Russia Warns West Risks "Hot War" After Mass Expulsion Of Diplomats

After a legion of western nations announced this week that they would expel Russian diplomats in solidarity with the UK, one Russian ambassador warned during an impromptu unscripted speech that, by hastily blaming Moscow for the poisoning of a former Russian spy at a shopping center in Salisbury, the West was risking a return to the Cold War. A second Russian ambassador took the warning a step further, and claimed the West has inadvertently risked a "hot war" with Russia.

So far, 23 countries have expelled over 130 Russian diplomats since the UK pointed the finger at Russia, accusing it of organizing an assassination plot that involved poisoning former Russian spy Sergei Skripal with a Soviet-era nerve agent called Novichok.


The UK demanded that Russia explain how the nerve agent came to be used in the attack, if it wasn't ordered by senior officials in the Russian government, per Newsweek.


Grigory Logvinov

Russia responded by demanding a sample of the chemical used, and offered to assist the UK in its investigation, but has been rebuffed. Meanwhile, the UK media reports say Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal may never fully recover from the attack.

Amid the escalating noise, Russia's ambassador to Australia said on Wednesday that the world will enter into a "Cold War situation" should the West continue its "biased" attacks on Russia, according to Reuters.

"The West must understand that the anti-Russian campaign has no future," Russian Ambassador Grigory Logvinov told reporters in Canberra.

"If it continues, we will be deeply in a Cold War situation."

Australia said Tuesday it would expel two Russian diplomats, inspiring Logvinov to make his address warning of the dangers of deteriorating relations between Russia and its partners. So far, countries have at least stopped short of adding to the sanctions against Russia that were imposed following the annexation of Crimea.

He added that Russia has yet to decide on its response, hinting that the country could be planning retaliation beyond the proportional expulsions of diplomats.

"I said we have no evidence. The British stubbornly denied giving any evidence. They have denied following the provisions and protocol of the Convention on Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said.

Lyudmila Vorobieva, Russia's ambassador to Indonesia, said the situation was "absolutely absurd." Except that, rather than a "Cold War", Vorobieva said the confrontation could lead to an "ice war" - apparently referring to a full-scale military conflict between Russia and the West.

"What is worse than an ice war. It's a hot war."

She added that a conflict of that magnitude would be "fatal for our planet" given the stockpiles of nuclear weapons held by both sides. “Do we want that? Well, I can tell you from Russia’s side definitely we don’t want that because if we take into account the number of nuclear weapons accumulated by the country - this kind of development would be fatal for our planet.”


Looney EuroPox Wed, 03/28/2018 - 13:34 Permalink


One year ago tomorrow, the UK invoked Article 50. It’s due to leave the EU on March 29, 2019.

Theresa May has wasted the whole year doing nothing but sucking Jean-Claude Juncker’s limp biscuit.

The Skripals’ Poisoning Saga will continue for a few more months. Then, another “scandal” will get concocted (most likely during the Soccer World Cup in Russia) to keep the Brits scared shitless and distracted from the embarrassingly pitiful EU-UK negotiations.

I was gonna suggest to the Brits to “Kick that bitch out! Now!”, but who’d they replace her with - Boris “The Dumb Blonde” Johnson?

Well… there is always BritBob…   ;-)


In reply to by EuroPox

Shemp 4 Victory Mr Hankey Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:23 Permalink

The Russians see through it and have pretty much had enough.  From Sergey Mikheyev, a guest on the program Vecher (night) addressing another guest, who is American:

The West has discredited the notion of trust. Trust doesn't depend on the number of allies. It doesn't depend on money. And it doesn't depend on your GDP.  Trust depends on whether you keep your promises or not. Whether you tell the truth or lie. That's what trust is.

But in your country, Michael, lies and truth have been mixed up. For you, money and power are truth. That's what you think truth is. For you, lies could also become true with enough lawyers and under the right circumstances.

You see, the problem of the US is that it has swapped good with evil. You don't even see what you're doing in this world. You made money the ultimate truth. Follow the money, that's where the truth is. Tell me, American, what's the truth? It's money. And that's the absolute truth. It's the precise description of your civilization.

It's just a small excerpt of an 8-minute video which is well worth watching. (English subtitles)

In reply to by Mr Hankey

FoggyWorld inhibi Wed, 03/28/2018 - 16:11 Permalink

I tell you the name of a Russian who doesn't lie.  Vladimir Putin is nothing if not consistent and if you go to Youtube and watch him and his semi annual meetings with his people where ordinary citizens (not members of the press) are in the audience and can phone in.   He has used the same words over and over.  Respect, love for motherland, desire to see progress in economic terms.  And keep in mind Russia has no use whatsoever for any more land.  It almost has too much already.

