One thing I always ask myself:
The war in Syria is basically won by the regime, so why the heck would they now resort to bombing hospitals and C-weapon attacks on the population? It just doesn't make sense so that's why I am very cautious here.
This is not to say that Russia is good and the US is bad, it's just that "The first casualty of War is Truth"
And that with the war on terror, we are in war constantly since 2001. But apparently this was not enough and we need the old enemy again.
If you have nuclear weapons and a large defence budget, you can do whatever you like to other countries.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
That's not a war crime in itself.
Do you want to be get hurt by it ? I am not suggesting, but that is still killing and trespassing international boundaries .
The question of Russia came up very strongly, and as I understand it (everything that follows is effectively what that speaker said) the feeling is that they're going to just keep doing things, testing the limits, seeing what they can do without repercussion. The deployment of chemical weapons on the streets of the UK in peacetime (which, the talker suggested, would have been absolutely off the table during the Cold War) is just another step in seeing how far the West can be pushed without doing anything. Shielding the government of Syria so they can routinely deploy chemical weapons in their civil war is another example; Russia will just keep taking liberties until they find where the limit is (if there is a limit). Not so long ago, the deployment of chemical weapons was considered a very serious thing; Russia has put them back on the table while the West sits on its hands.
I have to wonder if there is a limit, or if we will continue to put prosperity above security to the point that Russia has free reign to do what it likes (up until it runs into someone who will object, beyond Europe).
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept (for example, about how far NATO would wander into Eastern Europe) and when Russia objected, they were ignored. The very significant modernisation of their military and the recent adventurism is part of that. Nobody is ignoring Russia anymore.
They did play by the rules; it got them side-lined and ignored, promises broken.
For example, not expanding NATO wasn't even a promise, it was a rumour.
OTOH, Russia broke several international _agreements_ and started waging wars with their neighbours.
Can you really equal those? Waging war and ephemeral promises?
I am pretty sure that UK is lying again, by the way.
Murdering ex-spies on the streets of Salisbury with chemical weapons certainly seems like the appropriate response, yes. Although interesting to see that it was the Swedes who did it, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.
It's an interesting double-game they play; Russia needs people to know it was them, but they also need to be able to deny it.
Its not appropriate response, that is way everyone is skeptical. Why use a missile when you can kill the bird with a slingshot ?
Ah, I see. You're derailing the conversation. You've tried to change it to "because murdering an ex-spy with a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury is not an appropriate response to the West's actions in the middle east, it can't have been Russia who did it."
You've been rumbled. Jog on.
My argument was two pronged.
1) UK lied in several cases or most of the cases and now UK==lier so Once a lier always a lier
2) Its not me or Russian who rumbled , but instead it is and it was West( France in case of Libya, UK in case of Iraq, US in case of Syria) has be rumbled.