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: 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.