UK Rejects Russian Space Agency's Demands for Launch of OneWeb Internet Satellites (cnbc.com) 118
The corporate internet space race has taken a geopolitical turn. Russian space agency Roscosmos is refusing to launch the next batch of 36 OneWeb internet satellites Friday, unless the company meets the state agency's demands. From a report: Roscosmos head Dmitry Rogozin particularly emphasized that the ultimatum is a response to the U.K. sanctioning Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Roscosmos said in a statement that the Soyuz rocket will be removed from the launchpad at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan unless OneWeb meets two demands:
1.The U.K. government sells its stake in the company.
2. OneWeb guarantees that the satellites not be used for military purposes. U.K. Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said in a statement that there is "no negotiation" with Roscosmos about OneWeb and that the government "is not selling its share." Kwarteng added, "we are in touch with other shareholders to discuss next steps."
1.The U.K. government sells its stake in the company.
2. OneWeb guarantees that the satellites not be used for military purposes. U.K. Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said in a statement that there is "no negotiation" with Roscosmos about OneWeb and that the government "is not selling its share." Kwarteng added, "we are in touch with other shareholders to discuss next steps."
Time to call SpaceX (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the west needs to stop depending on Russia for anything space-related.
Re:Time to call SpaceX (Score:4, Interesting)
What a position for SpaceX to be in as the only viable launch option for its primary satellite internet competitor.
If ESA has the Ariane 6 done and operating this whole issue would likely be moot. ULA also does not have a confirmed date for when Vulcan will be ready either.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really not good for the long term business prospects of Russia's space launch program. Future customers will be weighing political stability into their decision to choose Roscosmos.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like most of the west (both government and civilian sectors) hadn't already figured out they needed to stop depending Russia for anything as quickly as possible, going forward. Putin's already shot Roscosmos - and the rest of the Russian economy - in the foot, and is now doubling down and working his way up the leg.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people being people, knowing and doing something about it are two different things. Action often requires emotion that you can't conjure out of a purely intellectual awareness of the truth.
Re: Time to call SpaceX (Score:2)
Yep we already knew that we couldn't depends on Russia ever since their ISS module misfired. Its job is to keep station, not deorbit the station
Re: (Score:2)
That's how China got rich.
Re: (Score:2)
That was under the pragmatic and economics minded Shanghai Clique. Xi's faction is from the Maoist wing of the party. In some ways I guess you'd have to admit they're less hypocritical as communists, but they're harder to deal with on pragmatic terms. They're quite willing to blow up sectors of their economy because to them profit is just theft from workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Xi's faction is from the Maoist wing of the party
No they're not. They like money as much as the next capitalist, and they've made way too much over the last 30 years to "blow up sectors of their economy".
The shareholders of the vast US corporation I work for (just as one example) makes nearly $1 billion profit every year from their Chinese holdings, and while there is less money to be made in Russia, there is still plenty, so they'll keep taking it for as long as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at what they're doing to handle the property bubble in their country; that's something that arguably should have been done years ago, but it's white knuckle stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not like russia gives a shit either.
Re: Time to call SpaceX (Score:2)
Vulcan is waiting on amazon delivery of be-4 engines. Like typical amazon they show as in transit but a closer look at the actual transit logs shows it has left the warehouse yet
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe SpaceX needs to be declared a common carrier?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe SpaceX needs to be declared a common carrier?
LOL Slashdotters throw that word around pretending that someone just says, it becomes so. But I'm genuinely curious as to what benefit you think this would bring, or even what problem it would solve?
Re: (Score:2)
No pretending required here.
So we have a carrier of space freight (SpaceX) that is also a provider of a satellite network (StarLink). This is an instance of vertical integration (No pun intended, LOL) in a market. So when a company wants to create a satellite network that was in competition with StarLink, SpaceX might be disinclined to help them with the launch. This is anti-competitive behavior. This is possible because SpaceX is considered a private carrier, not a common carrier. Making SpaceX a comm
Re: (Score:2)
But you're projecting there. Before anything you said makes sense SpaceX would need to be approached and turn down the launch contract.
