A Political Thread

[MarkyH]

To add, I don't think Russia give two hoots about sanctions. From the EU, or NATO. But I wouldn't want to start a war with them.

 

[ncurd]

Sanctions from the EU......they won't do anything some member states want soften current sanctions and the majority are unlikely to do anything that helps out the UK. We've chucked away what influence we had with them.

NATO won't do anything more either.

 

[McTallshort]

Sooooooo? The EU did sanctioned Russia over Crimea. They should offer a similar support, or add further sanctions here if the UK government can persuade.

Also, NATO has sanctions against Russia already also. Because of the invastion of Crimea.

Sooooo. We continue them, we make things harder with the support of the EU, with what NATO can help with. The EU hasn't disbanded, so we need whatever support we can get from our European allies.

They are still under sanction. What are the EU going to do more? Its a trading block not a police force. Plus it takes the votes of all 27 nations to agree any further sanctions and Hungary/Poland/Czech republic wont want to antagonise Putin anymore. The only way eastern European countries would confront Putin is with the backing of NATO not the EU.

 

[MarkyH]

They are still under sanction. What are the EU going to do more? Its a trading block not a police force. Plus it takes the votes of all 27 nations to agree any further sanctions and Hungary/Poland/Czech republic wont want to antagonise Putin anymore. The only way eastern European countries would confront Putin is with the backing of NATO not the EU.

That's kind of my point. The EU don't owe us any favours, so why would they risk trade (even if it's just a token extra sanction) just for the UK. And Nato supporting further sanctions is all well and good, but the bordering countries are the ones where the US and Nato would put (or already have) defence systems. Even with NATO support the Eastern Countries are in a position where they already want to keep their head down and move along.

Again, I don't think Russia care about sanctions, and as I stated earlier the EU has as much to lose if they were introduced. Anything other than further sanctions from NATO would de-stabalise the border areas further.

I'm not sure what the answer should be.

 

[McTallshort]

That's kind of my point. The EU don't owe us any favours, so why would they risk trade (even if it's just a token extra sanction) just for the UK. And Nato supporting further sanctions is all well and good, but the bordering countries are the ones where the US and Nato would put (or already have) defence systems. Even with NATO support the Eastern Countries are in a position where they already want to keep their head down and move along.

Again, I don't think Russia care about sanctions, and as I stated earlier the EU has as much to lose if they were introduced. Anything other than further sanctions from NATO would de-stabalise the border areas further.

I'm not sure what the answer should be.

When the last attack was carried out on a Russian target in the UK we were fully signed up to the EU.

Also your not really making sense. So Russia dont care about sanctions but because we are leaving the EU we cannot ask them to impose further sanctions that Russia wont care about anyway?

 

[MarkyH]

It has nothing to do with leaving the EU to be honest, I was making a flippant comment about us stranding together with our european allies.

I honestly don't think the EU or UK has enough bargaining chips to further sanction Russia. And I don't think Russia would care either. Or Nato sanctions.

 

[McTallshort]

It has nothing to do with leaving the EU.

I honestly don't think the EU or UK has enough bargaining chips to further sanction Russia. And I don't think Russia care either. Or Nato sanctions.

Right so your point about us not being in a union that borders Russia wasnt really a point at all?

 

[MarkyH]

It was a flippant comment ( I did edit it), and while I totally stand by the point that the UK is stronger as part of a European Union when it comes to trade, I honestly don't think it makes a blind bit of difference in this case. As I think I stated in my first post onthe subject.

 

[MarkyH]

Actually my first post stands. If we were part of a greater union of countries then we would be more powerful. Still stands. However, this is Russia, and they don't give a shoot about the EU. I didn't expect a jumped up Brexiteer to hound me down on such a loose comment, when my question was really about what we should do.

I don't think asking Nato to put troops on the Russian border is really ideal

 

[Which Tyler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43380378

Spy poisoning: How could the UK retaliate against Russia?

UK Prime Minister Theresa May is braced to take "extensive measures" against Russia should it not offer a credible explanation of how an ex-spy and his daughter were poisoned on British soil with a military-grade nerve agent.

"Should there be no credible response," Mrs May told parliament, "we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom".

But what are the options available for the UK - both on its own, and with the help of allies? And how likely are the US, EU and others to be on board?

What could the UK do?
Britain could expel Russian diplomats, as it did after the poisoning of former Russian Federal Security Service operative Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 with radioactive polonium.

But many argue that this, and the other measures that were taken after that killing - including visa restrictions on Russian officials - did not go far enough. The man identified as the main suspect, Andrei Lugovoi, is not just at large, he is now a Russian MP.

It could also:

• Expel senior diplomats, perhaps even the Russian ambassador, and known Russian intelligence agents
• Take some sort of action to bar wealthy Russian oligarchs from accessing their mansions and other luxuries in London, as suggested by Tory MP and House of Commons foreign affairs committee chair Tom Tugendhat. One way this could happen is through the use of Unexplained Wealth Orders, which allow government officials to seize assets including property until they have been properly accounted for
• A boycott of the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year by officials and dignitaries - a symbolic move that UK allies are unlikely to emulate
• Taking Russian broadcasters such as RT (formerly Russia Today) off the air - broadcasting regulator Ofcom has said it will "consider the implications for RT's broadcast licences" after Mrs May speaks on Wednesday
• Pass a British version of the 2012 US Magnitsky act, which punishes Russians involved in corruption and human rights violations with asset freezes and travel bans. It is named after a Russian lawyer who died in custody after revealing alleged fraud by state officials. MPs have been pushing for a Magnitsky amendment to be added to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill now going through Parliament

Could the EU impose new sanctions?
Current sanctions on Russia that Britain supports are imposed via the European Union. They were first passed after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in 2014 and backed rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The measures target Russia's state finances, energy and arms sectors and include:

• The exclusion of state banks from raising long-term loans in the EU
• A ban on exports of dual-use equipment that could be put to military use and a ban on EU-Russia arms deals
• A ban on exports of a wide range of oil industry technology
• Western asset freezes and travel bans on 150 people, including senior officials, and 38 companies

EU countries are already divided on the sanctions, with diverging views among members as to how Russia should be treated. States like Hungary, Italy and Greece have all supported the weakening of sanctions.

