As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

[US Foreign Policy] Peace For Sale

18586889091101

Posts

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Gilgaron wrote: »
    That seems like a way to get our submissions to whatever international body holds those sanctions lists to be ignored?

    The sanctions have always been country-by-country. The thing is that there has always been a gentleman’s agreement among first world nations to basically honor each other’s sanctions. That’s what stunts like these endanger.


    Like before if the US put sanctions on, say, Iran, Germany would quietly tell its businesses not to do business with Iran either. Now if the US puts sanctions on Iran, Germany just says fuck it whatever, unless they have a reason to want to do sanctions too. So the US sanctions are either much less effective, or the US sanctions German companies for doing business with Iran which leads to Germany complaining and possibly doing retaliatory sanctions in return leading to a fuckhead cascade.

    This is somewhat true but for the most part the US doesn't bother with a gentleman's agreement and also companies can't ignore sanctions. A country that accounts for about a quarter of the world GDP doesn't really need to get permission for anything, and Germany may well say fuck it but German companies wishing to trade with American companies can't say fuck it.

    The USA basically has two levels of sanctions. 1. US companies can't trade with <country>, 2. US companies also can't trade with anyone who trades with <country>. The second one usually amounts to a near total embargo on trade, since it very hard for a company not to trade with the US at some point. Hell, for something like financial services it is simply impossible. Iran had to survive only on illegal trade for a while.

    (The EU declared US sanctions against Iran null and void, but that's an active rather than passive thing. It will also cost a lot of money since they will have to cover the costs.)

  • Options
    SkeithSkeith Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    I don't consider Trump our worst president only because he isn't done yet

    It's perfectly possible to be the worst with time still on the clock.

    aTBDrQE.jpg
  • Options
    KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    History isn't over yet, lol.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    History isn't over yet, lol.

    Really? Cause it sure feels like essentially the same day over and over again.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    AP reporter:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Serbia says it will move Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, Kosovo to recognize Israel as part of US-brokered talks.
    How did that result from Kosovo-Serbia talks?

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    AP reporter:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Serbia says it will move Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, Kosovo to recognize Israel as part of US-brokered talks.
    How did that result from Kosovo-Serbia talks?

    They want to join NATO and the EU, Pompeo wants to immanentize the eschaton.

  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    AP reporter:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Serbia says it will move Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, Kosovo to recognize Israel as part of US-brokered talks.
    How did that result from Kosovo-Serbia talks?

    They want to join NATO and the EU, Pompeo wants to immanentize the eschaton.

    I suspect that Serbia joining NATO would put a big smile on putin's face given the relationship the two nations have historically had and how it would thus let him manipulate the organization.

    Ya know, assuming trump isn't around to competely fuck it over.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    CNN reporter:

    Putin is barely trying to pretend he isn't doing the poisoning but Trump is going to go to bat for him regardless.

  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    CNN reporter:

    Putin is barely trying to pretend he isn't doing the poisoning but Trump is going to go to bat for him regardless.

    I mean, Trump was trying to make excuses for that saudi prince even after he basically admitted to having a critic dismembered.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    Couscous wrote: »
    CNN reporter:

    Putin is barely trying to pretend he isn't doing the poisoning but Trump is going to go to bat for him regardless.

    The one thing that still gives me any kind of surprise, is the lengths that Trump will go to demean and abase himself for Putin, and the lengths conservatives go to defend or ignore it.

    I mean it's just so blatantly obvious, even beyond the usual Trump refusal to admit a mistake. Trump has no issue with throwing people under the bus. But not Putin-sempai.

    Just fucking ludicrous.

    MorganV on
  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    CNN reporter:

    Putin is barely trying to pretend he isn't doing the poisoning but Trump is going to go to bat for him regardless.

    The one thing that still gives me any kind of surprise, is the lengths that Trump will go to demean and abase himself for Putin, and the lengths conservatives go to defend or ignore it.

    I mean it's just so blatantly obvious, even beyond the usual Trump refusal to admit a mistake. Trump has no issue with throwing people under the bus. But not Putin-sempai.

    Just fucking ludicrous.

    The thing with Putin is that I could at least understand it as a foreign policy move if Trump was looking to do a major realignment in the interest of allying with russia to put the rest of the world under their thumb... but that isn't what's happening. He's just endlessly Simping for putin with nothing coming back for it.

