SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur Bright reports in the Christian Science Monitor that the European Leadership Network has chronicled some 40 incidents over the past eight months, saying that Russian forces seem to have been authorized to act in a much more aggressive way. "Russian armed forces and security agencies seem to have been authorized and encouraged to act in a much more aggressive way towards NATO countries, Sweden and Finland" in a way that "increases the risk of unintended escalation and the danger of losing control over events," ELN warns.
The report cites three incidents in particular as having "high probability of causing casualties or a direct military confrontation between Russia and Western states." The first occurred in March, when a passenger flight out of Copenhagen, Denmark, had a near miss with a Russian surveillance plane that did not transmit its position. The second was the capture of an Estonian border agent by Russian security in September. The report also summarizes a incident last month where Swedish naval patrols undertook a broad search for what was widely speculated to be a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago. The New York Times writes that the report adds credence to former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev's comments over the weekend, during the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, that the world seems "on the brink of a new cold war." Mr. Gorbachev warned that “Bloodshed in Europe and the Middle East against the backdrop of a breakdown in dialogue between the major powers is of enormous concern.”
The report has three main recommendations: The Russian leadership should urgently re-evaluate the costs and risks of continuing its more assertive military posture, and Western diplomacy should be aimed at persuading Russia to move in this direction; All sides should exercise military and political restraint; All sides must improve military-to-military communication and transparency. "To perpetuate a volatile stand-off between a nuclear armed state and a nuclear armed alliance and its partners in the circumstances described in this paper is risky at best. It could prove catastrophic at worst."
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @05:03PM
Aggressive and expansive.
Inside the "Western" reality-distortion field, anything challenging the US/UK/EU primacy in all things political, economic and culturally are dehumanizing regressive threats to the furtherance of humanity.
This is the view of narcissistic society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5HV69LKUs [youtube.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @05:23PM
really? you're going to call nato aggressive and expansive after what happened to Ucraine this year? you're either stupid or being paid to act stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @05:29PM
I don't think those have to be mutually exclusive.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 10 2014, @05:46PM
If you're ever bored, look into .eu politics just a hair over a century ago. Everything was everyone else's fault because they were all behaving like jerks to each other.
There are numerous differences from WWI, which was mainly caused by the collapse of two agricultural era empires and the realignment-revolution of a third former ag empire now industrial empire all at about the same time. .EU could have survived the collapse of just the ottomans, or just the Austrians, or just the revolution in the USSR (which is more a symptom of its conversion from an ag empire to an industrial empire) or just Germany's weird ideas about becoming an imperial naval power like everyone else in .eu, but it just couldn't handle all that at the same time without world war. The only stressor now is only .ru has natgas and everyone else has burned their supply but not converted to a post natgas world, and the usual financial collapse stuff we've been in for awhile and is almost BAU now. So we're probably safe unless a lot of other problems pop up.
Its interesting to wargame out what could cause the next European war. I suppose the inevitable collapse of the .eu political / economic union and the subsequent realignment will be a mess. France as the first Islamic nuclear capable NATO country in the .eu will be a mess, imagine if France as a majority Islamic country starts sending their troops to the middle east to fight our troops or the .uk troops in the middle east. Eventually the .ru are going to completely shut off the natgas pipes to the .eu for political or economic reasons (eventual depletion, for example) and that first winter will be a huge mess. All the rats want to desert the sinking ships so everyone has an independence movement along with debt repudiation, that'll probably tie in with the collapse of the .eu as seen above, and turn into a huge mess. Imagine an industrial powerhouse like Germany with an angry islamic country to their east, the med and balkans in turmoil to their south as has been the case for two millennia, and the Russians doing their periodic expansionist mutterings to the east. Every couple decades the German Army marches down the boulevards in Paris and its seemingly inevitable again this century, probably within then next two decades. Life's going to suck for Poland, but whats new there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @06:31PM
Soylent is not a porn site. Considering sharing your "Dear Penthouse" panting Risk-style wargasm elsewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:51PM
Ok, so based on moderation, I guess Soylent actually IS a loony war-porn site after all. Enjoy!
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 10 2014, @06:17PM
You mean after a NATO backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and physically ejected them from the country?
Yeah, aggressive would be the right word for that.
"you're either stupid or being paid to act stupid."
Et tu, Brutus?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @06:34PM
Good one, you forgot to change your copy pasta font.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @09:35PM
No, he's a special snowflake who always uses that font.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @10:16PM
Make your monospaced font Monofonto. [google.com]
Not Courier. [google.com]
Vast improvement.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 10 2014, @07:17PM
From a Russian standpoint, NATO has been very aggressively expanding in their old (still considered "home") turf, despite promises made 25-23 years ago.