Some doubt whether Britain could convince the bloc to further toughen its measures against Moscow, especially with the UK on its way out of the Union.

Could Nato act?
By framing the poisoning as a possible "unlawful use of force" by Russia against the UK, Theresa May prompted questions as to whether this could be a matter for Nato, the military alliance of 29 countries.

The alliance's policy of collective defence - under Article 5 - states that an attack on any one ally is seen as an attack on all.

It was invoked for the first and only time by the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

Lord Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser, told the BBC that such an "unlawful act" warranted the involvement of Nato.

Any action "will be much more effective if there can be a broader, Nato-EU solidarity behind us", he said.

But Downing Street has played down suggestions that this is an Article 5 matter.

For its part, Nato has called the attack "horrendous and completely unacceptable". Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the incident was of "great concern" to the alliance, which has moved in recent years to deter Russia by sending troops to Poland and the three Baltic states.

Lord Ricketts suggested one option involving Nato could be a reinforcement of resources on the group's eastern flank.

What about the UK's allies?
The UK could also seek to bring the issue to the UN - and seek to gather international support for action against Russia.

Theresa May has already spoken to France's President Macron and the two leaders "agreed that it would be important to continue to act in concert with allies", according to Downing Street. Although Mrs May has not yet spoken to President Trump about the case there have been "conversations at a senior official level".

The UK has already internationalised the matter by asking Russia to provide a "full and complete disclosure" of the Novichok nerve agent programme to an international agency, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Indeed, the magnitude of the response that may be announced on Wednesday will depend on the scale of international co-operation that Mrs May can secure, says BBC Diplomatic correspondent James Landale.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders called the attack an "outrage" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went further, saying the attack "clearly came from Russia". President Donald Trump himself has not spoken out.

 

[McTallshort]

Actually my first post stands. If we were part of a greater union of countries then we would be more powerful. Still stands. However, this is Russia, and they don't give a shoot about the EU. I didn't expect a jumped up Brexiteer to hound me down on such a loose comment, when my question was really about what we should do.

I don't think asking Nato to put troops on the Russian border is really ideal

Fair enough

 

[ncurd]

Time for some tin foil hat logic

Trump sacks Rex Tillerson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43388723

And from the article Which_Tyler posted
"White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders called the attack an "outrage" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went further, saying the attack "clearly came from Russia". President Donald Trump himself has not spoken out."


Tillerson has been on Trumps radar for some time 9since Tillerson called him stupid) but the timing is very suspect....

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Speaks out against Russia on the Monday,
Then gets sacked on the Tuesday,
(Trump was playing golf on the Wednesday, And on Thursday and Friday and Saturday, he chilled on Sunday)


Couldn't make it up

 

[Gavin]

I'd like to find out why Russia would commit this crime, it just doesn't seem logical for the Russians to do it especially in the manner of the poisoning.

Russia are always calculated and cautious when it comes to doing stuff in other countries but the method of the poisoning seems mad and unstructured.

It could very easily have been committed by a country who are anti-Russia to 'frame' Putin so that further sanctions can be imposed which would affect their control in Syria against Western-backed rebels.

*Not that it couldn't have been Russia but everyone is jumping on the bandwagon before looking at the event in context and all variables

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

http://www.businessinsider.com/make...on-replaces-donald-trump-with-kittens-2016-12

i'm honestly considering it

 

[ncurd]

I'd like to find out why Russia would commit this crime, it just doesn't seem logical for the Russians to do it especially in the manner of the poisoning.

Russia are always calculated and cautious when it comes to doing stuff in other countries but the method of the poisoning seems mad and unstructured.

It could very easily have been committed by a country who are anti-Russia to 'frame' Putin so that further sanctions can be imposed which would affect their control in Syria against Western-backed rebels.

*Not that it couldn't have been Russia but everyone is jumping on the bandwagon before looking at the event in context and all variables

Ex-Russian spy, who turned on his country and was attacked with highly controlled substance (nerve agent) specifically from Russian origin. Sure I mean someone else could of done it but that's why May has issued an ultimatum of tell us how the nerve agent got into the wrong hands or own up to it.

Its also not like Russia hasn't done this before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

They've done it because the UK is weak internationally and there is literally nothing we can do. Putin gets to take out an enemy.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

So Tillerson sides with us in blaming the Russians and the next day he is fired by "definitely not related to Russians" Trump.

 

[Which Tyler]

They've done it because the UK is weak internationally and there is literally nothing we can do. Putin gets to take out an enemy.

And fire a shot across the bows of any other enemies
And undermine Britain whlst we're ripe for being undermined internationally

 

[ncurd]

So Tillerson sides with us in blaming the Russians and the next day he is fired by "definitely not related to Russians" Trump.

TBF Trump has said nothing...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Russian state tv said, in the days after the poisoning, that traitors should not consider living in the UK as it's too dangerous.

It's a show of force from Russia - cross us and we'll get you no matter where you are. They aren't scared of the consequences because they nothing meaningful will come of it.
We literally know who murdered Litvinenko but Russia refuse extradition and don't acknowledge it. They then promoted the guy to a high government office position.