It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK/Russia Relations.....

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
After the events involving the radioactive material in London, Russia's refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi and now the expulsion of the 4 russian diplomats from London, Relations between the UK and Russia seem to be going downhill very fast.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I heard an analyst being interviewed on the news a short while ago and she said something along the lines of,

"With this turn of events, I can forsee a paradigm-shift in the attitudes of the West towards Russia".

Now, I don't know about you guys but that sounds pretty serious to me.
A 'paradigm shift of attitudes' implies rapid and massive change.

also,

The Kremlin said the decision was "immoral" and warned of "serious consequences" for the UK. (from the article above).

I don't even want to start thinking about how this might unfold.
Where do you guys think this is going to go?
How strong are our financial ties with Russia? Don't we get Gas from them?




posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
This fad with Russia was always on the cards.. its nothing more than orchestrated bs..

I can see it now.. a nuke gets detonated in Israel, blaimed on Al-CIAda or some other intelligence agency created group, linked to Iran, which in turn is linked back to Russia for supplying the weapons to them.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chonx
How strong are our financial ties with Russia? Don't we get Gas from them?



It would seem that we get 0 gas off Russia. We do buy some gas from the continent, some of which might be resold Russian gas, but the bulk of our supplies are still domestic (around 80%), with the rest being made up with gas from Norway.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Not to mention the recent announcement that Russia has withdrawn from the European Arms Control Treaty, basically this means that Russia is no longer under guidelines with other European nations to control the number of "tactical and or "conventional" weapons it produces, and most importantly they are under no restrictions on Russia for conventional troop movements. If Russia is serious here, I would expect Georgia and Moldova to be re-occupied fully once more as a first target. If Russia truly wishes to finish off ties with the West, it will retake the regions the West influenced to turn against Russia.

And as I always say when talking about Russian / West relations, the entire mess is 110% entirely the US administrations fault!

When Bush first became president, US/UK/Russian relations where as well as they have been in our history of existence.. Putin went to Texas and talked with Bush and answered kids questions in an assembly hall, cracking jokes about how he wished his ancestors did not sell Alaska.

Fast forward a few years now..

America and the UK invade Iraq..

Against "terrorism"

Yet, we all know the terrorism Russia faces, and each time they attack Chechnya the West calls Russia a tyrant.

So we invade Iraq, Afgahnistan and at the same time we interfere with the Ukrainian elections.. see where Russia is getting mad? Iraq was a big trading partner of Russia's, not to mention the billions in contracts America deemed "void" after taking control of the government.

Then, Cheny being the smart man he is, went to Lithuania and in front of Russian allies, Russian turncoats, former friends and old soviet generals and insulted Putin and Russia. Moscow newspapers printed the next day "New Cold War Begins" .. and Russia has stopped all diplomatic cooperation since then.

In the last 8 years it is clearly amazing how fast our relations with the East have deteriorated....



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

America and the UK invade Iraq..

Against "terrorism"

Yet, we all know the terrorism Russia faces, and each time they attack Chechnya the West calls Russia a tyrant.


Something which is so easily forgotten by most of us in the west.
I guess it was only a matter of time until they wouldn't take any more hypocricy.

Russia to me, are an unknown quantity at this point. By that I mean that I'm not entirely sure that something drastic is beyond them.

stumason, thanks for that. I'd always assumed we topped up the North Sea deposits with supplies from Russia, dunno why. cheers.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Russia has never been in good relations with UK since the early 1900's. That includes the period of Putin's presidency and the 90's. There is currently more of a rivalry between the two than between Russia and the US. These recent events are nothing to be surprised about, and everything will come to pass in less than a month.

One mysteriously murdered small-time dissident with an anti-anything-Russian agenda bordering on fanatical, should not serve as a major catalyst for a serious change of political stance between the two countries. What nation will ever willingly give up their secret agent to be interogated by another country? UK's request was comical in its absurdity, and nothing about this investigation has been surprising to anyone.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If Russia is serious here, I would expect Georgia and Moldova to be re-occupied fully once more as a first target.


If Russia wanted Georgia and Moldova, it would not have let them separate so quickly after the fall of USSR. The truth is Russia wanted them gone, because it had (and still has) far too many problems of its own to worry about the problems of others (such as poverty in Moldova, or ethnic tensions in Georgia). This truth still remains, and Russia is not interested in having either of the two countries becoming part of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, it is interested in having friendly governments in those countries. But it did alow the Rose Revolution in Georgia to slip through its fingers, and didn't interfere, nor does it stand up too much for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is a good reason for that.

