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: 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?