Diplomatic Immunity?

[Tangled Metal]

The last leader of the GDR was interviewed recently and he said the cold war never really ended it just changed. He's a big fan if Putin and Russia too. I suspect he's right.

[mercalia]

The last leader of the GDR was interviewed recently and he said the cold war never really ended it just changed. He's a big fan if Putin and Russia too. I suspect he's right.

He's wrong. The cold war was about ideologies and the wish of the USSR to gobble up Europe. What we have now is a return to the C19 of the Great Game but the USA v Russia not about ideology at all; Putin and his cronies are all about power and stealing money from the Russian state, Putin wants to be a modern Czar, the last thing he would actually want is a Cold War type war which would end his wealth. He is an old fashioned leader.

[Vorpal]

Good question: the 'elephant in the room' in fact. Perhaps someone can give us a convincing argument as to why we should continue maintaining these USAF bases in our back garden? Or perhaps not?

Convincing? I don't know, but Russia is still a threat, they're not the only military threat, and the USA still plays a big role in NATO, including contributing the most & the highest percentage of GDP. Having US airbases is the price of not having to maintain them for NATO. Furthermore, if the UK kicked the US out, there would likely be significant repercussions in NATO, because I doubt the US would just move them to other countries. Even if they could, the chances are high the US would throw all the toys out the pram and just go home, leaving a significant gap in equipment support for NATO.

If you don't believe that Russia are still a threat, go ask the Finns. Or Lithuanians.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/11 ... atest-news
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/1 ... alysts-say
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR2779.pdf

[mercalia]

Good question: the 'elephant in the room' in fact. Perhaps someone can give us a convincing argument as to why we should continue maintaining these USAF bases in our back garden? Or perhaps not?

Convincing? I don't know, but Russia is still a threat, they're not the only military threat, and the USA still plays a big role in NATO, including contributing the most & the highest percentage of GDP. Having US airbases is the price of not having to maintain them for NATO. Furthermore, if the UK kicked the US out, there would likely be significant repercussions in NATO, because I doubt the US would just move them to other countries. Even if they could, the chances are high the US would throw all the toys out the pram and just go home, leaving a significant gap in equipment support for NATO.

If you don't believe that Russia are still a threat, go ask the Finns. Or Lithuanians.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/11 ... atest-news
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/1 ... alysts-say
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR2779.pdf

They are frightened yes but Russia is not the USSR, as I just pointed out Putin & his cronies are about wealth and power, any real conflict would put that all in jeopardy. Ukraine is one thing, its not really part of Europe, doesnt sound European? I seriously doubt the yanks would go off in a huff, they are only really in Europe as having seen what war on some one elses soil means they dont want it on theirs! They have been fighting the same battle since the WW2 - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Self Interest and let some one else pay the price. They would be quite happy to nuke Europe if it meant no war on their soil & preservation of the American Way of Life

[Psamathe]

reading that article seems the USA wouldnt tolerate this behaviour on their soil. Time for reform to put a stop to this in this country and show the USA there will be consequences, they have a lot to lose? how many bases are there still in the UK? We dont really need them any more, the cold war is over, why are they still here?

Good question: the 'elephant in the room' in fact. Perhaps someone can give us a convincing argument as to why we should continue maintaining these USAF bases in our back garden? Or perhaps not?

Many years ago (in 1970 in fact) a fellow-student of mine was killed (a few days before he was due to sit his Finals) in a head-on crash. The other vehicle, whose occupants were only slightly injured, was a USAF military vehicle based at the (now defunct) Upper Heyford base in Oxfordshire, and I believe the driver was a USAF officer. I don't know any more about the story than that (I had more pressing things on my own mind at the time!) - whether there was any prosecution, or even whether the driver of the other vehicle was a suspect.

But this latest tragic occurrence sets me wondering again...

I suspect one could make a similar argument to ban UK drivers from driving their cars in France or French drivers holidaying with their cars in the UK.

For me the main issue is that when an accident happens those involved need to help with inquiries and take the consequences of their actions.

In the specific case prompting this thread, the accident was completely unrelated to the US drivers diplomatic activities and thus there should be no justification for her not to face up to the consequences. I can appreciate the need for diplomatic immunity (though wonder if it should include limits) but cannot see it should give the "holder" immunity to break any laws, commit anything and avoid any punishment. I think it reasonable to expect any country we have diplomatic relations with to uphold a minimum level of morality and accountability and not to treat "diplomatic immunity" as a license for any law breaking without consequence for the offender.

Ian

[mercalia]

reading that article seems the USA wouldnt tolerate this behaviour on their soil. Time for reform to put a stop to this in this country and show the USA there will be consequences, they have a lot to lose? how many bases are there still in the UK? We dont really need them any more, the cold war is over, why are they still here?