Russia has an agenda under Putin, that will likely continue with Putin's successor. You are wrong to think that this agenda involves about reoccupations. The agenda involves strengthening and securing the territory that Russia has now. In fact Russia is trying to distance itself from the pro-Russian separatist regions in those countries (Georgia and Moldova), and it will not allow itself to be dragged into war with those countries - because that is exactly what those countries want, especially Saakashvilli. There will be no reoccupations of Georgia or Moldova by Russia, and it is already far to late for new wars in Eastern Europe, because NATO and EU have gobbled everything up.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
If Russia truly wishes to finish off ties with the West, it will retake the regions the West influenced to turn against Russia.


Forget securing its own oil and natural resources. Forget national security. Forget dealing with separatist regions. Forget the fragile economy and fighting government corruption. According to that statement Russia's main goal to make enemies with everyone else!

No one wants to cut ties with anyone. But ties are being cut because of reckless actions by one side (NATO), and unyielding character of the other side (Russia). Its not about enemies and friends, its about politics.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
And as I always say when talking about Russian / West relations, the entire mess is 110% entirely the US administrations fault!


I'd say its not the Bush's administration. It's the US foreign policy, which hasn't changed much since the start of the Korean War. No matter who is in the White House, the military complex and its supporting corporate and political infrastructure will keep successfully lobbying for wars and conflicts which are of benefit to someone who has some say. Bush is the favorite scapegoat, but Clinton and his precedents were not much different if you examine their decisions. It is the success and the marketing of the said wars and conflicts that decides the good from the bad as far as citizens are concerned.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
When Bush first became president, US/UK/Russian relations where as well as they have been in our history of existence.


Far from it I think. The improvement of post-Cold War relations came to a full halt the moment Clinton decided to bomb Serbia. Never mind that it was an illegal interference in Serbia's national relations, and completely ignored Russia's and China's views - US had to do it to help the poor Muslims (as if!!!!). The constant b*tching from the West about Chechnya didn't help either. Russia was left with its arms tied in the 90's concerning helping Serbia and other foreign relations. This is what contributed to deteriorating relations. In the eyes of Russians Clinton was just as "bad" as Bush.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
Iraq was a big trading partner of Russia's.

Saddam was never planning to repay the huge debts he owed to Russia, because he thought they served as a buffer againts the war that happened anyway. Needless to say he was wrong. Russia knew his strategy, but played with him anyway because Cold War never fully ended, and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". Russia never deeply cared about Saddam or Iraq. On the other hand when US invaded Afghanistan they allied with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and other CIS Asian nations, and used the ex-Soviet bases there. This is what angered Russia the most about the start of the War On Terror.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
Then, Cheny being the smart man he is, went to Lithuania and in front of Russian allies, Russian turncoats, former friends and old soviet generals and insulted Putin and Russia.


True. One plea to Americans: please keep President Bush alive and well, because the second-in-line nutjob would do wonders to retrace all of the steps leading to an all-out Cold War. That or just shoot Cheney on the spot when the worst comes to worst. You can even blame it on Russia.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy

One mysteriously murdered small-time dissident with an anti-anything-Russian agenda bordering on fanatical, should not serve as a major catalyst for a serious change of political stance between the two countries. What nation will ever willingly give up their secret agent to be interogated by another country? UK's request was comical in its absurdity, and nothing about this investigation has been surprising to anyone.


Well, let's try putting it another way. Let's talk about the execution of a British citizen in London . Let's talk about the method of the execution, the rarity of the poison the slow death of the victim and oh and lets not forget the contamination that was spread across London and threatened the health of hundreds of Londoners.

Do you think all this is still an insufficient catalyst for a 'serious change of political between two countries'.

You might think the British extradition request was 'comical' but it is what happens between nation states when situations like this arise. The British Govt. had little else it could do after having been given the run around for months by the Russian authorities.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
from where I see it..I say screw London. We need those Brit diplomatic relations like a dog needs a stop light on it's ass.
Everyone expects Russia to do the same for british diplomats (spys) but here what I think:
Diplomats are in Moscow to stay.
No business is going to be hurt
Our foreign office might issue a statement but that's about it.
Our stance will show civilized world Russia is not about throuwing a punch back slapping Brown like a bitch.
Overall its funny..From where I am. You would understand...Just imagine..some puny country who depends on russian gas to survive another winter, goes so far as issuing warnings..hilarious! It's like the nerd of the nerds in a class aproaching local football team and threats to tear teams capitan to pieces if they don't score two goals by the end of first half. I mean...Actually this might be scarry..Yeah, it's so unimaginalbe that its scarry. Well, may be it was a bad analogy..Anyway, Britain is so insignifiCAnt that Russia responding to anything she does would be a loss of precious time.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Ah, an intellectual. I'm probably going to regret this but here goes. What would your reaction be if an Russian citizen was murdered in Moscow and that cities population had been placed at risk due to radioactive contamination?



