UK expels four Russian diplomats

Originally posted by BitDust
Ah, so ...Russia plays geo politics by having gas? How interesting!
What geo politics?

Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia? Ring a bell?

Originally posted by BitDust
She pays state of California non-profit organizations to gain a slack, to stir opinion, to bribe Congress infidels to push her interests??

I have no idea what your on about...

Originally posted by BitDust
You are nuts!

Ah, yes... Indeed....

Originally posted by BitDust
Russia is the most peaceful nation in a world.

HA! Who told you that? RTR?

Originally posted by BitDust
Just compare, how many wars did fight USA for the last 60 years and Russia for the same time period.

Not that I care much for a comparison, as I believe the US to be quite the war mongering nation anyway, but Russia/Soviet union has had it's share of adventures.

Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia, are just ones since the fall of the USSR.

During the Cold War, the Soviets had "advisor's" all over the place!

Seriously, dude, what are you on about?

Originally posted by BitDust
Just what about this Litvinenko?

What about him? he was a British citizen who was horribly murdered.

Originally posted by BitDust
Your solders are killing hundreds of people in Iraq per day, *snip*!

No, they're not.

Your not a very nice person, are you? Can you not have a civil discussion?



Mod edit: insult removed from quote

[edit on 2007/7/16 by Hellmutt]

What country would willingly surrender a secret agent or an ex-agent of theirs for an interrogation by a foreign country (which isn't your ally either). UK's request to surrender the agent was pathetically absurd. Hell- US wouldn't surrender and let Britain interogate CIA agents, not to even mention Israel and its utter secrecy even in relation its closest allies. UK might have as well subpoenaed Putin to the trial, or demanded reparations from FSB .

Anyone taking UK's request for real, either knows nothing about politics, or lives in a pretend disney land of democracy, where everything is what the politicians tell you it is.

As was mentioned on here earlier (within a somewhat vulgar context of the poster who was otherwise not wrong), Britain houses certain individuals which are on Russia's "Most Wanted List" (including Zavgaev and Berezovsky - the political prostitute with a brilliant PR department). How about an exchange then? And how about UK also turn over to Russia those secret agents that planted a "spy rock" in Moscow a few years back . Anyone still remember that spy fiasco? No? Well the same exact thing will happen here. The politicians will calm down once they have their evening tea, and everything will be forgoten.

Originally posted by stumason
What about him? he was a British citizen who was horribly murdered.

He is also a criminal guilty of federal treachery, conspiracy against elected officials, and severe mishandling of important job duties and disregard for protocol. Any other country, including the goody UK and US, would have him arrested and sentenced to life in prison (or even capital punsihment) if he was their government secret agent. He was a traitor to the first degree, and a one with a far from clean past. By Russian law, he was an equivalent of a terrorist conspirator.

And oh - don't you just happen to be fighting a War on Terrorism? Oh My - kill some terrorists, and shelter others while letting them to their dirty deed? Well isn't that mighty hypocritical of you.

If Britain chooses to house individuals of ill repute, it takes it upon itself to clean up the bloody mess that results and put up with it. International law? Is that that thing that everyone always talks about, and then ignores completely untill they are in need of it?

Originally posted by Karilla I thought the comment about "color alert masturbation" quite insightful.

Indeed, I am considering adding it to my sig!

Originally posted by maloy
He is also a criminal guilty of federal treachery, conspiracy against elected officials, and severe mishandling of important job duties and disregard for protocol.

He was found guilty in a court of law on these charges then? He was actually tried? Why was he not in prison then? And IF he was a traitor, and IF that is punishable by death in Russia, then why not ask to have him extradited (after all, he is guilty in a court of law - right?) and execute him behind closed doors. Why kill him and risk harming foreign citizens in another country?

Originally posted by BitDust
Ah, so ...Russia plays geo politics by having gas? How interesting!
What geo politics? She pays state of California non-profit organizations to gain a slack, to stir opinion, to bribe Congress infidels to push her interests??
You are nuts!
Russia is the most peaceful nation in a world. Just compare, how many wars did fight USA for the last 60 years and Russia for the same time period.

OK, I suppose you have forgotten these then:

January 1, 2006

Russia has ended exports of natural gas to neighbouring Ukraine following a failure to reach a compromise over prices. Gazprom, Russia's natural gas behemoth, began cutting off supplies at 7:00 a.m. UTC Sunday, January 1.

