The diplomats are out!!

[Lloyd90]

On the news now, Trump (America) is throwing out 60 Russian diplomats and forcing the closure of the Russian Embassy in Seattle. 

France, Germany and Ukraine are also doing the same, telling them to leave. 

Nice to see Trump give us a bit of support ... 

 

just wondering, what impact can we expect Russia to feel due to this? 

[Smokersmith]

No doubt it suits them for other reasons ... but nice to see !!

[figgy]

Probably shrug their shoulders and think nothing more about it, Putin never comes across as one who cares what other nations think.

As said nice to see other countries following suit in support.

[pinfireman]

I,m waiting for the Putin apologists to pop up.....

[krugerandsmith]

4 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

On the news now, Trump (America) is throwing out 60 Russian diplomats and forcing the closure of the Russian Embassy in Seattle. 

France, Germany and Ukraine are also doing the same, telling them to leave. 

Nice to see Trump give us a bit of support ... 

 

just wondering, what impact can we expect Russia to feel due to this? 

France and Germany  Four each   Hmm.

[JDog]

That should read that some Russian diplomats who are known to the USA and the EU are being asked to leave. Many will remain and of course there will be many more who are not known about who will carry on with their nefarious activities.

[12gauge82]

Got to say, as much as I don't like trump as a human being, he is doing his best for his people and despite many of the UK establishment doing their best to sour relations with him, he keeps handing the UK an olive branch, why we keep taking shots at him when the leader of the most powerful country on earth is trying to be our friend is beyond me, especially when much of europe is trying to economically harm us.

[ordnance]

7 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

No doubt it suits them for other reasons ... but nice to see !!

What other reasons. ?

[JohnfromUK]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

why we keep taking shots at him when the leader of the most powerful country on earth is trying to be our friend is beyond me, especially when much of europe is trying to economically harm us.

+1, but he does put his foot in it rather too often for comfort!

[Hamster]

Talking about Putin apologists, there's a huge amount of similar quotes and articles to these on the internet : 

Paul Craig Roberts:
“I agree with Stephen Lendman that the Russian government’s efforts to deal with the West on the basis of evidence and law are futile. There is only one Western foreign policy and it is Washington’s. Washington’s “diplomacy” consists only of lies and force. It was a reasonable decision for Russia to attempt diplomatic engagement with the West on the basis of facts, evidence, and law, but it has been to no avail. For Russia to continue on this failed course is risky, not only to Russia but to the entire world.
Indeed, nothing is more dangerous to the world than Russia’s self-delusion about “Western partners.” Russia only has Western enemies. These enemies intend to remove the constraint that Russia (and China) place on Washington’s unilateralism. 
To avoid war Russia should turn her back, but not her eyes, on the West, stop responding to false charges, evict all Western embassies and every other kind of presence including Western investment, and focus on relations with China and the East. Russia’s attempt to pursue mutual interests with the West only results in more orchestrated incidents.

”https://russia-insider.com/en/were-headed-war-russia-and-no-one-seems-care/ri22900

Hopefully for mankind's sake it'll come to nothing but a lot of apologists out there think we're being sleep walked into something catastrophic. In fact even a non nuclear war with Russia will have life changing consequences. All conflicts start with the masses being gently introduced to a new manufactured enemy(ies). 

[12gauge82]

37 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Talking about Putin apologists, there's a huge amount of similar quotes and articles to these on the internet : 

Paul Craig Roberts:
“I agree with Stephen Lendman that the Russian government’s efforts to deal with the West on the basis of evidence and law are futile. There is only one Western foreign policy and it is Washington’s. Washington’s “diplomacy” consists only of lies and force. It was a reasonable decision for Russia to attempt diplomatic engagement with the West on the basis of facts, evidence, and law, but it has been to no avail. For Russia to continue on this failed course is risky, not only to Russia but to the entire world.
Indeed, nothing is more dangerous to the world than Russia’s self-delusion about “Western partners.” Russia only has Western enemies. These enemies intend to remove the constraint that Russia (and China) place on Washington’s unilateralism. 
To avoid war Russia should turn her back, but not her eyes, on the West, stop responding to false charges, evict all Western embassies and every other kind of presence including Western investment, and focus on relations with China and the East. Russia’s attempt to pursue mutual interests with the West only results in more orchestrated incidents.