That was my point. You're not solving a problem because as yet there is no problem. Just a thought that maybe there could be one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, this is all speculation at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably an impossible case to make. No evidence of SpaceX abusing it's position, like underpricing to drive out competitors nor is it raiding prices to take advantage of it's market position. It's only in the position its in due to circumstances outside their control:
- Political strife making Soyuz less viable.
- Ariane 6 delayed longer than it should have been and no stock of Ariane 5 to fill the void.
- Vulcan delayed due to lack of engines and no stock of Atlas V to fill the void (All remaining Atlas veh
Re: (Score:2)
Probably an impossible case to make. No evidence of SpaceX abusing it's position, like underpricing to drive out competitors nor is it raiding prices to take advantage of it's market position. It's only in the position its in due to circumstances outside their control:
Like that matters. All that matters is:
1). American Company.
2). More successful than anything Europe has to offer in its business area.
IT MUST BE PUNISHED!!!
Re: (Score:2)
No, all that matters is that the EU is a sovereign nation, who has every right to make and enforce their own laws. Being an American company does not mean you get to ignore other nation's laws. And just because the US is criminally lax in enforcing it's own antitrust laws doesn't mean the EU should be.
What laws, in particular, do you think have been unfairly applied to American companies and not to EU companies? Be specific, and not just generally anti-regulation. It's easy to act outraged when you don't ha
Re: Time to call SpaceX (Score:2)
When did the EU become a nation?
Re: (Score:2)
Call it a rose, see if it smells any different. Heck, maybe it's a duck. It walks and quacks like one.
But sure, for accuracy, we can call it a political entity that has no internal borders for members, a single market and currency, and a federal government that passes laws all members must follow. Totally different from, say, the US, which is a political entity that has no internal borders for member states, a single market and currency, and a federal government that passes laws all members must follow. Tot
Re: Time to call SpaceX (Score:2)
It is totally different. The EU is comprised of separate ACTUAL nations, each of can conduct its own foreign policy as it sees fit. They can also leave the EU if they wish. Unlike if the states that comprise the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Names two small differences, "It's totally different!" The EU is young. It's literally still being forged. It may not have all the features of a nation state yet, but it has most and is moving towards enacting the rest. Common foreign policy is a current goal.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only assume you are waiting on your next Russian paycheck. Sorry. It isn't coming. The funds used to pay for an army of trolls and right wing authoritarians has been seized. Like the NRA and other Russian funded groups, you won't be seeing any more of it.
BREXIT wasn't popular, people were lied to. And it has been a disaster, so it is very unpopular now. The UK fucked itself with BREXIT. No one in the EU want's what happened to the UK to happen to them.
Russia has created a unified EU where none existed
Re: (Score:3)
And then Musk will accuse them all of being pedophiles.
Re: (Score:2)
What a position for SpaceX to be in as the only viable launch option for its primary satellite internet competitor.
Probably won't be long before the EU sues SpaceX for having an illegal monopoly and abusing its market position.
Do you think SpaceX is likely to abuse its position?
While any company would be happy to find itself in a near-monopoly position, it does mean they must be mindful of antri-trust regulations.
You cannot use your monopoly in one field to gain an unfair advantage in another business. SpaceX will launch one-web and take the profits.
OneWeb has launched 2/3 of their planned satellites, with only another 25 tons to SSO needed. The UK government has deep pockets, so a few tens of millions of cost increase will ha
Re: (Score:2)
For medium launch capability right now, SpaceX is the only game in town if you can't use Soyuz.
Ariane 6 is not ready yet, not testing until later this year, maybe. Same with the Japanese H3, no test launch until maybe later this year. There's no guarantee either of those go totally according to plan and even if they did it may not be until 2023 until there is stock to launch commerically on.
Re: (Score:2)
All remaining Atlas V rockets are sold to customers, ULA is not building anymore. Even if they wanted to, chances of getting RD-180 engines from Russia probably pretty slim nowadays and there was already longstanding concern on relying on Russian made engines for national security lauches (even though they are very good engines)
ULA was supposed to have at least done a test flight with Vulcan at this point but Blue Origin has been delayed getting the BE-4 engine finished and ready. There likely will be a t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that Blue Origin wouldn't mind the extra business, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the earliest possible date for a launch of New Glenn is 2023 and may realistically not be until 2025 I don't believe anybody thinks of BO as a viable medium launch provider.