Gazprom claims to have taken this action because Ukraine refuses to pay the market rate for natural gas which is approximately four times higher than the price previously agreed upon by the two. Ukraine has stated that they are not averse to higher prices but believe they ought to be introduced sequentially. Additionally, Russia does not want to honor its contract to supply gas at $50 per 1000 cubic meters until 2008. By comparison, gas produced by OPEC costs $11.4 per 1000 cubic feet (December 28, 2005)[1], equivalent to $402.6 per 1000 cubic meters, an 8-fold rebate.

Source:en.wikinews.org...

Saakashvili interview
Georgia's president has accused Moscow of serious acts of "sabotage" after gas blasts on Russian pipelines cut off supplies to Georgia and Armenia.
Mikhail Saakashvili told the BBC the near simultaneous attacks close to Georgia's border were pre-planned actions orchestrated by Russia.

Source:news.bbc.co.uk...

Russia has cut oil supplies to Poland, Germany and Ukraine amid a trade row with its neighbour Belarus.
The Russian state pipeline operator, Transneft, said it cut supplies on the Druzhba pipeline to prevent Belarus illegally siphoning off oil.

Source:news.bbc.co.uk...

Russia playing geopolitics becasue of having oil? Heaven forbid!

Apparently Russia will be announcing it's response to the expulsion of the four spooks at 14:30GMT today.

You are nuts!

Insults after insults, is all you can resorte to.

Russia is the most peaceful nation in a world.

Yuh just as Iran is the most peaceful nation in thw world, oh please give me a break. What about the former S/Union Countries, that Russia has threatened who seek independance? Oh I suppose that is russia being peaceful lol.

Your solders are killing hundreds of people in Iraq per day,

What about the thousands of people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia, that Russian Soildiers have killed in the past. Russian soildiers
are no more saints than us. But I suppose, you dont take this into account do you.

Putin seems dedicated to returning to the cold war. Some of his decisions over the last year or so have been serious provocations And another thing You exaggerate without proof of your statments in order to support a murderer. How can anyone trust the Russians when they close ranks around a suspected murderer?



[edit on 17-7-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
He was found guilty in a court of law on these charges then? He was actually tried? Why was he not in prison then?

He ran away to UK which was willing to harbor him before the Russian authorities could comprehend him and try him, but his illegal actions are well known. He was a traitor to his agency, and his death is fully justified as far as I am concerned. On the other hand endangering British civilians was uneeded, and I do not agree with that. I think they should have shot him in the back street like a dog. But then I also have serious doubts that it was the Russian agents that killed him. This man knew far too many shady individuals, including many Chechens. It could have been a private hit, and had nothing to do with the government.

And it is against Russian law to extradite federal or ex-federal officials and agents to other countries.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
And IF he was a traitor, and IF that is punishable by death in Russia, then why not ask to have him extradited

As if Britain would ever extradite him, or Berezovsky, or Zavgayev. They are labeled as so called "individuals seeking political asylum", which in other words means. Britain is known to be a highly hypocritical country, and one that is acting so without any shame whatsoever.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Why kill him and risk harming foreign citizens in another country?

Why did US invade Iraq to kill Saddam and risk harming (AND IN FACT HARMING) tens of thosands of innocent civilians? Why did US invade Afghanistan and risk harming (and again harming) tens of thousands of innocent people to root out a bunch of cave-dwelling mujahedeen? US and UK are known for going to great lengths to kill single individuals - lengths that have collateral damage far greater than the Polonium incident. What gives US/UK the right to do things which they blatantly accuse others of doing?

Originally posted by maloy

He ran away to UK which was willing to harbor him before the Russian authorities could comprehend him and try him, but his illegal actions are well known.

So he was not found guilty in court? The actions of OJ Simpson and certain world leaders are well known but have any of them been found guilty in a court of law? Surely you would agree that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty? That is fair. It doesn't always work out, for right or wrong, but you can't go around dispensing justice just because of what people say or someone's reputation. They are entitled to a free and fair trial no matter what.

Originally posted by maloy

What gives US/UK the right to do things which they blatantly accuse others of doing?

Someone has to make the first move. Just because everyone else does it does not make it right for Russia to go at it. Why do they refuse to take the high ground and not go through legal and diplomatic channels in their chase of Litvinenko? Would that not show the world they are "the good guys"? Condemning someone to death before a fair trial is hardly indicative of seeking justice.

Russia is saying that it does not want to throw any penalties on UK businesses over the expulsion of the diplomats (just to get us back on topic for a second - who needs who's companies more?

politics.guardian.co.uk...

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, yesterday called the expulsion of the four Russians - believed to be intelligence agents - "proportional". Today, Russia's powerful natural resources minister, Yuri Trutnev, said there were no plans to penalise British companies.