Putin needs to beat the drums of war to justify his investment priorities and curb dissent.
At the same time, the US is happy to oblige with significant ramp-up of flights around Ukraine and deployment of troops in the Baltic states.
Since the Saudi and the US have finally agreed to repair one Bush error, by dropping the price of oil to weaken both Iran and Russia, someone's gotta make some noise to preserve his income.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @07:50PM
What happened in Ukraine?
A bunch of foreign NGO-backed coup plotters installed a Fascist oligarch to displace an earlier opportunist who was similarly manipulated into position. SSomehow, the US spun the deposition of a corrupt, but elected President as "Democratic".
Meanwhile, fascist thugs forming the militia bloc that backed civil-discontent with a militia, created and maintained ethnocentric and triumphalist conflict against Russian-speaking districts of the country.
Russia annexed Crimea, and was resoundingly confirmed by overwhelming popular referendum. This was, by any real standard, far more democratic an action than the usurpation of Poroshenko in the rest of Ukraine.
Crimea was always a part of Ukraine, by means of a recent political quid-pro-quo. Historical ties of Crimea were always Russian and Turkish, never "Ukraininan". If Crimea were invaded by Russia in 2014 then you may well describe Paris as invaded by Americans in 1945.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday November 10 2014, @09:16PM
Russia annexed Crimea, and was resoundingly confirmed by overwhelming popular referendum. This was, by any real standard, far more democratic an action than the usurpation of Poroshenko in the rest of Ukraine.
Forgive me if I've just had a sense-of-humour-failure but:
I tried hard to follow events in Ukraine from the BBC and Guardian (and occasionally Reuters and other sources) at the time. One thing that was very noticeable was that the discussions on the Guardian were absolutely flooded by a deluge of pro-Russian comments. It felt like a factor of 10 bias to the pro-Russians.
In the subsequent Scottish Independence Referendum, Russian observers claimed anti-independence pressure from London (i.e. vote rigging) [trust.org] as a comparison to events in Ukraine.
Ho hum.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @09:35PM
Look, when you talk 40/60 splits, there's all kinds of "pressure".
It is CLEAR Crimea didn't want to belong to the slow-motion train-wreck that is the fate of Ukraine as a historical sacrificial, boundary state between multiple empires. Especially when massacre-happy ethno-fascist (literal, not figurative Nazis) were ready to be turned loose on Tatars and Rusophones.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday November 10 2014, @10:42PM
My point was that the Russians were not telling the truth about the Crimean elections. They haven't even told the truth about MH17 or their off-duty soldiers on holiday in Ukraine.
And as for fascists, what's Vladimir "I'm not gay" Putin?
Peace in our time?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 11 2014, @06:12AM
US never told truth about 2000 Florida election. You want to piss about fake elections, then take care of your own long dead republic before worrying about Russia.
Do you even know any Russians? Living in Russia? Do you maintain regular contact? Or is the agenda of NewsCorp, BBC and General Electric or Comcast enough to satify your thirst for global understanding?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 11 2014, @09:12AM
Easy, bro! To much truth at once can be fatal! Just plant seeds, and the truth will grow all on its own. Eventually. If Fox News does not kill it with Ebola!!!! Ebola! Soviet Ebola!!!!! I don't know what I am saying. They are not my memories, and I shouldn't have to carry them! I. . . . am ... River.... Tam. A Living Weapon. ("Miranda")
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 11 2014, @04:56PM
If it is Hillary and Jeb in 2016, Americans will still not realize that they now have the same type of checkbox "choice" offered, that Russians were handed back when they could mark a single box - labeled with "Brezhnev" or with "Andropov".
Despite Putin's real shortcomings, and that of the political system of which he is SYMPTOM not MASTERMIND, the Russian trajectory since 1975 has been one of improvements. These are tangible and qualitatively better than anything in Russian history. Russians don't line for bread, own cars and have nice apartments. The corresponding American trajectory for economic mobility and political choice has been disastrous and abominable. In the US, police drive tanks down city streets and tap your phone at will, while 20% of the population get a lay-off notice in the past 5 years. [lonelyconservative.com]
But there are none so blind, as those who will not see....
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:45PM
The reason for 10 to 1 in favor of Russia is quite simple and remains no matter how many here are moderated as troll for being pro-Russian; a lot of Europeans (like me) realize that this entire conflict is 100% created by the US and the EU. Over here only those who don't care or pay any attention or belong to the “elite” thinks otherwise. Those who both can and care a lot join the Novorussiya forces against “Ukraine” (if I remember correctly there's claimed to be about 9000 Russian volunteers and about half that, 4000 or so, volunteers from the rest of Europe). Of course it doesn't help that the sanctions against Russia hurt Europe instead, Russia simply doesn't need Europe. Most people also realize that the Russians wont forget this, Russians aren't stupid.