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Radioactive contamination..that's what you said? Well, I am not going to regret this:
Amount of cheesburgers and diet coke you and your fellow citizens of London devour every morning, measured in long tons, does far more damage to your overweight lard ass than some fast atoms ascaped. Besides, it was never pooved that so called rediation came from Russia. What a silly way to poison someone using radioactive meterial? Traceable, detectable all the way? If russia needed some one dead they woud use f^%$ing stagger. After the deed is done -- throw the bitch in a river..How complicated that sounds? But no... polonium in a tea cup//???WTF? You have been mindraped by BBC my friend. Use your brain..think...who would gain from this death on the eve of world summit?

peace



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I agree with you about the importance of a sensible diet and it's positive effect on public health. A diet based on junk food or Vodka is not a healthy option.

Why use polonium? To make a point. To demonstrate very publicly the consequences of dissent. Such theatrical executions are not without precedent. As for this taking
place around the time of a summit? Well you have been honest about your views concerning the UK so I trust you won't be offended if I say that Russia doesn't occupy the place in the thinking of either the UK population or Political establishment that you think it does.

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Based on length (deapth) of your concern I'd assume russia does occupy major newsrags foreign affairs headline topics. How she can't be? What else The Guardian or The Sun offer to talk about when front page filled by lice infested ugly desieced british whores adverts space is depleted? British affairs with Niger, France? Here comes sewer pus flux aimed to further mindrape populace like you. Rape your wallet offering adjustable rates?

Letvinenko is zero. Zilch, natha. You have mindraped, sorry, an impression like Russia has major problem with its ex spys and now the time has come to teach a lesson for the entire world to learn what might happen if you betray your countrys security is the sign of capital brainwashing. I'm being ironic. But I fight, always will, to gain back your mind virginity.
..Like among ex KGB staff rules are not known. Imagine Mi16 eliminating exhausted item -- so, according to you, MI16 has to make it public throught mindraping BBC pus rag, public poisoning, car accidents, so Mi16 staff left becomes finaly aware as to what traitors to expect if they sell Brown...I mean, your logic is very complex to comment.

Hey..How about Mr. Kelly?



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The length and breadth of my concern is for my fellow Londoners. I don't want my city used as some macabre playground by foriegn security services, gangsters or kulaks with a grievance. You're right Russia is getting a lot of press coverage today. But I'm old enough to remeber when Russia got column inches for Sputnik, Gagarin,it's athletics achievements, it's Science. And now? Well let's just say things are different.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Bit dust, I've got to say. you have a patriotism which is bordering on zealousness. This is not a bad thing and obviously you are entitled to your opinions but maybe if you tried to look at things a little more objectively on occasion, you may find that, without your own views and emotions clouding your perspective, you may see things more clearly. Just a thought though dust, not having a dig.

oh, and we actually have some very nice, clean, healthy women here



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Maloy's premise about "surrendering a secret agent" is mute.

Because....

The dude is ex-KGB and has been for a number of years. he came to the UK on a PRIVATE trip, took in an Arsenal game amongst other tourist sites and is clearly linked in some way to the murder, as he was there.

Whether he is guilty or another victim is remained to be seen, but only a trial will out that.

Unless of course, Maloy, your contending that an otherwise "ex-KGB" agent, is actually still with the FSB and came to the UK covertly under false information?

We are led to believe by him that he is a "businessman" who runs his own "security firm" and has nothing to do with the FSB..

So not really the active agent your saying he is, so your argument falls apart.

If he was an active agent, I would see your point. We wouldn't expect his extradition anymore than you would expect us to extradite our "diplomats" who had a rock fetish....



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Rather well put Mr. Stumason.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Its a pity political relations have soured but if the British government didn't do something public then the government including the security agencies would have egg on their face - be seen as having a 'soft touch' even. In simplistic terms, we cannot have people travelling around London with radioactive material with an intent to kill.

Obviously one would expect the SIS to know a lot more about the incident than the laymen and they would obviously be advising the active government in making their decisions. Interesting the expelled were actual 'intelligence agents' themselves, one wonders if they had some sort of link to the incident and this move was taken to rattle the cage to see what happened next.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join