Not really a winnable war for either side. We both have nuclear weapons after all.

My thoughts too.

For quite some time, and it started before Crimea and Sochi, the media were showing a lot of hostility to Russia. Everything Russia did was somehow criticized and turned into a scandal. From politics to economy and sport. Its when I started to feel that something is changing, that maybe certain decision or direction was taken by the West and its graually intensifying as they are preparing to launch whatever their plan is. Just look now, they are openly accusing Russia from such things as war crimes, genocide and manipulation of elections. All of those enough to be used as reasons to military action against Russia. I too feel like the mainstream media are preparing people for such possibility and manipulating them into supporting their government if they decide to proceed with whatever they have planned, and I do think it can be a war against Russia. Im not really someone who buys into conspiracy theories, and this certainly sound like one, but this time, I just cant help and feel scared.

Putin is not the Russian people just as those who murder British citizens on British soil are not the sole representatives of Islam. Those who will die in any possible conflict will most decidedly not be either Putin or those who are the most belligerent in the West. Friendship is something that depends on two sides and the actions of the EU in the Ukraine were hardly the actions of a friend to Russia.

Having a united position against Putin shows strength. It'll mean less chance of conflict rather than more. The alternative is letting him carry on weakening ourselves and our allies until he thinks we're in a position where he can do whatever he likes. We just need to hold him off until either his own people get sick of him or he gets sick himself. After all, no one lives forever.

That's true. This war was pretty unique in that most of the news we could get out of that area was second-hand or hearsay, with only the word of people who may not know the full extent of the truth.
Usually there are embedded journalists inside a warzone, and even then that isn't completely unreliable. But here we got practically nothing. Mainly just what we are told by partisan entities.

On the news it showed buildings destroyed, rubble and dust, and we are told 'Russians and Assad done it'. I find that to be quite a stretch because to accept that you would have to imagine that America and its allies did absolutely nothing at all there whatsoever. Or their bombs and bullets were magic and had censors on them which avoided civilians and civilian inhabited buildings.

And if we are to accept that Russia and Assad are completely responsible for the carnage, how do we square that with the other recent news where we are supposed to just accept that civilians will die because they will be unable to escape in the operation for the battle for Mosul in Iraq where allied militias in the areas who we are supposed to support are involved? We're just expected to suck it up as though it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it.

You have to laugh at that Labour MP, was it Ben Bradshaw, who thinks that Russia 'hacked' Brexit.
How does that work then? How do you hack something which isn't a computer system?

I share your feelings. Unfortunately it seems to be the case that most leaders of powerful counties see geopolitics like one of those computer games where they employ strategies to gain the balance of power in the world, and literally play things out like it's a computer game.

I see no reason why we can't try to cooperate with Russia and try to develop a warmer relationship. I don't mean in a sentimental gooey way, I mean just treat them as we would treat any country who we are on respectful terms with.
If they keep poking the bear with a stick then what sort of response do they realistically expect? It can only go one way the more hostile and provocative they are.
Russia themselves have a reason to be paranoid what with the various NATO bases being built around them and China like a pincher.
If a Western country was surrounded by military bases of a foreign force how do people think that country would feel? One example would be the Cuban missile crisis where the boot was on the other foot and America weren't exactly what you'd call very happy about it.

I really believe the western political and business establishment has been gunning for Russia for a while and was building up to triggering a conflict under the anticipated Hillary Clinton presidency. Trump being elected has thrown a spanner in the works hence all the anti-Russia hysteria and propaganda at the moment.

I don't like Trump at all, but I do feel we've dodged a bullet with him being elected.

I was wondering who you were talking about untill you mentioned putin...

You do know that the usa has interfered in elections?

The UK is not in a position to wage war on anybody significant. We have more gold-braided buffoons than fighting Typhoons and the same applies across the rest of the military. We certainly do have fine troops, but they are still lions led by donkeys and dodgy politicians.

Exactly, I was wondering what America would do if russia began to deploy a missle defence shield in say Cuba or deployed troops in Mexico as a "trip wire".

Yep, Whitehall should have been gutted when we discovered what Geoff hook was up to. I'm actually surprised that their was no inquiry.

Possibly the same thing that America did last time, have a face off until one side or the other backs down

The idea that the west was ''preparing to take on russia'', if true, was completely insane. If Trump saves us from that, we should forgive all his faults.

I'm of the opinion that Putin is a posturing, macho bully. I'm also of the opinion that NATO and leading western countries badly need the perpetual 'stand off' with Russia as it a) justifies NATO's existence and expansion and b) arms trading is hugely lucrative and increasingly important to western economies.

In other words, there are NO GOOD GUYS in the Russia v The West power game and little moral authority for either side to claim. Unfortunately the west has useful idiots like you who continue to believe the Russia bad/west good propaganda that is spoon fed to us constantly from supposedly neutral sources.

russia is doing its best to be an enemy to everybody,

russia messed with us election.....response...no we didnt
russia doped their athletes...response..no we didnt
russia invaded ukraine...no we didnt

anything they did they dont admit to it...like a spoiled brat.

Problem is, who do we believe?
The Americans claim cyber hacking on the election, Russia says no.


Russia also has a feather up its.....well u know, about the roll out of US missile shield thru much of Europe.

I also think that the Russian involvement in Syria is also because they have a major base there.....also Syria is traditionally a friend of Russia.

So, Russia is back on the world stage, big time, and we are going to have to deal with that, reach a compromise etc, because if we don't it will surely end in a conflict.

No I don't know that the US has interfered in UK elections or that it has assassinated people in the UK.

A strong position is always easy for those who do not have to implement it on the ground. A negotiating position is better as we are always being told. Strong positions require levels of bluff that may be called. I do not think for a minute he wants to do whatever he wishes but he will defend Russia which one cannot criticise him for. I am not sure the Ukraine cutting off the Crimean water supply is the way forward. I am sure if Putin did something like that we would be apoplectic with rage.

I thought Obama and quite a number of serving US politicians did interfere in our referendum by siding with one viewpoint and participating in threats against a particular outcome.

America has either invaded, subverted democracy, bombed, overthrown directly, or via subterfuge, governments in numerous sovereign countries since 1945.

Its record in interfering in the affairs of other nations is unsurpassed and Britain has of course plenty of form in this unseemly business too.

As I've already written I dislike and distrust Putin, but Britain and the US have very little moral high ground on which to stand when criticising alleged Russian interference in domestic affairs.

Frankly, the faux outrage is laughable.

You mean they pointed out how stupid leaving the EU was? I think pretty much everyone outside the UK agreed with them on that. Frankly, it'll go down as one of the stupidest decisions any major country has made in recent history.

So, US retaliatory cyber options for alleged Russian interefernece in election......banks, multiple banks, maybe Russian ISPs - if u knock those out you stop all internet activity.....maybe something bigger, power grid.......
So the question is how far can the US push this before Russia responds like for like.....or worse, steps it up a notch or two. And if they were successful would the US respond to that?

How far does it have to crank up before an actual kinetic conflict breaks out?

Yes, exactly.
Usually, interference in matters such as this are done behind closed downs.....not by the president expressing a view on national tv news.

Maybe thats because there isnt any 100% proof that Russia messed with an election.