SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BBC News reports:
Russian warplanes have made several close passes in recent days over a US destroyer sailing in the Black Sea, the Pentagon said. Russian state media reported that the USS Ross was acting "aggressively". The US Department of Defense, however, said the ship was "well within international waters at all times, performing routine operations". The US Navy released video on Monday of a Russian plane passing as close as 500 metres to the USS Ross.
A Pentagon spokesman went on to assert that the Russian Su-24 planes were not armed and that the USS Ross made no changes to it's course in response to the passes. Russian warplanes have been exercising pretty hard lately with airborne intercepts by NATO forces increasing dramatically over recent months. In a previous story, also from BBC News, defence correspondent Jonathan Beale stated that the Royal Air Force is intercepting Russian planes approaching UK airspace with their transponders disabled on a monthly basis. Although no rules have been broken regarding sovereignty of international airspace or territorial waters, tensions have obviously increased, as have submarine patrols and exercises by both Russia and NATO.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Tuesday June 02 2015, @06:30PM
Appreciate your informative response, and that was basically the point I was making, it is indeed situation normal as it has ever been for at least my lifetime.
This is sabre-rattling by both sides, and we should remember that the sabre-rattling also occurs in our name, and not just by our apparent foes. The USS Ross just being in the Black Sea is no doubt seen as provocative sabre-rattling by Russia just as any Russian military operations training, routine or otherwise are viewed as aggressive by NATO.
As an example, Russia has no cards to play in the Ukraine situation where it comes out looking good, unless it wants to forgo it's national security and economic obligations to maintain strong diplomatic and economic relations with Ukraine. It would also have to create a 'no mans land' within its own borders as a show of good faith that it wont interfere or project any influence into the region until the situation 'stabilizes'.
The difference usually seems to be, it's defensive when 'we' do it, it's aggressive when 'they' do it, it's a responsible action to ensure stability when 'we' do it, irresponsibily destabilizing when 'they' do it.
From 10th November 2014 [independent.co.uk]:
I take no sides in this debate, I am not for any military aggression, provocation, or indeed proactive 'defensive' operations by any nation or institution, I just find it hard to ignore hypocrisy when I see it.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday June 19 2015, @05:29PM
[…] unless it wants to forgo it's national security and economic obligations to maintain strong diplomatic and economic relations with Ukraine.
Oh that's long gone lol. There's a reason Ukraine has been in free-fall for over a year (and worst economy in the world according to those “the Economist” twats? Seem to remember something like that). Their main trading partner (Russia) is gone and it doesn't matter because they're not producing anything commercially any more anyways. Not even the things they need which they could since they have/had the resources. Hard to mine coal when the miners leave or strike in opposition etc. They're much worse off than Greece has ever been but not yet where the US will be when/if the US Treasury bubble pops (I'm cheering on the good news out of Texas! The Free States are getting more awesome!).
Remember that the whole thing allegedly got started when Russia calmly pointed out that Ukraine couldn't be member of both the EU and the EEU (or whatever it was) at the same time because that would remove all trade restrictions between the two free trade zones for all the members in each.
Which the EU ignored but later of course is forced to admit, and which the US of “Fuck the EU” A couldn't give a shit about anyway as long as they can create enough distraction.
That's way past a year ago.
There is nothing but Russian gas and some coal (because somehow the Poles don't want to sell to the Ukrainians, something about not getting any pay…) being “sold” still way under market price to Ukraine (mostly out of sympathy and solidarity to actual Ukrainians it seems, after all it's not like they actually elected their “leaders” when any vocal opposition parties became banned: only criminals left) and shitloads of Ukrainian debt owed to Russia.
Russians have done just fine without EU produce as well (the counter-sanctions).
For that matter most Ukrainians from the western parts who could have left for Russia, and in the eastern parts they're fighting for independence against the Kiev Nazis.
What I haven't heard anything about recently is how badly the pre- Nazification of Ukraine Chinese agricultural investment in Ukraine must be going (contractual breach I suppose so no money for the Nazis there either, the Chinese don't want lead in their beet-roots) but I have noticed the Chinese have now rented a “tiny” (huuuge) spot for farming in eastern Russia so that's probably their exit strategy. Makes much more sense, the Ukrainian deal was probably mostly about trying to help pre-Nazi Ukraine in the first place and not much else.
Pay attention people: this is how “well” national socialism actually works, forget about the mythical trains (who for the most part went to extermination camps). The Third Reich, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Imperial Japan, same shit each time and feel free to throw in all the communist attempts as well, as I already said: same shit. Maybe throw in 35 billions in US losses too, and that's just commercial companies and probably just the start.
I do take sides in this debate. mostly my side :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))