Russia vows to hit back over diplomatic expulsions

"Russia has vowed a tough response to the decision by more than 20 countries to expel its diplomats in response to a nerve agent attack in the UK. The expulsion of around 100 Russians is thought to be the largest in history.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov singled out the US after it expelled 60 diplomats and closed a consulate, but indicated dialogue would continue.

Russia's foreign ministry called the mass expulsions an "unfriendly act" and said it would "not go without notice and we will react to it"."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43550938

Reply 1

AlwaysBroke.

17

Some kind TSR user explained to me about the situation in which that Russian double agent was poisoned. I don't really listen to the news because I have GCSE's to revise for so can someone explain to me why loads of countries are expelling Russian Diplomats? Is it simply due to countries being Allies with each other?

I feel like we are asking for a war; the Russian double spy thing was way over-hyped but I guess that was on the basis due to use of WMD. But was the a good reason to kick these diplomats out or are we just doing that because we are angry. Either way, not like it helps tensions.

Reply 2

Good bloke

19

Original post by mc_miah

S Either way, not like it helps tensions.

Presumably you think we should just roll over and wait for Russia to kill the next one then. What doesn't help tensions is killing people that you have previously voluntarily released, swapped and pardoned by use of extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction in a public space in a foreign country.

Reply 3

AlwaysBroke.

17

Original post by Good bloke

Presumably you think we should just roll over and wait for Russia to kill the next one then. What doesn't help tensions is killing people that you have previously voluntarily released, swapped and pardoned by use of extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction in a public space in a foreign country.

That's so true

Reply 4

Just my opinion

20

It's not just that they think they can assassinate their ex agents here with impunity, it's the method that they used to do it coming close to killing a British police officer and members of the public.

They may as well have tried to kill the spy and his daughter with a bomb on a park bench.

Reply 5

uberteknik

21

Original post by Just my opinion

It's not just that they think they can assassinate their ex agents here with impunity, it's the method that they used to do it coming close to killing a British police officer and members of the public.

They may as well have tried to kill the spy and his daughter with a bomb on a park bench.

It's far worse than that because they used a chemical weapon in violation of international treaties they signed along with the rest of the world. That last time a chemical weapon was used on European soil was in WWII. It's also of a type specifically designed to evade detection. The type of weapon used has the potential to kill thousands of people - every bit as deadly as a nuclear bomb.

In addition, the Salisbury incident is the latest in a list of increasingly more brazen attacks which goes back to the 90's, including: using radioactive substances for assassination, cyber attacks on military, government and commercial organisations, interfering with democratic elections to change the outcome, driving divisions between NATO and European allies, annexing land belonging to independent sovereign countries, implicit in the shooting down of a civilian airliner full of European citizens, bombing civilian targets in Syria etc. The list goes on.

At some point we have to make a stand and say enough is enough.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

Napp

22

Ahh back to the good old days of the Cold War I see. I always envied the parents generation living under the permanent threat of nuclear oblivion :rolleyes:

Reply 7

uberteknik

21

Original post by Napp

Ahh back to the good old days of the Cold War I see. I always envied the parents generation living under the permanent threat of nuclear oblivion :rolleyes:

Ahhhh sarcasm, who would have thought?

Nuclear oblivion existed from the 1950's onwards, when stockpiles of bombs and missiles grew and the yield of weapons increased to be several hundreds or even a thousand times more destructive than those dropped on Japan.

The Soviet Union even boasted of producing and detonating the most destructive single weapon in history. That is exactly what Putin is doing now.

Just because the world stopped talking about nuclear oblivion, did not mean the threat had ever gone away. It was festering in the minds of ex KGB operatives who want to take the world back to the 'good old days'.

Reply 8

Napp

22

Original post by uberteknik

Ahhhh sarcasm, who would have thought?

I know right?

Nuclear oblivion existed from the 1950's onwards, when stockpiles of bombs and missiles grew and the yield of weapons increased to be several hundreds or even a thousand times more destructive than those dropped on Japan.

