|
|
Regarding tweets, unless its from news agencies or officials they should not be presented here.
|
I'm sympathetic to the concerns that there are too many tweets from people who don't appear important, but I can say that I only repeat tweets which come from either:
a) Journalists from major news sources,
b) direct quotes which I would post from live events like speeches myself, if it would not take too much time to retype them (+ the chance of error),
c) have been retweeted by FM's, and other govt. officials.
If you find any particular tweet or tweeter inconsequential, refer to them. Filtering out the useful information from the disinformation is a crucial collective activity for this thread. Unfortunately, I do not think officials and news agencies always get it right, or that those who are not either of them always get it wrong.
|
On March 04 2014 23:08 plgElwood wrote:
Regarding tweets, unless its from news agencies or officials they should not be presented here.
Well I find them fun to read 
|
On March 04 2014 23:16 Ghanburighan wrote:
I'm sympathetic to the concerns that there are too many tweets from people who don't appear important, but I can say that I only repeat tweets which come from either:
a) Journalists from major news sources,
b) direct quotes which I would post from live events like speeches myself, if it would not take too much time to retype them (+ the chance of error),
c) have been retweeted by FM's, and other govt. officials.
If you find any particular tweet or tweeter inconsequential, refer to them. Filtering out the useful information from the disinformation is a crucial collective activity for this thread. Unfortunately, I do not think officials and news agencies always get it right, or that those who are not either of them always get it wrong.
Well if they report news I am okay with that, although links are always better. But I see no reason to post opinions of random journalists as they are as good as opinions here and we have plenty of those.
|
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment.
|
Russia and OTAN are going to have a meeting again tomorrow. That happens after NATO discussed security fears from Poland, Lithuania and Lativia.
source
|
On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment.
Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying.
But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him.
|
On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him.
The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London.
The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified.
|
On March 04 2014 23:38 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 23:16 Ghanburighan wrote:
I'm sympathetic to the concerns that there are too many tweets from people who don't appear important, but I can say that I only repeat tweets which come from either:
a) Journalists from major news sources,
b) direct quotes which I would post from live events like speeches myself, if it would not take too much time to retype them (+ the chance of error),
c) have been retweeted by FM's, and other govt. officials.
If you find any particular tweet or tweeter inconsequential, refer to them. Filtering out the useful information from the disinformation is a crucial collective activity for this thread. Unfortunately, I do not think officials and news agencies always get it right, or that those who are not either of them always get it wrong. Well if they report news I am okay with that, although links are always better. But I see no reason to post opinions of random journalists as they are as good as opinions here and we have plenty of those.
I concur, I try not to post any opinions that aren't a) accompanied by links, b) live reports of events. Feel free to raise issues with specific tweets as they arrive, especially via PM.
|
On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified.
That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something.
|
Russia lost, you heard it here first. lost Ukraine from its sphere of influence, its g-8 position, and is near to lost Sebastopol
Can Russia hold early elections? 4 years more of Putin are a mistake.
|
On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something.
Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine?
The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries.
The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force.
West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner
|
|
|
I guess Abramovic and others would be pretty pissed if they can not use London as financial Op base.
UK PM would have to drink some polonium210-earl-grey
|
On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner
Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means.
|
This is a bit semantical, but I believe its the George H W Bush they're referring to. His son hasn't gotten a carrier to the extent of my knowledge.
Original source had no initials at any rate, usually that's how they refer to the father.
|
On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means.
Naive.
What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters.
|
On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:
The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile.
I think there was a quote some Russian minister said a while ago that went along the lines of "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power.". Sums up the Kremlin attitude pretty quickly.
One benefit of all this ruckus Russia's causing is making Sweden and Finland (both of whom are pretty anti-NATO/Russia) actually start considering full membership into NATO. Putin's definitely doing a fine job of advertising for them that's for sure.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters.
Since when Scotland is rival to Russia? (:
How's independency?
|
On March 05 2014 01:10 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Since when Scotland is rival to Russia? (: How's independency?
What are you gibbering about, Europe's most powerful submarine fleet and British nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland. Scotland is currently part of the UK and will in the event of Independence remain part of NATO.
I might add, the last time Scottish regiments marched in the Crimea was during the Crimean war, defeating Russian forces both at the siege of sevastopol and the battle of balaclava.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