    So I have to conclude that putin either has blackmail material on trump or he's just this fucking desperate to get a building project going in moscow.

  • Options
    Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    Whatever caused it (and it’s probably a combo of revering authoritarians and a building deal), I’d imagine the reason he doggedly sticks by Putin now is just his inability to say he was wrong

    Captain Inertia on
  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Whatever caused it (and it’s probably a combo of revering authoritarians and a building deal), I’d imagine the reason he doggedly sticks by Putin now is just his inability to say he was wrong

    Thing is, Trump has shown no problem with hypocrisy; he's gone back and forth on how he feels about trudeau, china, north korea... but the one thing he's been eternally consistent on has been this subservient role to putin.

    So I have to conclude he just loves the guy or putin has him by the balls.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Gilgaron wrote: »
    That seems like a way to get our submissions to whatever international body holds those sanctions lists to be ignored?

    The sanctions have always been country-by-country. The thing is that there has always been a gentleman’s agreement among first world nations to basically honor each other’s sanctions. That’s what stunts like these endanger.


    Like before if the US put sanctions on, say, Iran, Germany would quietly tell its businesses not to do business with Iran either. Now if the US puts sanctions on Iran, Germany just says fuck it whatever, unless they have a reason to want to do sanctions too. So the US sanctions are either much less effective, or the US sanctions German companies for doing business with Iran which leads to Germany complaining and possibly doing retaliatory sanctions in return leading to a fuckhead cascade.

    This is somewhat true but for the most part the US doesn't bother with a gentleman's agreement and also companies can't ignore sanctions. A country that accounts for about a quarter of the world GDP doesn't really need to get permission for anything, and Germany may well say fuck it but German companies wishing to trade with American companies can't say fuck it.

    The USA basically has two levels of sanctions. 1. US companies can't trade with <country>, 2. US companies also can't trade with anyone who trades with <country>. The second one usually amounts to a near total embargo on trade, since it very hard for a company not to trade with the US at some point. Hell, for something like financial services it is simply impossible. Iran had to survive only on illegal trade for a while.

    (The EU declared US sanctions against Iran null and void, but that's an active rather than passive thing. It will also cost a lot of money since they will have to cover the costs.)

    I have mentioned several times on this board that no matter what Merkel or Macron say, there isn't any evidence of any German or French company taking one for the team and eating an US sanction. Specially since those also go to the individuals in charge. So yes, the US can unilaterally set sanctions and there's nothing that the EU or anybody can do about it.

  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Gilgaron wrote: »
    That seems like a way to get our submissions to whatever international body holds those sanctions lists to be ignored?

    The sanctions have always been country-by-country. The thing is that there has always been a gentleman’s agreement among first world nations to basically honor each other’s sanctions. That’s what stunts like these endanger.


    Like before if the US put sanctions on, say, Iran, Germany would quietly tell its businesses not to do business with Iran either. Now if the US puts sanctions on Iran, Germany just says fuck it whatever, unless they have a reason to want to do sanctions too. So the US sanctions are either much less effective, or the US sanctions German companies for doing business with Iran which leads to Germany complaining and possibly doing retaliatory sanctions in return leading to a fuckhead cascade.

    This is somewhat true but for the most part the US doesn't bother with a gentleman's agreement and also companies can't ignore sanctions. A country that accounts for about a quarter of the world GDP doesn't really need to get permission for anything, and Germany may well say fuck it but German companies wishing to trade with American companies can't say fuck it.

    The USA basically has two levels of sanctions. 1. US companies can't trade with <country>, 2. US companies also can't trade with anyone who trades with <country>. The second one usually amounts to a near total embargo on trade, since it very hard for a company not to trade with the US at some point. Hell, for something like financial services it is simply impossible. Iran had to survive only on illegal trade for a while.

    (The EU declared US sanctions against Iran null and void, but that's an active rather than passive thing. It will also cost a lot of money since they will have to cover the costs.)

    I have mentioned several times on this board that no matter what Merkel or Macron say, there isn't any evidence of any German or French company taking one for the team and eating an US sanction. Specially since those also go to the individuals in charge. So yes, the US can unilaterally set sanctions and there's nothing that the EU or anybody can do about it.

