, is this paranoia? I hope it is 

Fact still remains Boris Johnson is a liability and an accident waiting to happen, he represents us all . 

[Brumerican]

4 minutes ago, tinker said:

There's an established protocol for both and Russia have in large followed it.

I disagree. Our Navy guys have great fun pinging them on almost a daily basis.

They wave at each other on occasion.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I agree. Unfortunately, I think the Secretary of State is in this group. 

I think the likelihood, the weight of evidence in so far I know from UK news sources and the actions of other nations and governments suggests that the prime suspect here is the Russian state, or some part of the Russian oligarchy, they are suspect number one - by a mile.

Where things get confusing are when people, like the blogger (or me I guess) start to use what they know to make suggestions that back up their view of the world, or the way they'd like the world to be. Those people include Boris - if this was a police investigation, he'd be the chief of police caught planting evidence - he's basically messed things up.

It's been clear for a while that Western politics has been looking for reasons to get back at Russia; they've been a pain in Syria and they've been a pain in Ukraine (yay - rhymes) and they keep refusing to behave in the way that we'd like - that needs to be addressed. Boris has jumped on this like a dog with a bone to help make sure the world is a little bit more like he'd like it to be. In doing so, he's made the job of actually proving the involvement of Russia or of sorting this mess out properly harder - he's muddied the waters in his urge to please those that want to see action.

Ordinarily that would see a press frenzy and a resignation - in this case, I don't think we're getting it because the PM (who has done a decent job lately of being as quiet as possible and not getting involved in anything stupid) is quite happy to let the world shine a light on Boris - when we take a good look at him in action, it's pretty clear that there's absolutely no way that he could ever be a PM. She's killing a rival by letting him be himself. Sadly, I suspect that means there's more of him to come and no more than a fudge as the eventual result of this investigation.

I agree with half of that, but not the part which seems to imply, or attribute to Johnson, some kind of premeditated aspect to what he said in that interview, ie to assume the interview revealed some instinct or aim of his to shape the world. Because my view is that he wandered off script, that he deviated from the agreed UK government position and expert advice and exaggerated to impress (or basically lied as many people see it).

but I agree he’s dangerous, should be sacked and has also provided a PR gift to Russia as well.  In essence I think he’s a fool not a mastermind plotting to start a war.

[peterms]

A note about releasing more information in a Times article, paywalled but reproduced on another site here:

Quote

Britain is understood to be anxious not to reveal its sources over the briefing but intelligence services are growing frustrated at Russia’s upper hand in the propaganda war. They have lobbied Downing Street to release more of the intelligence that helped to convince allies of Moscow’s guilt. Whitehall sources said that the intelligence sharing with allies had been unprecedented.

It's very plausible that Downing St is the obstacle to releasing information, even if the security services are clear that it's not something that compromises security - May's style is notoriously secretive about everything.  See also the admission about having failed to share info with Corbyn.

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, peterms said:

A note about releasing more information in a Times article, paywalled but reproduced on another site here:

It's very plausible that Downing St is the obstacle to releasing information, even if the security services are clear that it's not something that compromises security - May's style is notoriously secretive about everything.  See also the admission about having failed to share info with Corbyn.

That sounds somewhat dubious to me, as control freaky as May is.

Politicians, whose purpose is to persuade people (the public) using information and data and argument etc. are witholding information, whereas intelligence services with no remit for persuading the public of anything are eager to relase more info??

Meanwhile Russia has gone from trolling to threatening "You're playing with fire and you'll regret it". Putin's very cross, then.

[Genie]

Our leaders are making a meal of this aren't they.

I mean, if we take it on face value someone from Russia tried and failed to bump of some old Russian spy and his daughter. Sounds like the kind of thing that should be dealt with in private? Not really something worthy of nudging the country towards war with a known nutter with an enormous army.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That sounds somewhat dubious to me, as control freaky as May is.

