PDA

View Full Version : British-U.S. link seen hurting U.K. ties with Russia



CHERK
11-25-2007, 06:13 AM
By Sophie Walker

British-U.S. link seen hurting U.K. ties with Russia

LONDON (*******) - "Britain's closeness to the United States is at least partly to blame for the poor state of its relations with Russia, British lawmakers said on Sunday.

Relations between London and Moscow are at their worst since the Cold War, soured in particular by mutual espionage allegations, the murder of former Russian intelligence official Andrei Litvinenko in London last year, tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats and a revival of Russian long-range bomber patrols.

The British parliament's foreign affairs committee said Russia now saw Britain as too closely aligned with the United States to be an attractive partner, and was anyway "skeptical of the UK's ability to wield any influence over the U.S.".

"We conclude that the UK's relationship with Russia has been impacted negatively by London's stance vis-à-vis Washington," the committee wrote in a report.

"We recommend that the government should seek to improve its relations with Russia without damaging its relations with the U.S."

The report noted that Tony Blair was the first Western head of government to meet Putin, and that Putin in 2003 became the first Russian leader to pay a state visit to Britain since 1874.

Blair was often criticized while in office for his closeness to President George W. Bush, whom he joined in war in Iraq. His successor Gordon Brown is bringing troops home from Iraq but still says Washington is Britain's most important ally.

The committee also acknowledged that the Litvinenko affair was weighing on British-Russian relations, and urged the government to renegotiate extradition arrangements with Russia, but did not say how it thought this could be achieved.

British prosecutors have charged former KGB bodyguard Andrei Lugovoy with Litvinenko's murder but Russia has refused to extradite him, arguing that its constitution prevents this."
(Editing by Kevin Liffey)

http://www.*******.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL235139120071125

khukuri
11-25-2007, 12:09 PM
The report noted that Tony Blair was the first Western head of government to meet Putin, and that Putin in 2003 became the first Russian leader to pay a state visit to Britain since 1874.


wow.................

Moodymoddy
11-25-2007, 02:53 PM
But in the last 16 years since the Berlin Wall came down, Have we ever had a strong relationship with Russia?

Regardless - I know which country I'd rather have "ties" too.

This report also has a very interesting timing. It comes on the year anniversary of the Litvinenko murder - as the widow says she will continue the fight for justice.

FelixA9
11-25-2007, 03:28 PM
"Husband's relationship with wife hurting ties with mistress."

Deurzakker
11-25-2007, 07:05 PM
Taking in so many ritch critics of Putin may have more to do with it than ties with the US...

Hilbert
11-25-2007, 07:41 PM
I thought Britian was doing a fine job of hurting it's ties with Russia on it's own.

Thom
11-26-2007, 02:21 PM
I thought Britian was doing a fine job of hurting it's ties with Russia on it's own.

Russia is hardly blameless.

Mastermind
11-26-2007, 03:37 PM
Ha! Might I suggest that Britian break all ties with the USA and hitch her future to that of Russia (since that course seems so attractive at the present to such article writers as this one)....that might prove a rather interesting experiment. Afterall, there was a time when the British elites thought Herr Hitler was all the rage, too.

ren0312
11-26-2007, 10:01 PM
Ha! Might I suggest that Britian break all ties with the USA and hitch her future to that of Russia (since that course seems so attractive at the present to such article writers as this one)....that might prove a rather interesting experiment. Afterall, there was a time when the British elites thought Herr Hitler was all the rage, too.

Well they have a point there, an extra 5-7 British divisions would have given the Germans just enough troops to succeed in taking Moscow in December 1941, or even earlier had Hitler not insisted in the encirclement of Soviet troops in the Ukraine in the summer of 1941, which tied up numerous Panzer divisions which otherwise could have been used for an advance to Moscow, sice at that time there was practically no serious Red Army presence from Smolensk to Moscow, the Royal Navy can also help compensate for the Kriegsmarine's weakness, plus a Britain allied to Germnay would not have come under attack from Japan, so it sould keep all of its colonial possesions in the Far East, from a purely military point of view a German British alliance was not all that bad of an idea.

Thom
11-27-2007, 07:02 AM
Ha! Might I suggest that Britian break all ties with the USA and hitch her future to that of Russia (since that course seems so attractive at the present to such article writers as this one)....that might prove a rather interesting experiment. Afterall, there was a time when the British elites thought Herr Hitler was all the rage, too.

Hitler had his supporters in the US as well, just sayin.

Lokos
11-27-2007, 07:30 AM
an extra 5-7 British divisions would have given the Germans just enough troops to succeed in taking Moscow in December 1941

And how do you figure that? Does the STAVKA Reserve factor into your calculations at all? In December 1941 the Soviets launched a counter-offensive that, had it been better defined and more realistically oriented, may well have smashed Army Group Centre as a whole.


or even earlier had Hitler not insisted in the encirclement of Soviet troops in the Ukraine in the summer of 1941, which tied up numerous Panzer divisions which otherwise could have been used for an advance to Moscow

Was that during the raspu****a, or after it, that they would have been useful? And should they have then left Kiev and the ~700,000 Soviet troops in that part of the Ukraine to their own devices? Perhaps they should have overextended with those magnificent panzer divisions - as they did in 1942 - struck as deeply as they could, got caught in a battle for Moscow with the rapidly strengthening Soviet strategic reserve, and then had their lines of supply cut by a massive Soviet force that had only to re-echelon itself to cause utter disaster?

It would have probably shortened the war! But not in the way you're thinking.


sice at that time there was practically no serious Red Army presence from Smolensk to Moscow,

Allow me to understand this: you believe that in December of 1941 there were no serious Soviet forces between Smolensk and Moscow? That the capital was without a force earmarked for its defence? Allow me to re-educate you:

Between Smolensk and Moscow, in December 1941, there were:

1st Shock Army
5th Army
10th Army
16th Army
24th Army
26th Army
30th Army
33rd Army
43rd Army
49th Army
50th Army
60th Army

If you need individual OOBs, let me know...

An extra 5-7 divisions would have been drops in a very tumultuous lake.

Lokos

dimasorokine
11-27-2007, 11:43 PM
Lokos, don't waste your time - even though your posts are extremely informitive, some people like to see the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany as a German mistake, not a Soviet victory - the same thing can be seen in western textbooks, movies and documentaries.

-Dima

Mastermind
11-28-2007, 11:28 AM
Hitler had his supporters in the US as well, just sayin.
Yeah. And, even has them to this very day. Unlike in most of Europe, honoring the "mustachioed one" is not illegal here. Yet...that's all beside the point. I might have misunderstood the object of this thread was to discuss the claim that Britian's close connections to the US of A are damaging here connections to Russia.

Of course, I often do that...misunderstand the hidden meaning behind secret meanings. :roll: