Russia 'danger' to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - Fallon

Update:

Source BBC

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said Mr Fallon's comments went "beyond diplomatic ethics" and used "unacceptable terminology". He also said Russia would "find a way to respond".

This is interesting to watch.
Lukashevich claims that this is unfair, but this kind of proves that the Russian position relies on denial, denial, denial... and little else.

I wonder what the response will be, more flights into UK area of interest?

Is this claim based on anything other than fear and conjecture?

a reply to: Rocker2013

By God in Heaven, what days do we live in when we get updates on the potential outbreak of World War 3 via TWITTER..?!?

In other parts of my brain, I consider that we are being led along an easily navigable path of 'Reasons why Europe went to war in 2016' which can be added into future history books as and when the conflict is over, when the Elite live in Elysium, and the Proletariat live in the sewers, surfacing only to tend the needs of the masters.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Actually, getting news via Twitter is usually how most valid breaking news is first discovered.

I know, it's scary. Modern reporting is changing. More and more you see even the MSM outlets sourcing twitter for initial news, then doing their own legwork to independently verify the news.

Journalism is changing.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Rocker2013

By God in Heaven, what days do we live in when we get updates on the potential outbreak of World War 3 via TWITTER..?!?

I think this is just the evolution of media, I'm sure people were saying the same thing about radio back in the day.

In fact, these days social media might be a force for good in spreading messages far faster than would ever have been done before in times of crisis.

I certainly appreciate that we can now find out something within moments of it happening, and from various sources, rather than having to rely on the nightly news or the biased opinions of those formulating a narrative.

originally posted by: superman2012
Is this claim based on anything other than fear and conjecture?

Fear isn't always a bad thing, it can be useful.

It's not unreasonable to make conclusions based on the available evidence, and even Putin has claimed numerous times that having NATO in these nations is a threat to Russia.

All nations have a plan, a strategy. Russia has one too, just as the US and the UK do. Why is it considered conjecture to make obvious conclusions about what that strategy might actually be?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Actually, getting news via Twitter is usually how most valid breaking news is first discovered.

I know, it's scary. Modern reporting is changing. More and more you see even the MSM outlets sourcing twitter for initial news, then doing their own legwork to independently verify the news.

Journalism is changing.

I agree that this is one aspect of reporting that should be reigned in, more so when it's pertains to the potential for conflict.

I've seen several news outlets using Twitter as a source, including the BBC, while claiming as they do so that it's "unverified".

My annoyance here is that if it's unverified it probably should not be used in broadcast and reporting.

I think the issue here is that these MSM broadcasters know that they are being overtaken by individuals out there able to report on the ground. The BBC (and all others) now has to compete with ten people actually involved in any event tweeting out media and reports from the scene. People are naturally gravitating to social media to get news as it's happening, and from all kinds of sources.

In an attempt to compete with that, the MSM is using those sources as though it's involved in the telling of the news, when in reality it's become just an echo of what people have already read and seen for themselves on social media.

And of course, it doesn't help when you have the BBC ignoring a major event unfolding in your own country that's trending on Twitter with hundreds of thousands of followers watching it, and hundreds of those asking "why is the BBC completely ignoring this massive story?!"

The MSM is losing credibility around the world, but that might just be a good thing.

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Michael Fallon is a complete dickhead and this is just another example of his lack of tact and his outdated world viewpoint.
He was / is an out and out Thatcherite and his opinion on Russia is clouded by his Cold War paranoid view that Russia is the 'evil empire'.

Sure, Russia likes to flex its muscles every once in a while, who doesn't?
But they know that any serious attempt to undermine the independence of the Baltic States could have serious repercussions.

I experienced the Cold War and with it the threat of M.A.D. - Russia knows full well how serious the stakes would be.

Personally I have a grudging respect for Putin - he puts Russian interests before ANYTHING else.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Sure, Russia likes to flex its muscles every once in a while, who doesn't?
But they know that any serious attempt to undermine the independence of the Baltic States could have serious repercussions.

Assuming that you're correct (I disagree, as the price Russia has already paid is far higher than even the whole of Ukraine is worth, in the nicest possible way) what will the explanation be if Rebellions begin in any of these three nations?

I personally believe, given the information we have, that Putin plans to repeat this process and use the Rebels in Ukraine as a base of operations against any defense from NATO. This would allow him to continue to deny involvement, with any blame falling on "Rebels", while giving NATO a target in Ukraine, which would also serve to potentially undermine NATO and the West.

The serious repercussions started when Russia annexed Crimea.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Personally I have a grudging respect for Putin - he puts Russian interests before ANYTHING else.

But he hasn't, has he.
Russia is facing considerable economic sanctions, growing calls to remove them from the SWIFT banking system, the people are watching their economy crumbling, European gas customers are looking elsewhere. If he really was thinking about Russian interests he would have continued on the path he was on, engaging with the west, a partner of Ukraine, continuing to build economic partnerships with the Baltic states.

None of what he has done has seemingly been about putting Russia first.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: superman2012
Is this claim based on anything other than fear and conjecture?

Fear isn't always a bad thing, it can be useful.

It's not unreasonable to make conclusions based on the available evidence, and even Putin has claimed numerous times that having NATO in these nations is a threat to Russia.

All nations have a plan, a strategy. Russia has one too, just as the US and the UK do. Why is it considered conjecture to make obvious conclusions about what that strategy might actually be?

A simple no, it is not based on anything other than fear and conjecture would have done.
An obvious conclusion based on what? Fear and conjecture, depending on which side of the propaganda you listen to.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
The Baltic countries know Russia very well.

Russia knows the Baltic countries well too. Complicit regimes in the holocaust of Soviet Russia. They know they lean to the tipping point of the right. Nazis if you will.

a reply to: Rocker2013

My apologies.

I have a question regarding NATO nations. Now I know that only stable nations are allowed membership. What happens if a member nation becomes destabilized? Is their membership revoked? Are other member nations expected to help put down any rebels?

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
The Baltic countries know Russia very well.

Russia knows the Baltic countries well too. Complicit regimes in the holocaust of Soviet Russia. They know they lean to the tipping point of the right. Nazis if you will.

yeah how bout the millions dead under stalin and even before him? moral high ground doth not exist here.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Personally I have a grudging respect for Putin - he puts Russian his own interests before ANYTHING else.

fixed

To be honest I think Putin would push into the baltics. That is based on his behavior which suggests Putin has something to prove. He is not happy that other nations failed to show him the respect he thinks he deserves. He made this mess personal which is always a bad idea.


When setting out on a quest of revenge make sure 2 graves are dug.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
The Baltic countries know Russia very well.

Russia knows the Baltic countries well too. Complicit regimes in the holocaust of Soviet Russia. They know they lean to the tipping point of the right. Nazis if you will.

Should we discuss the USSR's complicity with Hitler? I mean after all they were allies up to 1941. They coordinated the invasion of Poland with both countries dividing Poland up.

Then we have the USSR and Germany, via the secret protocol, dividing up eastern europe in terms of who gets what.

What about the 25k+ Polish military / government / intellectuals / etc deaths at the hand of the NKVD?

Russia was complicit with the Nazi regime.

If your going to throw stones don't do it from inside your glass house.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I have a question regarding NATO nations. Now I know that only stable nations are allowed membership. What happens if a member nation becomes destabilized? Is their membership revoked? Are other member nations expected to help put down any rebels?

I would think the politicians would get involved to see if there is anything that could be done to help that nation.

While there are requirements in order to join NATO I would say that some destabilized nations have already been accepted into NATO. Specifically the relations between Turkey and Greece. They have almost come to military blows with each other over territorial disputes - IE 2 NATO nations going at each other.

As for rebels im not sure. I know Turkey has had issues with the Kurds for a long time however I have never seen anything where NATO members assisted.


Resource:
NATO

a reply to: Xcathdra

Considering he's pulled the same thing in Georgia, Anyone who doesn't see the writing on the wall regarding Putin's aspirations are either grossly ill-informed or willfully ignorant.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Was that when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008?, is that what you are talking about?