Good question: the 'elephant in the room' in fact. Perhaps someone can give us a convincing argument as to why we should continue maintaining these USAF bases in our back garden? Or perhaps not?

Many years ago (in 1970 in fact) a fellow-student of mine was killed (a few days before he was due to sit his Finals) in a head-on crash. The other vehicle, whose occupants were only slightly injured, was a USAF military vehicle based at the (now defunct) Upper Heyford base in Oxfordshire, and I believe the driver was a USAF officer. I don't know any more about the story than that (I had more pressing things on my own mind at the time!) - whether there was any prosecution, or even whether the driver of the other vehicle was a suspect.

But this latest tragic occurrence sets me wondering again...

I suspect one could make a similar argument to ban UK drivers from driving their cars in France or French drivers holidaying with their cars in the UK.

For me the main issue is that when an accident happens those involved need to help with inquiries and take the consequences of their actions.

In the specific case prompting this thread, the accident was completely unrelated to the US drivers diplomatic activities and thus there should be no justification for her not to face up to the consequences. I can appreciate the need for diplomatic immunity (though wonder if it should include limits) but cannot see it should give the "holder" immunity to break any laws, commit anything and avoid any punishment. I think it reasonable to expect any country we have diplomatic relations with to uphold a minimum level of morality and accountability and not to treat "diplomatic immunity" as a license for any law breaking without consequence for the offender.

Ian

well you are sptting into the wind in the case of the USA I think

[Vorpal]

They are frightened yes but Russia is not the USSR, as I just pointed out Putin & his cronies are about wealth and power, any real conflict would put that all in jeopardy. Ukraine is one thing, its not really part of Europe, doesnt sound European? I seriously doubt the yanks would go off in a huff, they are only really in Europe as having seen what war on some one elses soil means they dont want it on theirs! They have been fighting the same battle since the cold war - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Self Interest and let some one else pay the price. They would be quite happy to nuke Europe if it meant no war on their soil & preservation of the American Way of Life

I don't think that you read the last link I posted. Russia may not be the USSR, but they are still a significant threat. It just doesn't take the same form that it once did.

You may be right about the USA. But while Trump is president, IMO, it would be a risk.

[Psamathe]

Good question: the 'elephant in the room' in fact. Perhaps someone can give us a convincing argument as to why we should continue maintaining these USAF bases in our back garden? Or perhaps not?

Many years ago (in 1970 in fact) a fellow-student of mine was killed (a few days before he was due to sit his Finals) in a head-on crash. The other vehicle, whose occupants were only slightly injured, was a USAF military vehicle based at the (now defunct) Upper Heyford base in Oxfordshire, and I believe the driver was a USAF officer. I don't know any more about the story than that (I had more pressing things on my own mind at the time!) - whether there was any prosecution, or even whether the driver of the other vehicle was a suspect.

But this latest tragic occurrence sets me wondering again...

I suspect one could make a similar argument to ban UK drivers from driving their cars in France or French drivers holidaying with their cars in the UK.

For me the main issue is that when an accident happens those involved need to help with inquiries and take the consequences of their actions.

In the specific case prompting this thread, the accident was completely unrelated to the US drivers diplomatic activities and thus there should be no justification for her not to face up to the consequences. I can appreciate the need for diplomatic immunity (though wonder if it should include limits) but cannot see it should give the "holder" immunity to break any laws, commit anything and avoid any punishment. I think it reasonable to expect any country we have diplomatic relations with to uphold a minimum level of morality and accountability and not to treat "diplomatic immunity" as a license for any law breaking without consequence for the offender.

Ian

well you are sptting into the wind in the case of the USA I think

I would agree and somewhat off-topic have you seen the trade sanctions "our best friend Trump" is about to introduce. Include punitive tariffs on Jammie Dodgers, Scottish shortbread, clotted cream and Irish bacon (none of those companies have done anything "wrong" yet Trump thinks them a suitable target). And we still live in the hope (or depend on) that Agent Orange will be our saviour with a fabulously generous trade deal.

Ian

[mercalia]

They are frightened yes but Russia is not the USSR, as I just pointed out Putin & his cronies are about wealth and power, any real conflict would put that all in jeopardy. Ukraine is one thing, its not really part of Europe, doesnt sound European? I seriously doubt the yanks would go off in a huff, they are only really in Europe as having seen what war on some one elses soil means they dont want it on theirs! They have been fighting the same battle since the cold war - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Self Interest and let some one else pay the price. They would be quite happy to nuke Europe if it meant no war on their soil & preservation of the American Way of Life

I don't think that you read the last link I posted. Russia may not be the USSR, but they are still a significant threat. It just doesn't take the same form that it once did.