”https://russia-insider.com/en/were-headed-war-russia-and-no-one-seems-care/ri22900

Hopefully for mankind's sake it'll come to nothing but a lot of apologists out there think we're being sleep walked into something catastrophic. In fact even a non nuclear war with Russia will have life changing consequences. All conflicts start with the masses being gently introduced to a new manufactured enemy(ies). 

I can't see how we're heading for war with Russia, there' no way we could invade them, their country is far too well protected and their set my to big, there's no way they could invade us, their navy is currently too old and decrepit, I can't see them wanting a nuclear war as that would be the end for everyone, half the planet would be turned to glass.

[Hamster]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I can't see how we're heading for war with Russia, there' no way we could invade them, their country is far too well protected and their set my to big, there's no way they could invade us, their navy is currently too old and decrepit, I can't see them wanting a nuclear war as that would be the end for everyone, half the planet would be turned to glass.

Yes I agree, that's why a concerted effort is being made to assemble a bigger contingent via Nato ?! I don't believe the UK or any other European country wants war with Russia but can we be so sure of others ? 

This is about more than just chemicals being used here, there's a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes like Syria, Crimea and even Russia's (and its allies) moves to trade outside the petrodollar. 

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, Hamster said:

 

This is about more than just chemicals being used here, there's a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes like Syria, Crimea and even Russia's (and its allies) moves to trade outside the petrodollar. 

I think the west are making a concerted effort to hurt Russia where it feels it most, its pocket.
Its new found export energy wealth is a big worry for NATO ,its being given the budget to develop weapon systems that are as good as the the wests, like the S400, new tank and drone tech, amongst others.
So we are being conditioned to believe they pose a clear threat, which must be neutralised.
This smooths the path for the next steps.
I dont think war is likely ,at the moment, but the next step after shortening diplomatic ties, are sanctions.
And the sanctioning of Russian gas exports will be number 1 priority, so get ready for higher fuel costs across the board.

You may have worked out by now that the west doesnt really care much for Putin.
He steers his country with a firm but steady hand, and has bought economic prosperity to ordinary Russians.
If that prosperity starts to wain, so will his popularity.
 

[12gauge82]

49 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Yes I agree, that's why a concerted effort is being made to assemble a bigger contingent via Nato ?! I don't believe the UK or any other European country wants war with Russia but can we be so sure of others ? 

This is about more than just chemicals being used here, there's a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes like Syria, Crimea and even Russia's (and its allies) moves to trade outside the petrodollar. 

I see your point on some of that, Russia clearly wants to expand again and it's defiantly building it's military, it annoys me how short sighted our politicians and the left are, you get people saying we don't need nuclear weapons, our politicians spend less on our armed forces and slash numbers, sighting that "we've moved on" or "the cold war is over" yet time and time again, history has shown the world to be an unpredictable place and we can't afford to be reactive on rebuilding our military power when something kicks off.

[figgy]

Our foolish MPs will only see sense when it bites them, if Russia kick off then it will be lets spend silly amounts of money on our forces. Never a happy medium with them.

[Hamster]

No evidence that can link Russia to the nerve agent used : 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salisbury-poisoning-russia-novichok-nerve-agent-porton-down-proof-evidence-mod-latest-a8286761.htmlDoesn't this now mean that the "most plausible" line we were fed should now be revised to include Russia's many enemies ? 

[dead eye alan]

 

  Ops a big embarrassment coming maybe?

[countryman]

May be some Russian hard ware straying into our waters soon.

[JohnfromUK]

34 minutes ago, Hamster said:

No evidence that can link Russia to the nerve agent used

He said cannot PROVE - not cannot LINK.  That is totally different - and no one has ever claimed they can PROVE it was the Russians.  All the evidence - (means, motive, track record of past poisonings) points to Russia - and there are numerous 'links'.