They famously have not even got a set of working test engines to ULA for Vulcan yet.
Re:Time to call SpaceX (Score:4, Insightful)
Except they are also a competitor to OneWeb.
ESA doesn't have the rockets available.
JAXA's H3 could be ready to go this year, but even so has about 50% of what Soyuz can provide.
PSLV doesn't look like it's up to speed yet.
GSLV looks to be the a better fit but then you still have to deal with availability
Rocket Lab can only get two up per launch with Electron and Neutron is still two years off.
Antares is tied to this mess
Zenit is also tied to this mess
Firefly hasn't successfully launched the Alpha yet, so I don't know if they want to launch on the Beta.
China has several Long March 3 rockets that could take on the task if needed.
Be hilarious if South Korea's Nuri saved the day though. I would be all up for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What about India's space agency [wikipedia.org]? What are their launch capabilities?
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the UK government is only interested in these satellites because it got booted out of the EU's Galileo programme on security grounds, when it brexited.
These days navigation and time synchronization are critical to many industries. For example, 4G and 5G masts need sub microsecond time-of-day information, and mostly use GNNS (GPS, Galileo, Compass and GLONASS) satellites to get it.
So not having your own GNSS network is a security risk. The operators of those networks could decide to tu
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sure that Blue Origin wouldn't mind the extra business, either."
Don't have to have a business first before you can get 'extra' business?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that Blue Origin would love to have a unicorn that farts $100 bills too. And that exists in reality just as much as anything Blue Origin has that is capable of orbit, much less lifting a payload worth a damn to orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that Blue Origin wouldn't mind the extra business, either.
You misspelled "any business" ... :-)
Re:Time to call Northrop Grumman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that OneWeb is a direct competitor for Starlink, so using SpaceX to launch may be a non-starter for both sides. Though I could see SpaceX do this at least on a one-time basis just to annoy Roscosmos.
Of course, there are logistical issues, starting with getting the satellites back from Russia. Then there's the question of form factor, as they were designed to be launched on a different rocket, presumably with different payload dimensional requirements. It will take some time to get them set up to l
Re: Time to call SpaceX (Score:2)
Elon will take the business if for no reason other than to quiet down the cries of Monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even need to go *that* far.
the satellite internet seems to be first and foremost a way to sell launches (even to itself)/increase demand.
Launching someone else's internet satellites meets this interest as well.
Then again, GM's creation of bus companies so that it could sell them buses kind of backfired . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
GM's creation of bus companies so that it could sell them buses kind of backfired
How so? GM did sell bus companies a lot of buses, and also to this day still sells a lot of engines that go into trucks and buses (and RVs.)
Re: (Score:2)
they were forced to divest the bus companies as anti-trust enforcement.
Of course, this still left the new bus companies as potential customers, but they could also buy from competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
they were forced to divest the bus companies as anti-trust enforcement.
did they take a loss?
this still left the new bus companies as potential customers, but they could also buy from competitors.
GM managed to pretty well dominate the transit bus market with their Detroit Diesel engines for many years. Cummins did more or less dominate full size school buses, though. Their engine required a lot less maintenance. Both of their engines were developed for military applications originally (check out the Bureau of Ships Manual section on diesel sometime, nifty stuff) so the R&D costs were fully covered.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall what, if any penalties, or what losses.
They certainly had the "egg on face" of being split, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Seriously, the west needs to stop depending on Russia for anything space-related."
Seriously, the west needs to stop depending on Russia for anything. Period!
You don't trade with crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the west needs to stop depending on Russia for anything.
Fixed that for you. HTH. HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Rocket Labs for smaller payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of companies out there able to do satellite launches - they happen all the time. SpaceX isn't the only company - they are if you want to send a crewed capsule to the ISS without using Russia, but for satellites, there are plenty of launch providers.
