I'm too young to remember the first cold war, but it seems totally insane to me that Russia is carrying out repeated war crimes routinely now, and the West is literally doing nothing to address it.
It's not insane if you consider the West is doing the very same thing (committing war crimes) but Western media doesn't report in the same way about it. Just check what the Americans did in Iraq, whom they deliver their weapons in Syria to, ...
One thing I always ask myself:
The war in Syria is basically won by the regime, so why the heck would they now resort to bombing hospitals and C-weapon attacks on the population? It just doesn't make sense so that's why I am very cautious here.
This is not to say that Russia is good and the US is bad, it's just that "The first casualty of War is Truth"
Like the US is carrying out repeated war crimes and the West does nothing - or the "East" for that matter. If something goes to court in the US if it even does, punishment is light [2] and pushed down to the lowest levels (Lynndie England got 2 years [1]). Or pushed by the president (Drone kills without a declaration of war).
If you have nuclear weapons and a large defence budget, you can do whatever you like to other countries.
That only applies to hostilities between the Contracting Parties; most of the drone strikes haven't even been against other countries, but independent militarized groups.
The US and Pakistan are Contracting Parties. Carrying out drone strikes against citizens of one of those parties constitutes hostility against that nation in my book. I'd wager to say that if Pakistan would carry out drone strikes on US soil, the US would count that as an act of war on the side of Pakistan.
Exactly. What would happen if Turkey kills Gülen with a drone strike in the US? Or China kills Falun Gong followers with drones in the US? I'm rather sure US would not follow their own line on drone strikes.
I went to a private talk in the last few days presented by an experienced member of the UK Foreign Office; said speaker regularly advises ministers and the Foreign Minister.
The question of Russia came up very strongly, and as I understand it (everything that follows is effectively what that speaker said) the feeling is that they're going to just keep doing things, testing the limits, seeing what they can do without repercussion. The deployment of chemical weapons on the streets of the UK in peacetime (which, the talker suggested, would have been absolutely off the table during the Cold War) is just another step in seeing how far the West can be pushed without doing anything. Shielding the government of Syria so they can routinely deploy chemical weapons in their civil war is another example; Russia will just keep taking liberties until they find where the limit is (if there is a limit). Not so long ago, the deployment of chemical weapons was considered a very serious thing; Russia has put them back on the table while the West sits on its hands.
I have to wonder if there is a limit, or if we will continue to put prosperity above security to the point that Russia has free reign to do what it likes (up until it runs into someone who will object, beyond Europe).
But to what end? What is their endgame? The USSR testing boundaries in the Cold War made sense because they needed real data for their concrete plans to cross the Rhine and conquer Western Europe - that’s what the Cold War was all about! Now it’s 2018 and I know Russia has lost their designs on Germany and France and seem primarily motivated to maintain a buffer territory, but testing limits is only going to move Russia’s neighbors into NATO - whereas if they at least played-by-the-rules and not acted so hostile and belligerent then it’s possivle they’d still hold a far more legitimate sway over eastern Ukraine and maybe even the Balkans.
Again, going on the opinions of others (who are in positions such that they should know, but ultimately it's all opinion) a lot of it (by no means all) is about prestige and being seen and respected as a world power again. Which is not just for show; if people respect you as a world power, they are far more likely to do what you want.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept (for example, about how far NATO would wander into Eastern Europe) and when Russia objected, they were ignored. The very significant modernisation of their military and the recent adventurism is part of that. Nobody is ignoring Russia anymore.
They did play by the rules; it got them side-lined and ignored, promises broken.
"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
-Cosmo
The leadership of Russia might be worried that the same techniques used by Western NGOs to depose the leadership of the Ukraine in 2014 will be used to depose them. The endgame might be that they remain in control of the government of Russia.
I believe (but of course cannot prove) you underestimate Putin. Real political threats get neutered (Alexei Navalny et al), tame opposition parties get induldged. The West is by no means sweetness and light in their attitude towards and dealings with Russia, but foment a revolution in Russia through the use of NGOs? Fantasyland.
How you believe that behind those CWs it was Russian ? In last few Decades we have not found a single truth from Western so-called civilized leadership, all lies, straight. Just take the example of WMD. Even this time if its truth that Russia is behind those CW, let it be because they lied to international community in the past so blatantly that all their words look lies.Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere.
I am pretty sure that UK is lying again, by the way.
Its time West should pay to what they have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere.
Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Although interesting to see that it was the Swedes who did it, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.
It's an interesting double-game they play; Russia needs people to know it was them, but they also need to be able to deny it.
Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical.
Ah, I see. You're derailing the conversation. You've tried to change it to "because murdering an ex-spy with a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury is not an appropriate response to the West's actions in the middle east, it can't have been Russia who did it."
1) UK lied in several cases or most of the cases and now UK==lier so Once a lier always a lier
2) Its not me or Russian who rumbled , but instead it is and it was West( France in case of Libya, UK in case of Iraq, US in case of Syria) has be rumbled.
Is there any proof that it was Russia? Anything, even a shred of evidence? I see only a weasel expression "believed to" - not explaining by who and why.
These dirty trick they always play when they see that fair play will not given them any advantage in their economical and political goals. All the yardsticks they use be superior are b.s now I think, like democracy, freedom of press/speech, human rights etc. Instead they are least democratic and free states run by conglomerate of capitalist like selling their rights with soap and diapers.
West has done too much in the middle east that we are here. It was West to find WMD, CMDs and to install so-called democracy here and there, it was not Russia. I think Russian is doing the necessary cleanup the West as made.
It is horrendous. I suspect the reason it's not addressed is that Russia has a list of alleged war crimes carried out by Western-supported forces, and so long as the victims are mostly Arab the West doesn't care.