[walshie]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

He said cannot PROVE - not cannot LINK.  That is totally different - and no one has ever claimed they can PROVE it was the Russians.  All the evidence - (means, motive, track record of past poisonings) points to Russia - and there are numerous 'links'.

If that was any other crime it would be classed as circumstantial evidence and thrown out of court.  I still don't think it was the Russians who did it. 

[Zapp]

This has been the problem with how we have played it all along in my opinion.

A nerve agent is just a chemical compound which means it can theoretically be synthesized by anyone with the production means.  Unless it contains very specific compounds which can only be produced in one place by one organisation, you can't tell from the chemistry alone where it originated.

Any degree of confidence in that matter will have come from intelligence, which is clearly not easy to share as proof with those you are accusing.  The Russians know this and I strongly suspect that's the axle they are currently trying to wrap us around.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, walshie said:

If that was any other crime it would be classed as circumstantial evidence and thrown out of court

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not see the evidence as 'circumstantial' - the Russians are one of a relatively few countries with access to the nerve agent involved.  They have on many occasions made threats against defectors; they have assassinated them in the past.  Those are facts and not 'circumstantial' in my view. 

 

5 minutes ago, Zapp said:

Any degree of confidence in that matter will have come from intelligence, which is clearly not easy to share as proof with those you are accusing.  The Russians know this and I strongly suspect that's the axle they are currently trying to wrap us around.

I suspect this is the actual story.

[walshie]

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not see the evidence as 'circumstantial' - the Russians are one of a relatively few countries with access to the nerve agent involved.  They have on many occasions made threats against defectors; they have assassinated them in the past.  Those are facts and not 'circumstantial' in my view. 

Circumstantial evidence by definition is  "evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact." The facts you quote are indeed facts, but they aren't facts that prove or disprove anything and they fit the definition of circumstantial perfectly.

Hinting at, suggesting, pointing the finger, maybe. Proving anything beyond reasonable doubt - no. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by walshie

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, walshie said:

Circumstantial evidence by definition is  "evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact." The facts you quote are indeed facts, but they aren't facts that prove or disprove anything and they fit the definition of circumstantial perfectly.

Hinting at, suggesting, pointing the finger, maybe. Proving anything beyond reasonable doubt - no. 

My apologies - as said I'm not a lawyer, and my understanding of the meaning of 'circumstantial' was wrong.  However

 

35 minutes ago, walshie said:

If that was any other crime it would be classed as circumstantial evidence and thrown out of court

is wrong (in my view).  

Circumstantial evidence is fully admissible in court; this is directly quoted from HMG 'Guidance on Evidence in Criminal Investigations'.

Circumstantial evidence allows a conclusion to be

drawn from a set of circumstances or

information. To do this the court and the jury must:

• accept the evidence before them, and
• reach a conclusion from it, for example:
• the defendant is accused of theft from an art shop, and
• a witness saw the defendant running from the art shop holding a painting.

What the witness saw is direct evidence. The conclusion that the defendant committed the theft based on what the witness saw is circumstantial evidence.

 

Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence if there are number of circumstances that together can lead the court or a jury to a guilty verdict. R v Exall (1866) states that:

‘One strand of a cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite sufficient of strength. Thus, it may be circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilty, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of’.

 

This means that, even though you may only have circumstantial evidence, if there is enough of it, then altogether, it may be enough to prove guilt.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

35 minutes ago, Zapp said:

This has been the problem with how we have played it all along in my opinion.

A nerve agent is just a chemical compound which means it can theoretically be synthesized by anyone with the production means.  Unless it contains very specific compounds which can only be produced in one place by one organisation, you can't tell from the chemistry alone where it originated.

Any degree of confidence in that matter will have come from intelligence, which is clearly not easy to share as proof with those you are accusing.  The Russians know this and I strongly suspect that's the axle they are currently trying to wrap us around.

This ^^^^ and the Russians know it.