Obama and the US government threw Europe under the bus and lots of Europeans realize it. It's obviously all about trying to punish Russia for being a huge pain in the ass (*cough* Snowden *cough* Syria & Middle East *cough* etc. (just about everything)) every time the US fucks up.
And it's not really political at all, as strange bedfellows as Noam Chomsky (I hate his kind) and Henry Kissinger (another asshole) “agree” with me on this issue :D (a little levity, of course they don't ‘agree with me’ but they are “pro-Russian” and think the US has made yet another huge mistake).
The “Ukrainians” (they're not worthy of the name, they don't represent any Ukrainians) has claimed Russian invasion repeatedly at regular intervals for over half a year. Of course nobody of sound mind believes them or the US or the EU or NATO.
Look at what the Russians are saying, everything they say makes sense, nothing the western media (“our” media) says makes any sense at all and most of it is little more than gibberish (like using “social media” as proof lol).
Also notice when “our” media (at least in Europe) or even the US government abruptly shuts up about something and how many times that has already happened.
So anyway that's why it's 10 to 1. The stink from the likes of the BBC and the Guardian is overwhelming and people recognize it from other topics (it's no coincidence at all that for example UKIP and Front Nationale are also “pro-russian”).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @07:56PM
Too bad you're so late to the thread.
What you said is interesting and would be informative to many.
...with the exception of
Noam Chomsky (I hate his kind)
What kind is that? Usually the smartest guy in the room, well informed, speaks clearly (a professor of linguistics), cites examples of what he's speaking about?
I've heard it said he's the 8th most-quoted guy around.
I'm not seeing what you object to.
Henry Kissinger
Now, we agree about him.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday November 11 2014, @08:12PM
Living in the UK I have the pleasure of working with a number of Europeans from the old Eastern bloc as well as the West.
You talk drivel.
Putin is a fascist thug. End of story.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday November 11 2014, @06:58AM
From the grandchild of a Ukrainian grandfather and a Crimean Russian grandmother:
There doesn't seem to be a "right" side here... it's just geopolitics, with the major powers encouraging the unfortunately pre-existing extremisms. The best analysis I've seen is from CaspianReport [youtube.com] of meydan.tv. ...the link to the actual video I'm talking about is here: The strategic importance of Ukraine [youtube.com]. There are many other concise videos discussing the Russian mindset, Ukrainian politics, and the geopolitics of the region.
CaspianReport is also fantastic on the Middle East, for example a surprisingly deep but brief look into ISIS [youtube.com]. Certain mainstream talking points aren't explicitly dismissed, but you'll understand their absurdity.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday November 11 2014, @07:09AM
The situation has moved on since this video of course, but that's the inherent instability of the situation as was discussed...
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 11 2014, @05:03PM
Ochen spacibo, merci beaucoup, vielen dank...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:25AM
you're going to call nato aggressive and expansive
The Russians are Coming [twitter.com], they're practically at your doorstep now, run for cover!
you're either stupid or being paid to act stupid.
Dito.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @06:04PM
How dillusional can you be? Go share your Russian propaganda links to people in Russia, the rest of the world does not want to hear your lies.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 10 2014, @06:39PM
How dillusional can you be?
This usually depends on how many pickled cucumbers I have consumed recently, but in this case it would seem more a matter of how little one has riding on the continued funding of large and purposeless military-industrial complexes.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @08:06PM
The New York Times doesn’t want you to understand this Vladimir Putin speech [salon.com]
The Russian leader delivers an important foreign policy address we should consider. The Times botches it badly
SNIP
Later
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @08:33PM
That he makes a nice speech don't change the fact that he annexed a part of Ukraine and arm Russian "separatist" in Ukraine. Which is the important part.
(Score: 1) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @08:47PM
Crimea joined political inclusion with Russian Federation by MORE THAN 95% approval!
Poroshenko had to MAKE WAR with 1/3 of the remaining country, excluding them from vote to enable a 21% approval for his ILLEGAL COUP.
You live in a reality-free, BIZARRO universe. Where "coup" == democracy.
What other understanding can be expected from someone who's nation "Liberated" Iraq, by sending Baghdad from the standards of Paris, to those of Port-au-prince?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @09:27PM
"MORE THAN 95% approval!"
Yes, voted by the Russians who moved there during the Soviet Union. The remaining population didn't dare show up. Much of a vote.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:44AM
Yes, voted by the Russians who moved there during the Soviet Union and way before that as well.
FTFY.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#History]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 10 2014, @10:19PM
Crimea joined political inclusion with Russian Federation by MORE THAN 95% approval!
