SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The UK says that a Soviet-developed Novichok nerve agent was used against Sergei Skripal, his daughter, and bystanders, and has given Russia "until midnight tonight" to explain how it came to be used:
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said Tuesday that Russia has "until midnight tonight" to explain how a lethal Novichok nerve agent that was developed in Russia came to be used on U.K. soil. Johnson said Britain is preparing to take "commensurate but robust" action.
Reiterating British Prime Minister Theresa May's statement that it was "highly likely" Russia was to blame for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, Johnson said, "the use of this nerve agent would represent the first use of nerve agents on the continent of Europe since the Second World War."
Meanwhile, police are probing the death of a Russian exile living in London:
Nikolai Glushkov, a Russian exile who was a close friend of a noted critic of President Vladimir Putin, has died from an "unexplained" cause in London, police say. The Metropolitan Police says that its counter-terrorism unit is handling the case "because of associations that the man is believed to have had."
Glushkov, 68, was a close friend of former Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a prominent critic of the Kremlin who was found dead in 2013. At the time, an inquiry found he had hanged himself — but Glushkov publicly disputed the idea that his friend and former business ally would have killed himself.
As British media began reporting Glushkov's death, the police issued a statement saying, "An investigation is underway following the death of a man in his 60s in Kingston borough."
Previously: Former Russian Spy Exposed to "Unknown Substance" in Salisbury, England
Use of Nerve Agent Confirmed in Skripal Assassination Attempt
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:21AM (11 children)
That they could. But don't get too big a hard on for the Russians there, Ivan. That course of action wouldn't do the former USSR (or any of us) much good. The UK could lay waste [wikipedia.org] to every Russian city [wikipedia.org] of 150,000 or larger.
Given that you're so worried about the UK being an enemy, perhaps you should update your bomb shelter, as they could do the same to the US as well. Maybe you can get some bulk pricing on MREs?
Oh, not concerned about nuclear exchanges? Well, guess what? In a conventional conflict, the North Atlantic Treaty [wikipedia.org] (you knoe, the one that created NATO) requites that the US (and Canada and pretty much all of western Europe) come to the UK's aid.
Is Russia's 'Belgian shephard' big enough to stand up to that pack of dogs?
The ignorance of my fellow Americans never ceases (although I'm not sure why at this point) to amaze me.
HEY! EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD! NOT EVERY AMERICAN IS AS IGNORANT AND PROVINCIAL AS THE AC TO WHOM I'M REPLYING! SORRY ABOUT THAT!
tl;dr: Size is relative when you have ICBMs and a dozen or so of the most advanced military forces on the planet behind you, genius.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:08AM (10 children)
Dude, have you looked at the Russia's territory? NATO has 3,673,000 active military force [wikipedia.org]. Only Siberia has 13.1 million km2 - that makes 1 NATO military for every 3-something square kilometers.
Guess what? Russian have industrial cities in Siberia, shorter supply lines to there and, while not your ski vacation type of fun, they are better accustomed to those conditions. Napoleon and Hitler learned this the hard way.
At its peak, US had 100,000 people in Afghanistan with air and mechanized support and satellite intelligence, fighting against guerilla type of troops - small arms and IED. And you know the results.
Guess what will happen against a well prepared 1M+ army (with 2.5M in reserve), well adapted to the terrain, with military industrial level of support.
On top of that: they do have oil and gas reserves on their own and the EU states (the majority of NATO) don't - they still depend on... guess who? ... for their energy supply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:47AM (9 children)
Who exactly was advocating the invasion of Russia? It wasn't me. My point (which I thought was pretty obvious, but I guess not -- how many beers have you had so far today mate?) was that GP said:
Which is absurd on its face, for exactly the reasons I mention. GP clearly has little understanding of the UK's (and is apparently unaware of NATO, which just boggles my mind) military capabilities (not including their sizable nuclear arsenal).
Even more, no one would be interested in *occupying* Russia. In a major conflict, they'd just get thousands of bombs, cruise missiles and other long range munitions to bloody them pretty well. And western Europe, the US and Canada (as NATO members) would get their share too.
Central and eastern Europe would really take the pounding with ground troops. You're almost certainly too young to remember WWI, but crack a history book sometime. Nobody wants all that again. Especially once someone starts losing badly -- then they'll break out the tactical nukes and, well, I'll let you finish that story for yourself.
And the UK has plenty of resources to draw on that would make Russia think three or four times before *considering* starting a shooting war with Britain, and once they started considering it, they'd reject it out of hand. Because it would be just as big a disaster for Russia as for everyone else.
