Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday November 10 2014, @04:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the same-conflicts,-different-century dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @06:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @06:04PM (#114571)

    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

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday November 10 2014, @06:39PM (#114582) Journal

    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.

    --
    Someone please explain to Hemo that my AC posts never get moderated because no one understands them. (Stolen AC sig. )
  • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 10 2014, @08:06PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday November 10 2014, @08:06PM (#114606) Journal

    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

    The theme at Valdai this year was “The World Order: NewRules, or a Game Without Rules.” With the Ukraine crisis bumbling along toward a conclusion (or not) and the horrifically pointless mess America has made of the Middle East and now worsens daily, the either/or title is just about right: We cannot continue on in the post-Cold War era as we have until now.

    SNIP

    "What could be the legal, political and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours. However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms."

    Putin’s speech is so many magnitudes more sensible and credible than anything we have heard from Washington in who can say how long that one must either laugh or do the other thing. He has always seemed to me to honor history, and here he speaks with its authority. This is where the world is now, these are the mistakes that made it this way, and this is how we can correct them. And since it is all oars in the water, wake from your slumber, Americans.

    This is precisely what Washington cannot bear the thought of. Any idea of global history that suggests a diminution of American power and prerogative is either to be ignored or actively extinguished.

    Later

    Washington has created a version of events in Ukraine that amounts to a parallel reality, and people such as Schmemann are paid to perpetuate it. If it is of any help: There was a coup, there were neo-fascists among its leaders, the State Department backed it, and the evidence of all this is indisputable.

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @08:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @08:33PM (#114613)

      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

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday November 10 2014, @08:47PM (#114617) Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10 2014, @09:27PM (#114633)

          "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

            by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:44AM (#115055) Journal

            Yes, voted by the Russians who moved there during the Soviet Union and way before that as well.

            FTFY.

            The Khanate was conquered by the Russian Empire under Catherine the Great in 1783. From 1853 to 1856, the peninsula was the site of the principal engagements of the Crimean War, a conflict fought between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.

            [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#History]

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 10 2014, @10:19PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 10 2014, @10:19PM (#114649) Journal

          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

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday November 10 2014, @10:23PM (#114650)

            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

            by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday November 12 2014, @02:48AM (#115057) Journal

            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

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Tuesday November 11 2014, @05:29PM (#114906) Journal

    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...