SpaceX is cheapest, but ULA and others have launch capability. ESA was using Russia purely because of locality.
Plus, I doubt anything will happen - Ruscosmos is in s
Who's rejecting who? (Score:3)
First sentence of summary is in fact Russia refusing to launch.
-journalism
Re: (Score:2)
The uk is saying that they cant negotiate... probably because of very real plans to leverage these sats for military purposes
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because they don't want to be seen as negotiating with a rouge state. Nobody wants to do business with Russia or anything connected to Russia right now, and for good reason.
Re: (Score:3)
rouge state.
I was going to correct this, but....I think I couldn't find a problem with it after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Both the headline and the lede are entirely accurate. The actual sequence of events was (1) Russia issues an ultimatum to the UK; (2) UK rejects Russian ultimatum; (3) Russia refuses to launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading ALL the words. The headline refers to the rejection of DEMANDS. That rejection was by the UK, as the headline and summary both state. Also, try counting all the way to two, as the 'first sentence of the summary' makes no mention of any rejections at all.
-reading
Re:Who's rejecting who? UK reject's Russia Demands (Score:2)
Sorry, had to place that little jibe. Yes, at first glance the headline probably isn't as clear as it could be. A much better title would be "Russian Space Agency's new launch demands to OneWeb rejected", or something along that line.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty simple once you understand proper english and deconstruct the sentence to remove adjectives and/or descriptive proper nouns...
Sorry, had to place that little jibe. Yes, at first glance the headline probably isn't as clear as it could be. A much better title would be "Russian Space Agency's new launch demands to OneWeb rejected", or something along that line.
i find the title is actually easier to understand than your proposal, but in both cases the level of comprehension required is so basic that there is really no point in trying to lower the bar any more than that. how to put it: simpler than that there's only pictograms, and those aren't really suited to transmit this kind of information, besides the receiver will probably not be able to process it even if decoded correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
"First sentence of summary is in fact Russia refusing to launch. "
Yes, preemptive quitting before getting fired.
Re: (Score:2)
-journalism
If you were really about professional journalism you wouldn't be claiming the headline made one statement or the other but rather lamenting the poor gramma that makes the sentence ambiguous.
The UK is very much rejecting the Russian Space Agency's Demands.
-English
Russia is quickly (Score:2)
Russian Space Agency... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seems that Engagement is 0/2 (Score:1)
Didn't work with China...and now they've got us by the balls over consumer goods and medical products.
Didn't work with Russia and now they've got Europe by the balls over oil and gas.
It worked with Japan, South Korea and Germany...but remember that in those places there was a shooting war or two and several years of military occupation.
Profit is clearly not the only motive that animates people in charge of nations. The lust for conquest and control is clearly there too in some measure. Our system is arrayed
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't have anyone by the balls. We don't need their junk consumer goods and can transition away from them at a moment's notice. As for medical products, the US is far and away the world leader. Russia just fucked itself and the EU is fast tracking green initiatives.
Lust for conquest and control is what drives the lust for profit, they are no different. And most people have realized they can exercise their lust for conquest and control without violent means. Because the whole system that is set up to
Re: (Score:2)
Most sad, desperate, and isolated men don't have control of a vast nuclear arsenal. Thank goodness.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does Putin. You think anyone is going to launch the missiles on his say-so? Doubtful. His own oligarch just put a price on Putin's head. His army is surrendering for a cup of hot tea. Putin is a washed up has been wannabe dictator who is about to get the Ghaddafi treatment he is so afraid of.
And even if he does do something stupid, and someone else plays along and pushes the button, do you think those nukes will even launch? This is Russia we're talking about, not the Soviet Union! They're a kleptoc
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're right about all that. The way events have been going, every day it looks a little bit more like you are going to be proven right.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything we hear makes it seem like, first, Putin and Russia are a joke, but more importantly, the world will not stand by anymore. Pulling the trigger on sanctions hurts everyone, but there is a line that the world will not let dictators cross.
Not to be a cynic, but that line is: keep you proxy wars out of the first world. Fight in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia all you like, but don't you dare start a war in Europe. All that friendly cooperation and economic interdependence w
Re: (Score:2)
> China doesn't have anyone by the balls. We don't need their junk consumer goods and can transition away from them at a moment's notice.