Politicians, whose purpose is to persuade people (the public) using information and data and argument etc. are witholding information, whereas intelligence services with no remit for persuading the public of anything are eager to relase more info??

Meanwhile Russia has gone from trolling to threatening "You're playing with fire and you'll regret it". Putin's very cross, then.

The whole basis on which we are told to believe the story is either authority (we know, we say so, you must believe) or circumstantial, rather than evidence-based.  Withholding evidence is not an aberration, it's consistent with the way the whole thing has been played.  I'm sure the security services will be aware that many fewer people are prepared to take things on trust than 20 years ago, and I'm sure they don't like their credibility to be questioned.  The politicians in charge of this, who as you say should start from the basis of seeking to persuade, see it differently.  An overweening respect for authority and a desire for people to believe what they are told and do as they are told by people in positions of authority is of course a trait of conservatism, and May and Johnson are amply demonstrating that.

On the "playing with fire" thing, which as you say sounds threatening, there is a discussion on the (look away now) Craig Murray blog about what a very inaccurate and misleading translation it was.  This from "Natalya":

Quote

Again, I’m watching the UN Security Council meeting.
Someone took “play with fire” phrase and made several artickles, e.x. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43662421 I can’t understand, do they do it on purpose? Are they serious?
The accurate words by Nebenzia are “вы играли и заигрались”. One can’t translate it like ‘playing with fire’. It must be ‘you had fun playing this game and have lost sence of reality’.
I wonder who is the interpretor, couldn’t they find a better professional for such an important meeting?
I’ve noticed Nebenzia had to correct the interpretor several times.

Yet the media are promoting the false translation, encouraging the idea that we are being threatened (although Reverso gives the phrase as "hide the baguette", which puts an entirely different slant on things).  A small thing, but illustrative of the general trend to seek to ratchet things up, regardless of accuracy.  Our interests are not served by this kind of behaviour.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

I’ve noticed Nebenzia had to correct the interpretor several times

did he correct him over the "Play with fire" translation ?

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

did he correct him over the "Play with fire" translation ?

I don't know.  (NB earlier comment from "Tatyana" not Natalya, getting my Russians mixed up).

[Awol]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

Our leaders are making a meal of this aren't they.

I mean, if we take it on face value someone from Russia tried and failed to bump of some old Russian spy and his daughter. Sounds like the kind of thing that should be dealt with in private? Not really something worthy of nudging the country towards war with a known nutter with an enormous army.

Or, framed differently: Russia used chemical weapons within the UK, a state it is not at war with, contaminating multiple sites in an urban area, putting several hundred UK civilians at risk and breaking all norms of international law.

The last people to use chemical weapons in Europe were the Nazis, so on face value, that’s a pretty big meal deal.

Ps. Russia can’t start a conventional war with the UK. It’s why we keep hold of nukes. 

[blandy]

50 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

did he correct him over the "Play with fire" translation ?

 or indeed the more sinister (potentially) part "and you'll regret it" - which no one seems to dispute was part of the message.

It's OK to pick out the various flaws and deficiencies and "spin" put on the UK story, either interntionally or accidentally, by the actual state or by our free press.

I think it's worth being aware that the same standards need to be applied to the Russian statements etc.

They've said it's not fair that the UK won't let them have any evidence. Yet having said they've no evidence, they've made an awful lot of accusations as to who did it and why, for example. What do we make of the Russian view that the alleged perpetrators range from the Skripal themselves, to Sweden, to Porton DOwn to the US to the UK GOv't to...etc and so forth. Horsemanure and distraction.

They push and push and just misjudged the level of push-back they'd get. And now they're in a situation where they have lost face because of that misjudgement.

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Ps. Russia can’t start a conventional war with the UK. It’s why we keep hold of nukes. 

Why not?

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Why not?

Because it risks instant escalation towards MAD.

It's part of the reason the war talk is completely daft.

[Xann]

Skripal senior no longer critical!

Wow - What an absolute bodge that attack has turned out to be.

Someone's fuming.