"I don't think it makes sense to impose restrictions that would affect the investment climate, because that would be very expensive, including for Britain," Russian news agencies quoted him as saying.

"We will continue working as usual and don't see any reason to review our approach to foreign investments on the back of recent events," he added.

The statement amounted to a recognition of Britain's economic importance as a source of investment and capital for Russian companies. Conversely, the UK believes Russia remains an important market for British exporters and investors, despite recent difficulties encountered by British firms.

politics.guardian.co.uk...

Bilateral trade has trebled over the last five years, growing by more than 20% a year, and Britain is the number one investor in Russia, with £2.25bn invested in the first nine months of 2006 alone.

Muppet, you know what pisses me off the most? Your cold bood rethoric. You can talk about Ferraris and Porsches and weapons, republicans, Suddum, Fuel prices.. Every time you open # ho;e of yours it spells self centered creepled self, empty, hallow, like a fish moving lips meaningless..it is all untill you comprehend human life!!! ONE MILLION DEAD in Iraq, swine!

Originally posted by BitDust
Muppet, you know what pisses me off the most? Your cold bood rethoric. You can talk about Ferraris and Porsches and weapons, republicans, Suddum, Fuel prices.. Every time you open # ho;e of yours it spells self centered creepled self, empty, hallow, like a fish moving lips meaningless..it is all untill you comprehend human life!!! ONE MILLION DEAD in Iraq, swine!

umm...did you just say my butt is like a fish? What?! Colour threat masturbation overload!

I don't remember talking about any of those on here. I don't own a car, or a weapon, and I am in the UK so US politics is not my greatest subject. As for Saddam, he's still dead, right?

The deaths that happen in Iraq are needless and I hope it stops today but I really don't see what this has to do with Russian diplomats being expelled from the UK.

For those who missed it (or like me) forgot some points of the Litvinenko case, here is a timeline

www.guardian.co.uk...

yeah, Iwas off topic rather..You are right.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Surely you would agree that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty? That is fair.

Ok fair- everyone is innocent. And international kangaroo courts like the Hague or Saddam's trial don't count either, because of their obvious political rather than jufdicial motives. So as far as I, or Russia is concerned - Saddam was innocent (never broke the national law), Stalin was completely innocent (never really broke the law), Hitler was innocent (never stood trial), Milosevic was innocent (never found guilty), and Osama Bin Laden is innocent (no concrete proof, no trial, no international verdict). So why is US and UK hunting so many innocent people? Where is the proof that Bin Laden is a terrorist? I don't want some video footage - I want an international trial. Milosevic died an innocent man, and yet an entire war was started by US on his behalf.

The question is proven guilty by whom and under what circumstances. Am I arguing that any of the above men are really innocent? No. But according to your arguement they are. Sometimes some people simply need to be eliminated for the sake of a country and its people. And under some instances the courts and international law can be of no help, and the country has the right to take it upon itself to carry out the justice. If you don't agree, then all of the war and conflicts US/UK were ever involved in are illegal and a crime against humanity, including WWII.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
It doesn't always work out, for right or wrong, but you can't go around dispensing justice just because of what people say or someone's reputation. They are entitled to a free and fair trial no matter what.

There is no free and fair trial in international law. Nearly every politically motivated trial turns into a kangaroo court. The Hague is the biggest joke in the world, and believe me when I say the Russians and many others around the world treat it a circus- for that is exactly what it is. Look at how many trials in US turn into a complete circus. It is a disgrace to justice, and proves that justice is nothing but someone's political weapon of choice. It after all you still believe in the international or even national justice system as fair and unbiased, you live in a fantasy world. I could go on, but this is not the subject of the topic.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Someone has to make the first move. Just because everyone else does it does not make it right for Russia to go at it.

And yet you expect everyone else to do it, and for Russia to sit still and behave like a kindergartener? Face it - international politics are not, never were, and never will be fair or just. I am not accusing US or Uk of anything that others are not guilty of. I am accusing them of accusing others of it, which is hypocritical. If you are gonna wage illegal wars, defecate on international law, and do what you please where you please in the world, at least have the decency to hold back the accussations against others for doing the same. The intense accusations against Russia are thus absolutely absurd, and what is even more absurd is the amount of people that believe them.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Why do they refuse to take the high ground and not go through legal and diplomatic channels in their chase of Litvinenko?

As far as Russia is concerned they did go through legal and diplomatic channels according to its laws. Or do you want Russia to play by UK's laws? Maybe the whole world should then play by Russia's rules? Who makes the rules for whom anyway?

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Would that not show the world they are "the good guys"?