Given that the UK is a democracy, it's unlikely in the extreme that it would go to war over this (or any provocation short of a military attack on it or a NATO ally). What's most likely to happen is that a bunch of Russian diplomats will be expelled and the UK will make lots of noise and heavily scrutinize any visas coming out of Russia or its neighbors.
I suppose that some could consider the idea of a major war destroying Europe and killing millions to be an exciting prospect. To those folks, I suggest you get a hobby. Maybe needlepoint? Fishing? Frisbee Golf?
Given that you're usually pretty level-headed colo, I'm going to assume that you just haven't thought this through, or I'm sure you'd agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:00AM
s/WWI/WWII/
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:15AM (7 children)
How do exactly beat Russia without invading it? If you start using nukes, everybody is beaten, I hope that's not what you or the OP suggested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:49AM (3 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:01AM
That's just crazy talk Raven. You stop that right now! No one would ever do something so stupid!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:58AM (1 child)
I remember that a SAM is less expensive than a carrier and Russians are quite capable of downing such flying objects even from mobile stations (see MH17).
On the medium term, I think the attacker (with a corporatist MIC to feed) will get to pay more than the attacked, with little effect on the later.
Besides, the same resources were available in Afghanistan, didn't make much of a difference.
Other things to add to the borscht - remember Sakharov? - the EPFCG [wikipedia.org] are his invention - imagine how one of those 100MJ/256MA will play with a densely wired population area so dependent on electronics and communications. Even better if that population remain alive, an extra pressure on the number of mouths to feed with communications and health care system down (if NHS was stopped by a virus, imagine how it would work when all computers are smouldering). Perhaps is an advantage to be a second class economy and have a high geo dispersion in such times as a war?
Mother Of All Bombs? Meet the Father Of All Bombs [wikipedia.org] - lighter than MOAB, twice the punch punch.
Seems like US abandoned the development of anti-satellite laser weapons, but Russian may already have them [news.com.au]. Ooops.
My point? It is dangerous to play the "my father beats your father" games with Russia as one of the fathers, even in conventional wars.
This even assuming the Chinese don't get pissed off (by tariffs and annoyances in South China Sea) enough to join the brawl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 15 2018, @07:13PM
Yeah, it's maybe difficult to see where China would stand: neutral if possible? Join with Russia?
May be with who starts it all.
If Russia starts it, do they stay off? Join the 'allies' of NATO/EU?
NATO starts it, they join Russia?
Could be interesting...but scary as feck!
Computer says 'no'!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:12AM (2 children)
That statement assumes that the UK has an interest in
1. Changing the Russian government through violent means;
2. Occupying Russia and forcibly suppressing the government and population, or
3. inflicting enough damage on Russia that it collapses.
But I rather think the UK wants the Russian government to stop sending folks over to the UK to murder its immigrant residents. Which is, of course, a completely unreasonable demand.
While I'm sure that 1, 2 or 3 above would likely achieve that, I have a sneaking suspicion that *slightly* less destructive means might be both effective and much less disruptive for us all.
I know. I know. I'm living in a fantasy land. The only way to get anyone to do anything, EVER is to threaten their existence and if they don't come around, completely destroy them. No one has *ever* done something else, so why should we start now?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:18AM
Me too.
However the rhetoric emanating from the Brexiters doesn't sound conducive to a minimum disruption solution. Fortunately, Putin seems like a cold calculated bastard - scale the lesson to preserving Russia's (or his) interest and not a bit further**.
** CIA agitated the underground for a Ukraine joining NATO (in spite of Reagan promising a no NATO expansion back when he and Gorby were friends)? Russia made sure it still get the exit to Black Sea and (implicitly) into the Mediterranean and made sure there's a buffer between Russia and NATO (Moldova and Belarus - puppets of Russia - since the '90, East Ukraine more recently - not under their formal control, but good enough for a buffer zone).
All of this in a cold, efficient and ruthless manner, without banging the shoe on a table or with grandiose gestures a la Trump/May
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:29PM
Yes, actually it is.
Before you make such a demand you need to be able to prove they did it, for starters. So far it seems to be simply an assumption.
Second, you'd need clean hands. That's a deeply problematic road for the UK to try and tread.
What they really want is for Russia to return to the docil, submissive stance that she abandoned after Libya. Which Russia has quite firmly decided will not happen.
"While I'm sure that 1, 2 or 3 above would likely achieve that, I have a sneaking suspicion that *slightly* less destructive means might be both effective and much less disruptive for us all."
What do you think is going to happen, a few cruise missiles, a few air strikes, Russia surrenders? Putin agrees to step down and appoint your pick in his place? The Duma and the Russian people in general just shrug and accept that?
"I know. I know. I'm living in a fantasy land. "
That's what it sounds like to me.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?