Yeah, no.. The US and the western nations in general have migrated manufacturing capacity to China for decades now, rebuilding that capacity in the west will in turn take decades and require many trillion dollars in investments. And that upfront cost is something no one is really willing to take since we in the west are so enamored with cheap stuff, short term gains lik
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, do you really think the US has lost manufacturing capacity? So, you'd say that as a percentage of real GDP, the manufacturing sector is shrinking? That's not what has happened. The US manufacturing sector has declined as a percentage of nominal GDP, but that is because the rest of the economy has grown faster, not because US manufacturing has shrunk. In fact, it has increased by about 2.2%, year over year. It's just that the rest of the economy has grown faster. And yes, employment in manufacturing ha
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly, but just looking at total manufacturing capacity misses the point - that's because some types of industries have zero or no manufacturing capacity to speak of in the US any more because it was cheaper to offshore it to China or other Asian countries.
For example, almost every electronic gadget in the US is dependent on imports from China (or Asia). Without China, no computers, no TV's, no phones, no internet, no printers, no vacuums, no kitchen aids, no electric tools, no i
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting opinion. But not backed up by any sources, so am I supposed to take your word on this? What are your credentials?
The rich can take their money wherever they want, the market will still be here. People will still have money to spend. What do you think will happen? The rich will just leave and take their money, leaving the US bankrupt? LOL.
If a rich guy can make $10, he will. But if you pass laws that say he can only make $1, do you think he will turn it down? No, he's still $1 richer, so it is in
Re: (Score:2)
> Interesting opinion. But not backed up by any sources, so am I supposed to take your word on this? What are your credentials?
I could say the same about your idea that the US can just stop getting stuff from China and pivot to manufacture everything themselves - even though some types of industries doesn't even exist in the US. But if you want sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/30/why-is-the-us-is-so-ridiculously-dependent-on-china/?sh=e38029156b5c [forbes.com]
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/ [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We've done more with worse politicians in the past. Are we Americans just much weaker than our ancestors? I think not. If we could get the five day work week, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, food safety laws, social security, and so much more back in the days when politicians and owners hired Pinkertons to KILL protestors with impunity, we can enact a few political reforms today.
So I have to ask, have you, personally just given up? Or would you benefit from others giving up? Because it seems like y
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, once Trump got the boot, a disappointed Putin had to look for a consolation prize.
Re:Seems that Engagement is 0/2 (Score:4)
I keep hearing this but no one (with obvious good reason) who makes this claim of "this wouldn't happen under Trump" actually quantifies that idea or is capable of explaining why that would be the case.
I imagine themost likely answer would be some cleaned up version of "Madman Theory" [wikipedia.org] which doesn't make a good case for having the man be in charge of the second largest nuclear arsenal on earth.
Keep malding that Joe Biden, like him or hate him, has really handled this whole situation very well.
The statement is actual fact (Score:2)
The statement you replied to is that Russia invaded Ukraine when Obama was president, chilled out when Trump was president, and invaded again when Obama's VP, Biden, was president.
It's not a a theoretical "wouldn't have". It's a fact - didn't.
If you're suggesting that Putin will invade Ukraine during the Trump administration, you're predicting the past - wrongly. Again.
You ask on what basis people say this. It's on the basis of actual fact. Which beats fandom for a particular politiball team every time. You
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for affirming my point exactly. You did not explain anything Trump would have done differently domestically, internationally, or policy wise that would have changed the outcome. I did not make a single claim anywhere that it would have happened during the Trump admin because that is a stupid thing to say without sufficent reasoning to back it up. There are thousands of variables that could have changed the timing of when Putin decides to take such an action. The world does not rotate around th
Re: The statement is actual fact (Score:2)
Did not is not would not.
If Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president then it is for only one reason, that he felt he could accomplish more of his goals by operating Trump.