The world is so brainwashed that most of its inhabitants are comparable to a sack of potatoes when it comes to making informed opinions. I too am a potatoe of sorts, and no doubt everyone here is too. Who cares how the "Western World" views Russia. US/UK are not the ones to talk about reputation, seeing how they are the favorite international villain when it comes to worthless opinions.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Condemning someone to death before a fair trial is hardly indicative of seeking justice.

I agree. I want every single Taliban member and Al-Quaida member put on trial before their death. No "shoot first and ask later" - we shouldn't deal out justice like that right? No more shooting at all in fact. Everyone killed by US/UK in Afganistan/Iraq should stand an international trial first, for whatever they do (terrorize, kill, conspire) - they are actually innocent before found guilty by a trial. Before this is done, save the accusations against Russia.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Russia is saying that it does not want to throw any penalties on UK businesses over the expulsion of the diplomats (just to get us back on topic for a second - who needs who's companies more?

This remains to be seen.

UK is the biggest investor in Russia.

So the Russians will not do anything to damage business links between the two nations.

"business is business"

but, it will be interesting to see what happens if Russia does reply and expel British diplomats. What will the UK do next?

Originally posted by maloy
What country would willingly surrender a secret agent or an ex-agent of theirs for an interrogation by a foreign country (which isn't your ally either). UK's request to surrender the agent was pathetically absurd.

Exactly..
hook, line and sinker there..

The UK has just started something which might get very messy for itself.

The guy who was killed was a defector in the eyes of the Russians and if they got away by knocking him off on British territory, then IMHO thats fair enough.
After all he was double agent and knew the consequences of defection.

The British asking for the assasin's extradition is quite a pansie request if you ask me.

I think Mi-5/6 is capable of nabbing the guy from Russia if they really want to.
That's the 'protocol' to follow for counter intelligence activities.There are no legal channels.
Its a joke I tell you!
Asking to hand over spies


Frankly if they're openly asking for an extradition then it seems that they are incapable of getting him themselves or they don't care about his capture that much?

The explusion is mundane I agree; it should be follwed by an expulsion from the British embassy in Moscow.
Has that happened yet?


[edit on 17-7-2007 by Daedalus3]

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....

The problem with what you have just said, is that Litvinenko had become a British citizen, and was no longer involved in intelligence. Bumping off a British citizen on British soil is not a precedent that the PM can afford to be set. If Litvinenko had not become a citizen then Britain would have made a different response.

Originally posted by Karilla
The problem with what you have just said, is that Litvinenko had become a British citizen, and was no longer involved in intelligence. Bumping off a British citizen on British soil is not a precedent that the PM can afford to be set. If Litvinenko had not become a citizen then Britain would have made a different response.

Exactly, both were ex-intelligence, not active agents. One was a British citizen and one is Russian citizen.

Basically, this boils down to a Russian citizen being accused of killing a British citizen. Nothing to with spies, or the KGB or MI6..

Originally posted by infinite
UK is the biggest investor in Russia.

UK is the fifth biggest investor in Russia (or was). The biggest investor is Cyprus, second Luxebourg, third Netherlans, fourth Germany... The british investments are in decline especialy when BP is loosing their ground in Siberia.

On topic.

This extraditional attempt by CPS and Foreign office is quite comical. They are demanding an early extradition of Logovoi, but the CPS did not charge him with anything yet. They did not even issue an arrest warrant. And the only "hard" evidence they have (or is a public knowledge) is the statement from Berezinsky that said Litvinenko told him on the deth bed that Lugovoi poisoned him.
The other problem is that Russia, even if they wanted to, cannot extradite Lugovoi to UK. He can fight this extradition order in Russian Courts. Only Russian courts can decide that.

Originally posted by yanchek
This extraditional attempt by CPS and Foreign office is quite comical. They are demanding an early extradition of Logovoi, but the CPS did not charge him with anything yet. They did not even issue an arrest warrant.

We actually need to arrest someone before charging them. Hard to arrest them when they hide in Moscow.... And we have made it plainly clear we seek his extradition in order to arrest and then charge him.

Originally posted by yanchek
And the only "hard" evidence they have (or is a public knowledge) is the statement from Berezinsky that said Litvinenko told him on the deth bed that Lugovoi poisoned him.

Then why not come to the UK and clear his name if thats the only evidence we have?

Originally posted by yanchek
The other problem is that Russia, even if they wanted to, cannot extradite Lugovoi to UK. He can fight this extradition order in Russian Courts. Only Russian courts can decide that.

Yes, they can. You see, in 2001, Russia signed the EU convention on Extradition....