    Conversely, there isn't much evidence that german or french companies are particularly eager to be under the thumb of an eratic unstable foreign president.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    "Under the thumb". That's some very harsh words for the status quo.

    Every company that did invested on Iran can quickly take the loss if it means not losing access to the US market and more importantly, the US dollar. All the others that didn't can just...not do business with Iran like usual. Life moves on, and Iran is a very poor hill to die on.

    TryCatcher on
  • Options
    GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    "Under the thumb". That's some very harsh words for the status quo.

    Every company that did invested on Iran can quickly take the loss if it means not losing access to the US market and more importantly, the US dollar. All the others that didn't can just...not do business with Iran like usual. Life moves on, and Iran is a very poor hill to die on.

    Continuing to do business with america is becoming an increasingly dicey position, since I'll remind you that trump has been blind firing tarriffs in every direction for no apparent reason and jeopardizing decades old alliances for absolutely no reason. Thus becoming less dependent on the american market could be viewed as an entirely viable decision (to say nothing of the domestic optics of not bowing to trump's whims).

    Further, I'll remind you it was America, not Iran that violated the nuclear deal that was negotiated under obama.

  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2020
    Gaddez wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    "Under the thumb". That's some very harsh words for the status quo.

    Every company that did invested on Iran can quickly take the loss if it means not losing access to the US market and more importantly, the US dollar. All the others that didn't can just...not do business with Iran like usual. Life moves on, and Iran is a very poor hill to die on.

    Continuing to do business with america is becoming an increasingly dicey position, since I'll remind you that trump has been blind firing tarriffs in every direction for no apparent reason and jeopardizing decades old alliances for absolutely no reason. Thus becoming less dependent on the american market could be viewed as an entirely viable decision (to say nothing of the domestic optics of not bowing to trump's whims).

    Further, I'll remind you it was America, not Iran that violated the nuclear deal that was negotiated under obama.

    All of this is true, and "less dependent," sure. But there is a difference between being conservative with how dependent you are on US trade, and cutting yourself off from having *any* trade with them.

    Look at the situation in China. Rampant and unchecked IP theft meant that any design you sent there for fabrication was liable to show up on AliBaba or Wish, possibly before you even received your product. But companies still did business there, because it was worth it.

    And to be clear, that's still not a very sunny outlook on the situation for the US.

    Doc on
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    As I’ve noted a few times over the years, it would be wise for countries to include substantial (and financially painful) Trump Clauses (say, perhaps, number 45 on the list?) that lay out in excruciating detail the consequences of blowing things up.

    Yeah yeah, economic powerhouse, military legs for days, etc etc. The US collectively cannot be trusted to refrain from going “pants on head re... idiotic” every couple of admins.

    Abandoning all trade? Unlikely, perhaps even impossible, especially for nations like Canada who are massive trading partners and industry on both sides of the border rely on that continuing.

    But for all the economic and military strength, unless the US decides to get back to some widespread global conquesting, there are limits.

    As much as I’m hoping some semblance of normalcy can be returned in January, even friendly negotiations in the future need to have a “what if you assholes lose your damned minds again?” clauses.

    For whatever amount of good it might do.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular


    The moment the President of Serbia found out he committed to moving his Israeli embassy

  • Options
    WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »


    The moment the President of Serbia found out he committed to moving his Israeli embassy

    I heard the Curb your Enthusiasm theme even tho it was not actually in the clip.

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/exclusive-leaked-meeting-notes-show-boris-johnson-said-trump/
    Boris Johnson privately told US diplomats that Donald Trump was “making America great again”, according to a cache of official notes taken during high-level UK-US meetings whose details have leaked to The Telegraph.
    It can also be reported:

    Mr Trump pushed back hard on Theresa May’s pleas to expel Russian diplomats after the Skripal poisoning, saying “I would rather follow than lead”

    The US president wondered why there was so much “hatred” in Northern Ireland and asked Mrs May during a lunch why Mr Johnson was not prime minister

    Mr Johnson built close working relationships with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and adviser Stephen Miller, while forging ties with the Trump inner circle

    The president was at times "hectoring" towards Mrs May in "nightmare" phone calls and would ask other world leaders what they thought of her

    Mr Trump cancelled his planned first visit to Britain as president at the last minute over the schedule and scrapped a call with Mrs May due to a foreign policy clash.​
    He wanted to know where Mrs May stood. Pro-choice or pro-life?

