Sorry, but I need to express my frustration. Thus thread is usually a last resort where some balanced opinions are being exchanged (sorry, not the opinions are always balanced - some are, but the exchange is usually), but the incident with the russian spy and the nerve gas?
I understand that reddit and media outlets and all main stream is pointing at Russia. It kind of fits with the general "we are the good guys"-exceptionalism of the west rethoric.
Reddit is worthless cancer, media is worthless vomit, the UK does not subscribe to good guy exceptionalism (having rather the opposite problem, being absolute in their conviction of their own innate evil).
That the same is going on here is saddening. Sorry UK, but give me some evidence. At least a little more than a Soviet formula that is on Wikipedia. Yes Russia is evil, but since when are the Western states any better? Just remembering weapons of mass destruction and Iraq.
All I see is that there is a heating propaganda war between Russia and the West. I refuse to take sides because I won't chose whose lies I believe. I believe instead, as an informed guess, that there will never be any truth in the public about a story involving a double agent, cold war rethorics, Russia, a poison attack that likely only can be orchestrated by a state actor (or one of their agencies). So, we better accept the ignorance, and look at what is happening instead.
Refuse ignorance as nothing short of deliberate ignorance, the war ceases to be a propaganda war once innocents start getting publicly killed in deliberate, dramatic fashion.
Issues of morality are one thing, Moscow's track record of eliminating dissidents internally is business as usual. Yet once Moscow begins interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations, when it is eliminating citizens under British protection in such a sloppy manner - using nerve agents which even result in British casualties, it is nothing short of a call to war.
Ok, sorry, I will try again in a more civilized way 
What appears strange to me is how readily a lot of people jump to readily blame Russia. It is obvious to suspect Russia and to ask for clarification, but putting ultimatums out like it's being done now - I just defies common sense to me, to start the cold war so readily again.
This is not the first time Putin has ordered an assassination on UK soil in such a way as to be obvious; I do not doubt that Putin has methods to discreetly assassinate someone, so to be so brazen speaks volumes of his disrespect for the British state. The danger therein lies when there are ambiguities as to the thresholds of both states, of what they are willing to tolerate. One of our police officers may not survive this attack, so you might be able to empathize with why the UK cannot respond with anything but a resumption of the cold war - certainly, I believe Theresa May has not responded nearly harshly enough, and if she has, has not made these responses public yet. The ultimatum in question was rather simple one, obligating Russia with little except an explanation of how one of their weapons ended up getting deployed on British soil. This weapon was only manufactured in the USSR, which means that there are two possibilities: Either the weapon in question was smuggled out during the collapse of the Soviet Union and deployed by a third party, or it was deployed by the Russian federation. To ask Putin how it came to be that this occurred is a courtesy, a last chance to rectify the fuck up. That chance has been lost, sadly.
What would be the logical procedure is to bring the case to the OPCW for a challenge investigation against Russia, and not doing so can be interpreted as not really being interested in the truth, but rather in the conflict itself. It would be absolutely critical to see Russia's reaction to such a neutral inspection.
I see much talk on Sputnik and RT, both of which are activated media assets of Moscow, of how the UK is disinterested in the truth because they do not want to submit any sample to the OPCW. Of course this is entirely false,
the UK is sending a sample to the OPCW. Furthermore, while you and I may be alike in our distrust of anything the UK government says, the analysis from our military personnel in chemical warfare research was stellar, and they refrained from speaking on conjecture, only on conclusive evidence. Consequently they have my trust, and we shall see what is concluded with the OPCW. Furthermore, there is something rather hypocritical in Moscow
accusing Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia and even the UK (with no evidence!!!) of manufacturing the weapon produced by them, when none of them have a track record of murdering Russian defectors under their protection.
I find it troubling how fast France and Germany went to support the UK in this. It's not surprising though. Because of the UK's confrontation course with Russia, it is a kind of "be with or against us" situation (and then the choice is obvious).
I'm puzzled by the framing that the UK is on a warpath with Russia, collecting France and Germany for a confrontation course. Can provocation be answered with anything but confrontation, when the provocations so brazenly disregard the state involved? It is abundantly clear that Putin holds zero respect in the credibility or seriousness of the Westminster government, thus the safest thing to do is seek confrontation and establish clear boundaries between peace and war. The success of confrontation is such that it deters anyone from making stupid moves under the impression that the other side will not react, once it is clear the other side will react, that impression is removed. I hate this state of affairs, I certainly had hoped that Russia and the UK could return to their historically friendly relations, but it is for the time being never going to be reality for fault of Putin's fears.
Who would have gained from it?
Putin? For his election, absolutely. T. May? Obviously, too. Finally, the country (and other countries) are behind her. And there are other obvious candidates whose agenda would benefit from the outcome of this. And there might be much deeper reasons that will never be obvious to the public, so for us, it is really hard to ask the question for who has which motive, and I would consider it to be far from answered.
"traitors or those who simply hate their country in their free time": "Don't choose Britain as a place to live."
Public execution before an election to make it clear opposition will be dealt with. Pretty obvious benefit for Putin, a public execution to make an example of a traitor. If Theresa May was going to false flag the UK to distract everyone from something (her failing political career, the English child trafficking scandal, inability to actually leave the EU all being possible examples I have heard), I don't think she would be so daft as to false flag in such a way as to have zero plausible deniability. Her claim is that this nerve agent, one which she explicitly identifies, is one that is verifiably Russian in origin. If she was going to false flag the UK, she would pick a generic nerve agent (or really any generic weapon), and she would pick a public target - not someone entirely unknown to the public.
And it is rather tiring as time goes on, continually trying to be cordial and diplomatic with a partner who does little but unleash ransomware upon you. Is cyberwarfare not enough? It has to be chemical warfare too? Saddening times.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1106989 times)