There are several problems with this assertion. First, it was a Putin vote not a Crimean vote. He was the one in control at the time the alleged vote happened and he got to decide what the vote was on (note the absence of other options!) and how the vote turned out. Second, don't you think 95% is rather high given that there were several times the number of alleged NO votes just in non-Russian minorities like Ukrainians and Cossacks? Third, there was no deliberation in the vote. If your region decided to make a major change in sovereignty, wouldn't you rather that they thought about it a bit rather than rush through a vote on the favored method that the powers-that-be wish to pass?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 10 2014, @10:23PM
I'm fairly confident you could take a poll asking people what color the sky was, or what 2 + 2 equals here in the West and you wouldn't even get 90% agreement.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:48AM
Second, don't you think 95% is rather high given that there were several times the number of alleged NO votes just in non-Russian minorities like Ukrainians and Cossacks?
It would seem so, but since people are not always stupid, don't you think they might have chosen the economically beneficial option? According to some sources (sorry, can't be bothered to look for them right now) from the 20-50% of tatars that went to vote an overwhelming majority voted affirmative. So did many ethnic Ukrainians living there.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 11 2014, @05:29PM
I can tell the difference between letters "e" and "i". And I can amuse, with mere humorous pedantry.
Is that a delusion?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday November 10 2014, @05:30PM
One aspect not discussed is those recreational activities are expensive. In the "old days" 20 years ago they couldn't financially afford stuff like that. They might have wanted to, but you can want all day and its not going to magically fill the fuel tank with Jet-A. With a side dish of screwing around with border patrol agents / spies is very cheap but if all your satellite / buffer states are busy collapsing then its difficult to arrest people when you have no control of their .gov.
I wonder if its not so much a change of attitude as a change in economic conditions thats fueling (oh the pun) the change in behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @05:32PM
During the last 10 years, seems pretty strange.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_defence_force_lists_ten_years_of_airspace_violations/7442575 [yle.fi] (YLE = national public-broadcasting company)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @05:41PM
doh, looks like https doesn't work so try the http link [yle.fi] instead... sorries
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday November 10 2014, @07:58PM
Simple incursions do happen a few times every year. One plane fucking up its route three times in one flight is a little rarer.
But, dear Grainuid, Estonia isn't the "European Union's eastern-most territory", even if it may be NATO's, Finland extends 200km further east (Narva's about in line with Lappeenranta).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday November 10 2014, @08:32PM
It's only surveillance when the good guys do it then?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @08:50PM
What "Good Guys"? I have never seen these...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday November 10 2014, @08:55PM
Russia, world's largest energy producer, must be laughing at the anti-nuclear energy crowd in Europe now. By shutting down nuclear power, Europe is even more dependent on outside energy. Their Euros are being used to buy Russian gas and oil, and that money is being used to beef up the Russian military. What is Europe to do? Freeze to death, or give in to some of Russia's demands?
Or do they buy more from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other far-away places?
Aside from France and the UK, it seems Europe is largely anti-nuclear [wikipedia.org]:
Austria built a nuclear plant, but never turned it on.
Belgium has 7 reactors, but will shut off 3 by 2015. The 7 supply only 9% of power needs.
Germany is slated to close all nuclear plants by 2022, and rely further on French nuclear power or Russian gas.
Ireland cancelled its plan in the 1970s and never built a plant.
Italy closed the last of its 4 plants in 1990.
Spain has had a moratorium in place since 1983.
Sweden halted its phase-out in 2010, and will allow new reactors only to replace existing ones.
Switzerland will phase out its last plant in 2034.
I'd go on, but you get the idea. Russia's military spending is still under that of the combined EU, so this isn't an immediate problem but a longer-term, strategic one.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @09:48PM
[In October 2014,] wind power alone generated some 126 percent of the energy needed to power every home in Scotland.
[...]Solar chipped in too, with roof-mounted solar contributing between 30-40 percent of power needs to homes that have it installed, even through a cold October.
[First Minister Alex Salmond's] plan is to ramp up renewable energy to provide 100 percent of Scotland's entire energy requirements by 2025, [gizmag.com] and generate as much again from non-renewable sources for export, primarily to England.
.
...meanwhile, you're stuck on plants that take a decade to build and which produce weapon materials and tons of high-level radioactive waste.
...and are the most expensive way ever devised to boil water.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:59AM
Aside from France and the UK, it seems Europe is largely anti-nuclear
You can add Hungary [yahoo.com] to the list (first link I found).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @09:25AM
Does Russia like feminists?
What is its stance on marrying female children to men (allowed in Old Testament)?
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 11 2014, @05:33PM
You had me at "lesbian robot".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...