    “Imagine some animal with tattoos raping your daughter and then she gets pregnant”, the president said, according to the notes, graphically outlining the case for allowing abortion.


    Mr Trump then pointed at Mike Pence, the US vice president known for being deeply religious. “He’s a really tough one on abortion”, he is quoted saying, before again Mrs May for her view. The then prime minister offered a careful response - “diplomatically threading the needle” according to one source familiar with the conversation - before shifting the discussion back to safer ground.
    Once again, the US president picked up a theme and ran with it. “We are going to get tough on immigration,” Mr Trump said, according to the notes. “The Europeans have opened their doors to bad people. We will not have a Paris."

    That line appears to be a reference to past terror attacks in the French capital. “Crime is way up in Germany. Women are getting raped all over the place,” Mr Trump is quoted continuing, singling out Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for criticism. “Merkel will lose her next election.” Mrs May disagreed.

    “No, I don’t think she will. She’s the best politician in Europe right now,” the British leader said, according to the notes. Later that year Mrs May was proved right. Mrs Merkel was re-elected.
    Pushing back against the please to expel Russian diplomats was cowardly and asking why there was "hatred" in Northern Ireland had to cause a few people to hit their heads on their desks.

    Jesus christ, it is just all so terrible.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    So much of it is Trump making relations worse by being a manchild.
    On December 6 2017 Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, delivering on a campaign promise but risking inflaming tensions in the region.

    Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment, according to the notes.

    One US official in the room told a colleague Mr Trump had a “hissy fit”. The following month the US president was getting briefed on his upcoming UK trip, the details of which had been largely locked in. It would have been his first visit to Britain since taking office and had been long-awaited.

    White House National Security Council officials, running through the itinerary, told Mr Trump he would lead an opening ceremony for the new US embassy, which had moved from Grosvenor Square, in central London, to south of the Thames.

    “I don’t want to go," Mr Trump interjected, according to notes of the meeting on January 10 2018. "I hate the new embassy which was a terrible real estate decision. So I will not go and do a ribbon cutting." The sudden about-turn sent officials in the State Department scrambling to work with Downing Street counterparts on a public statement explaining the trip's collapse.


    Spinners on both sides agreed to downplay just how far along plans for the visit were. Mr Trump became fixated on the cost of the new embassy, claiming his predecessor Barack Obama had wasted money on it. One May aide recalls the president spending 20 minutes on the phone telling Mrs May why it was such an "idiotic" project. It would be another six months before Mr Trump made it to Britain.
    There is no way he did not sound like a child.

  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    So much of it is Trump making relations worse by being a manchild.
    On December 6 2017 Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, delivering on a campaign promise but risking inflaming tensions in the region.

    Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment, according to the notes.

    One US official in the room told a colleague Mr Trump had a “hissy fit”. The following month the US president was getting briefed on his upcoming UK trip, the details of which had been largely locked in. It would have been his first visit to Britain since taking office and had been long-awaited.

    White House National Security Council officials, running through the itinerary, told Mr Trump he would lead an opening ceremony for the new US embassy, which had moved from Grosvenor Square, in central London, to south of the Thames.

    “I don’t want to go," Mr Trump interjected, according to notes of the meeting on January 10 2018. "I hate the new embassy which was a terrible real estate decision. So I will not go and do a ribbon cutting." The sudden about-turn sent officials in the State Department scrambling to work with Downing Street counterparts on a public statement explaining the trip's collapse.


    Spinners on both sides agreed to downplay just how far along plans for the visit were. Mr Trump became fixated on the cost of the new embassy, claiming his predecessor Barack Obama had wasted money on it. One May aide recalls the president spending 20 minutes on the phone telling Mrs May why it was such an "idiotic" project. It would be another six months before Mr Trump made it to Britain.
    There is no way he did not sound like a child.

    He never doesn’t

    Jesus fucking Christ what an asshole

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    OldSlackerOldSlacker Registered User regular
    It's painful and it sends a message.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    Terrorism. It leaves a message to anyone else who would dare stand up to them.

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    No-one except Putin uses novichok, so it’s like a signature for him.

  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    They want it to be traced back to them.

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    They want it to be traced back to them.

    And they likely don't care if he actually dies or not.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    They want it to be traced back to them.

    And they likely don't care if he actually dies or not.

    "Alive but health horribly damaged" is probably a bonus.

  • Options
    RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Tangent but why does Russia keep using novichok? It doesn’t seem to work well - there must be poisons better at being deadly (since it seems their targets generally survive). Navalnyj is in an induced coma but he lives. That defected agent in the UK did also survive right? It is obviously very traceable and it is 100% attributable to Russia. Not to be morbid but they seem incompetent even at murder.

    They want it to be traced back to them.

    And they likely don't care if he actually dies or not.

    Yeah these revenge are attacks all occur after the horse is out of the barn and there's nothing left to gain.

    It's about pain and the terror showing that their lives will always be in jeopardy because there's nowhere he can't reach them.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    The attacks are also far more about domestic concerns than foreign policy concerns.

    It says, for example, that it doesn't matter where you go, he can still reach out and cripple you. So play along.

    Putin's biggest concern at any given time is maintaining his domestic position as a strongman dictator with loose pseudo-democratic trappings. He needs Russia to appear strong and scary internationally in order to play that up at home. Russia's overseas capabilities are relatively limited but they are regularly stretched to their limit so that Moscow can appear to be a viable alternative to Washington, because a lot of Russians have not got over that Russia is not a great power in the manner that the USSR is. Committing assassinations, overseas interventions in Syria and so on, presents the idea that they are.

    Also it stirs up anti-Russian sentiment, which plays into Putin's oft repeated line that other people hate and fear Russia they need to be strong and hard to defend themselves. As far as Putin is concerned, why not poison the opposition leader? Besides even if you survive Novichok, it's not like you just bounce back and run for election next week. That guy will probably never recover his health fully.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Besides even if you survive Novichok, it's not like you just bounce back and run for election next week. That guy will probably never recover his health fully.

    Also, a dead man is a memory. A crippled man a warning.
    Yeah, I got some of my life philosophy from The Princess Bride, sue me.

  • Options
    UrsusUrsus Registered User regular
    Novichok is for warnings, windows are for killing

  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Ex-foreign agent, russian dissident etc.

    All could be poisoned by a commonly available poison and it would not be a secret who did it just for the motive alone. All of the same effective warnings but with the ounce of deniability so that they don't suffer the foreign policy drawbacks - sanctions etc. The balance doesn't work.

    I feel fairly sure that they're simply incompetent.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Ex-foreign agent, russian dissident etc.

    All could be poisoned by a commonly available poison and it would not be a secret who did it just for the motive alone. All of the same effective warnings but with the ounce of deniability so that they don't suffer the foreign policy drawbacks - sanctions etc. The balance doesn't work.

    I feel fairly sure that they're simply incompetent.

    They don't want deniability.

  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Ex-foreign agent, russian dissident etc.

    All could be poisoned by a commonly available poison and it would not be a secret who did it just for the motive alone. All of the same effective warnings but with the ounce of deniability so that they don't suffer the foreign policy drawbacks - sanctions etc. The balance doesn't work.

    I feel fairly sure that they're simply incompetent.

    They don't want deniability.

    Yeah, using a Russian military nerve agent is basically Putin going, "I did it and it was awesome." But without having to be so crass as to tweet it out himself.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Ex-foreign agent, russian dissident etc.

    All could be poisoned by a commonly available poison and it would not be a secret who did it just for the motive alone. All of the same effective warnings but with the ounce of deniability so that they don't suffer the foreign policy drawbacks - sanctions etc. The balance doesn't work.

    I feel fairly sure that they're simply incompetent.

    They don't want deniability.

    Yeah, using a Russian military nerve agent is basically Putin going, "I did it and it was awesome." But without having to be so crass as to tweet it out himself.

    And without the outright admission that might make it politically untenable for some countries to do nothing about.

    Everyone KNOWS he did it. But without a confession there's enough implausible deniability for people to say "We don't have proof". I mean, that's the excuse Donnie has given.

    Same with MBS and killing journalists. As long as they don't confess, they're granted cover without having to actually stop.

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    The Skripals seem to have come around, not much word on lingering effects though, they have new identities in New Zealand maybe

This discussion has been closed.