You may be right about the USA. But while Trump is president, IMO, it would be a risk.

I briefly looked at the rand link. Yep they are very very frightened & fear knows no bounds and neither does anticipating the worst. It dont cost the Russians much to destabalise those countrys without actually invading. I think the Russains did the same thing at the borders of India during the C19 Great Game between Russia and the British Empire, they never invaded India though?

[Psamathe]

They are frightened yes but Russia is not the USSR, as I just pointed out Putin & his cronies are about wealth and power, any real conflict would put that all in jeopardy. Ukraine is one thing, its not really part of Europe, doesnt sound European? I seriously doubt the yanks would go off in a huff, they are only really in Europe as having seen what war on some one elses soil means they dont want it on theirs! :twisted: They have been fighting the same battle since the cold war - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Self Interest and let some one else pay the price. They would be quite happy to nuke Europe if it meant no war on their soil & preservation of the American Way of Life

I don't think that you read the last link I posted. Russia may not be the USSR, but they are still a significant threat. It just doesn't take the same form that it once did.

You may be right about the USA. But while Trump is president, IMO, it would be a risk.

(I've not read the link but) I agree about Russia being a "threat" and, for the UK that the nature of the threat is not that from the historical "Cold War". I think they have just moved into a vulnerability we have created - Social Media. Other countries probably face different threats e.g. Crimea.

And I don't think the west having made themselves vulnerable to the threat have much motivation to protect themselves. e.g.

Brexit party MEPs vote against measure to combat Russian propaganda
...
The party’s MEPs cast their votes against a European parliament resolution calling for an upgrade of the EU’s anti-propaganda unit East StratCom, as well as support for public service media.

The text passed comfortably with the support of the largest political groups in the European parliament – the centre-right European People’s party, Socialists, Liberals and Greens.

OK, Brexit Party does not get to decide EU policy but similarly, is Trump taking reasonable steps to protect the next US elections from Russian interference given how he seems to have significantly benefitted from their actions. Seem a lot of reports about how Trump's refusal to recognise their interference in the 2016 elections as well as the 2018 ones (https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-us-has-failed-protect-2018-election-and-four-ways-protect-2020).

And other countries are using similar methods and their "weapons" will remain effective as long as their medium is only interested in $$$$$.

Ian

[Carlton green]

Russia should never, ever be underestimated. It might not have the massive arms but it instead uses what power it has in indirect and most effective ways. You only have to look at Syria and at the problems that migration into Europe has created to understand matters. The Cold War might have ended but the battle does indeed go on and few realise that Russia is quietly working away at things, influencing and destabilising, invading even - look at the Crimea.

[Mick F]

When I was in the RN, one of the ships I served in was a USSR submarine hunter. We did patrols for weeks on end up in the N Atlantic.
Served in HMS Sirius from 1985 to 1989. She was one of a team - Argonaut, Cleopatra, Phoebe, Arethusa were the other four.

All sorts of Soviet subs and we had all the data and noise signatures of them. All Top Secret stuff, and certain members of the ship's company were "spotters" and could recognise all the different subs and profiles. Charts and diagrams in the Ops Room etc. and we followed four or five into the Atlantic and handed them over to the Yanks, who then tracked them and when they were on their way home, handed them back to us to follow them back to Murmansk. Did this time and time again.

When the Cold War ended, we were told that although we no longer had the "main enemy" and our main directives and reasons for being, we had to be more "general" as we didn't know where the threats were now going to come from.

I spent most of my 27years in the RN with the sole aim of neutralising the Soviet submarine threat. When it went, we were initially at a loose end. The dedicated ships for tracking the Soviet subs were paid off, and a new breeds of warship were required.

[Cyril Haearn]

The last leader of the GDR was interviewed recently and he said the cold war never really ended it just changed. He's a big fan if Putin and Russia too. I suspect he's right.

Which one, Krenz or De Maziere?
..
Cold peace?

[661-Pete]

The last leader of the GDR was interviewed recently and he said the cold war never really ended it just changed. He's a big fan if Putin and Russia too. I suspect he's right.

Which one, Krenz or De Maziere?
..
Cold peace?

Egon Krenz. The article is here, though you may not be able to play the video.

[Cyril Haearn]

The last leader of the GDR was interviewed recently and he said the cold war never really ended it just changed. He's a big fan if Putin and Russia too. I suspect he's right.

Which one, Krenz or De Maziere?
..
Cold peace?

Egon Krenz. The article is here, though you may not be able to play the video.

De Maziere was the last DDR leader actually