I'm aware...

The Soviet Union even boasted of producing and detonating the most destructive single weapon in history. That is exactly what Putin is doing now.

And to think that was scaled back from its optimum yeild as well.
Last time I checked Puting had neither created nor tested any super weapons.

Just because the world stopped talking about nuclear oblivion, did not mean the threat had ever gone away. It was festering in the minds of ex KGB operatives who want to take the world back to the 'good old days'.

The liklihood did until the two sides decided to stage a falling out again.
Some of them might well be but then again so are the chicken hawks in Washington. Whats your point?

But as I assume you're reffering to Mr Putin by that I feel obliged to point out a fairly obvious error in that their isnt a shred of evidence to say he wants a return to the cold war. A polycentric world order, sure. Then again plenty of countries who arent the USA's supplicants are angling for such a thing in one form or another and they've got it.
As Bobo Lo puts it the Russians and the Chinese are more interested in the West simply acknowledging the fact this is not a unipolar world anymore and acting as such. Which to be frank isnt a particularly outrageous request is it?

Reply 9

Good bloke

19

Original post by Napp

I isnt a shred of evidence to say he wants a return to the cold war.

A cold war is simply a war that is fought without resorting to military force. Putin, by engaging in cyberwarfare and by renewing the propaganda war and spreading confusion and dissent, is doing exactly that. He has also taken territory from a neighbour and made sure his friends in Georgia have also taken territory. This is the very definition of a cold war.

Reply 10

Napp

22

Original post by Good bloke

A cold war is simply a war that is fought without resorting to military force. Putin, by engaging in cyberwarfare and by renewing the propaganda war and spreading confusion and dissent, is doing exactly that. He has also taken territory from a neighbour and made sure his friends in Georgia have also taken territory. This is the very definition of a cold war.

I said the Cold War, not a Cold War. With respect to the Russian saga they are very different things, as attested to by numerous analysts.

If that was what was meant when people refer to the Cold War you might have a point but they do not.(not least because Ukraine is not a western ally and georgia started that firefight)
Equally why are you insinuating that only Russia is at fault here? That is patently absurd

Reply 11

Good bloke

19

Original post by Napp

I said the Cold War, not a Cold War.

The Cold War ended years ago. What we are discussing is a second one, which has clearly started. Ukraine's status is irrelevant to whether Russia is trying to push itself into larger prominence and further its foreign policy ambitions. It is just one of Russia's targets.

I missed the news of Britain and America interfering in Russian social media and killing double agents with nerve gases on Russian territory, but I would expect us to retaliate in due course.

Reply 12

Napp

22

Original post by Good bloke

The Cold War ended years ago. What we are discussing is a second one, which has clearly started. Ukraine's status is irrelevant to whether Russia is trying to push itself into larger prominence and further its foreign policy ambitions. It is just one of Russia's targets.

I missed the news of Britain and America interfering in Russian social media and killing double agents with nerve gases on Russian territory, but I would expect us to retaliate in due course.

You don’t say.
But it is still, if you’ll excuse me, ignorant to call it that. Not to mention thoroughly misleading.
A rather unpleasant falling out does not a Cold War make.
Then again it really depends who you listen to, if you listen to a hawk like Lucas he’s contended there has been a new Cold War since the early 2000’s. Oneself tends to side with Trenin and Mearsheimer.
People keep whining about this supposed plot by the Russians involving fb - if a western democracy can be laid low by some petty ads on fb then it says a lot more for the state of said democracy than Russian hijinxs.
No instead NATO has been advancing to the Russians boarders, deploying abms on their doorstep, invading their neighbours, formenting revolutions in their back yard, launching a mirror disinformation campaign against them and so on so forth.
To be perfectly frank only a person truly ignorant of east-west history and relations would even attempt to make the case Russia is unilaterally at fault here.
Now one is obviously not going to deny Russian misdeeds but the fact of the matter is western ones need to be achknowledged as well.

The Russians have killed anyone with a nerve gas.

Russia vows to hit back over diplomatic expulsions

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you