That's not Trump stopping him, or even deterring him.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin invaded Crimea during Obama's tenure, and in response Obama maneuvered to have him kicked out of the G8 (now the G7). That cost Putin and his rich buddies yuuuuge bucks. Trump then spent much of the next four years trying to get Russia back into the G7. Google shows me no less than 10 major speeches Trump gave in which he recommended letting Putin back into the G7 which Putin very badly needed to get his rich buddies off his back. A further invasion of Ukraine during that time would have sunk the
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Putin cause problems for his orange hand puppet? He was hoping that he could shove his hand even farther up Trump's ass and twitch his little finger until Trump rotted out NATO from the inside.
Then he would have done all of this anyway, and added the Baltic nations to the list after Ukraine. Just like Stalin in the 1940s.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't seem to have these types of problems under Trump.
Yes, because Trump was too incompetent to start or get involved in a war despite his best attempts with China and North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't seem to have these types of problems under Trump. But they existed with Obama/Biden and resumed with Obama/Harris.
That's what happens when you refuse to suck off putin at regular intervals.
The problems were always there, they were just hidden by the oral fellatio given by the republicans best orange ape.
And now trump is angry at joe because only trump knows how to suck off putin the right way. The war is proof of this.
Give Russia some major demands (Score:3)
1) Recognize St. Petersburg as an independent nation
2) Cut off all ties with China
3) Hand over Putin to NATO authorities
4) Permanent tributary payments to Ukraine
5) Ukrainian president gets full veto power over all Russian legislation
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deal. I'll make that trade all day long. We'll even throw Dick Cheney in, 2 for 1 that's a good bargain!
Re: (Score:2)
As in removing a despotic dictator who was running around burning other countries oil fields.
Maybe you should thank W instead.
Re: Give Russia some major demands (Score:2)
Unfortunately it took 6 years to get rid Hitler after finding out what he was like and half of europe and east Asia got flattened in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs a defense treaty when the Chinese can just buy the continent.
Re: (Score:2)
"I would say preventing NATO from parking missiles close enough to hit Moscow in 4 minutes qualifies as defending his country. The US almost ended the world in nuclear war when the roles were reversed in Cuba."
Re: (Score:2)
All those new NATO bases in the Arctic? Or, uh, Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
Contrary to your claim, Russia is not being surrounded by new NATO bases or members. Rather, countries near it have sought NATO membership to protect themselves from what Russia did in Georgia (2008).. and Ukraine (2014).. and now Ukraine again.
Re:Give Russia some major demands (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a dumb talking point. All the countries post 1991 that are a part of NATO wanted to be part of NATO because, you guessed it, they were fearful of Russia aggression. They certainly were correct in that assumption and they had a long history to back up that thinking.
That doesn't make the US "good" but Russia is not some lost child, it's own country with it's own motives and it could have treated it's neighbors more civilly if it didn't want to keep losing it's influence over them to the west.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a dumb talking point because whether Russia owns Ukraine or NATO owns Ukraine or Ukraine owns Ukraine makes no difference in their security.
Russia is secure because of their nuclear armament. The status of Ukraine makes no difference.
Re: (Score:3)
How dare all those countries that suffered for decades under Soviet Russian occupation want to be able to defend themselves! I mean, those tank incursions into Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) were just "peacekeepers" and there to spread goodwill, right?
It isn't like, even after being promised to never be invaded and giving up your nuclear weapons in return, the Russians would go back on their word? (See: Ukraine)
I mean that warlike NATO didn't actually enter any combat operations from their incepti
Re: (Score:3)
Neville Chamberlain, is that you reincarnated? Because your post sure sounds like appeasement of expansionist dictator twats.
From 1917 to the 1990s those baltic nations had been repeatedly invaded and / or controlled by Russia. Is anyone surprised that when they were given the chance to join a defensive pact as their best hope to not have that happen again, they would jump at it?
Russia's own aggression from their revolution right up to today's war is the reason for NATO to exist to begin with. They have
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I had to attack my neighbors. See, the neighbors formed a neighborhood watch, and the neighborhood watch members started to occupy the home around me.
It acted in self-defense, obviously.
New Information (Score:2)
This explains their sudden opposition to OneWeb. They view it as a significant military threat.