He did start out wanting to befriend the West but it was we who lied and the icing on the cake was what we did in Ukraine by letting Soros, Nuland, Biden, Obama and so many others have their way.   The Donbas south eastern portion of Ukraine really is worthless to Putin because Ukrainians have destroyed it.  More trouble than it's worth.   

Putin's objection is that our actions have enabled NATO and the US to load up military vehicles and planes and summer troops right on Russia's border.

How would Americans feel about Putin's doing the same thing to the US by moving into Mexico and/or Canada and threatening 24/7 to invade?

In reply to by inhibi

Blankone Shemp 4 Victory Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:52 Permalink

Ok, that was very sad and funny at the same time.
The video is recent and they are STILL talking about how the west may discredit itself in regards to "trust". Are the Russians that daft, that retarded - they are only now thinking there may be a problem in trusting the zionists words?

And this little bit from the Russian representative - "fatal for our planet" -- how about going back to using "Mother Of All Battles". smh Although Putin is doing a good Saddam impersonation with his claims of secret out of the world weapons that cannot be defeated.

Has anyone heard if Putin grew a pair and declared a no-fly zone over Syria? Didn't think so.

In reply to by Shemp 4 Victory

GeoffreyT Blankone Wed, 03/28/2018 - 19:16 Permalink

Putin doesn't have any legal authority to declare a no-fly zone over anywhere (including the airspace of the Russian Federation): a no-fly zone in Syrian would involve deploying Russian military assets outside of Russian territory, it would be the job of the Council of the Federation (Совфед) and possibly the Security Council of the Russian Federation (СБРФ).

That's beside the point: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the government, helping it try to prevent a military-theocratic coup orchestrated by the US.


Why do you think a no-fly zone is necessary? To stop NATO and US 'heroes' from bombing water-treatment facilities?

If the Western narrative is to be believed, the only side in the 'civil war' in Syria that has aircraft is the Syrian government, and governments (generally) assert the constitutional authority to suppress insurrections on their home soil.

There has been no UNSC resolution authorising Article VII intervention on Syrian soil - so there is no sovereign nation who has any right to enter Syrian airspace (except Russia, since it was invited by the government).

I am no fan of governments generally - I want to see them all destroyed and the people who comprise them expropriated and humiliated. However the world order depends on respect for process, and the bad actor in this process is the US, not Russia.



Civil wars are messy things - read about Sherman's torching of Atlanta in 1864 to see what happens when a city is a 'rebel stronghold'.

If you had any inkling of the US' depraved behaviour - even towards its internal discontents - you would then marvel at the level of restraint being shown by Assad. The rapid advance in the machinery of death in the 20th century means that if Assad was actually a depraved butcher he could wreak more than the 40% destruction that Sherman visited on Atlanta.

So you're gullible enough to believe the whole "this brown guy is a depraved cartoon villain' because the psychopaths at the top of the American political food chain tell you to believe it. That's sad.


It also seems that you buy into the bullshit "R2P" (responsibility to protect) trope that the US now uses when it feels the need to slaughter some more foreign children.

Fuck that shit - R2P kills more people than staying the fuck out of the way and letting the opposing teams fight it out.

More to the point, R2P kills the wrong people, since its victims are 90% non-combatant civilians. Those contending for control of a state have an incentive to tread lightly, since the victor will be involved in fixing the aftermath and ruling the population.

Nobody on either side of a civil war wants to alienate the civilian population - those are the very people that they want to rule after the war.

Nobody on either side of a civil war wants wide-scale destruction - since if they win, they will have to expend resources on rebuilding.

To have the depraved indifference to civilian suffering that R2P advocates display, requires complete detachment from the actual victims.

If the US had left Saddam Hussein in power, the entire region would be far more stable. (That said, Middle-Eastern stability is not, and has never been, a Western political aim).

In reply to by Blankone

BarnacleBill Bulgars Wed, 03/28/2018 - 15:18 Permalink

On the contrary, Russia may well have a more credible future than most of its self-declared enemies. If there is a nuclear war, the USA may escape most of the damage, but western Europe will be reduced to a radioactive wasteland. It beggars all understanding why the US's European allies are risking such a thing.

In reply to by Bulgars

ThanksChump Lumberjack Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:09 Permalink

Putin only has to wait in order to beat the West.


The West doesn't like that, it seems. The fools in DC will push until they lose an entire carrier group, then they'll do something monumentally stupid and everything will light up. It won't be DC's fault though, cuz carrier group, flags, eagles, liburdy, and a lot of other meaningless derpitudes. We'll lose. Again.


I'm glad I live in an area where no targets are upwind. It might get cold, but I have that covered too. Potassium iodide is a good thing to keep around.

In reply to by Lumberjack

FoggyWorld inhibi Wed, 03/28/2018 - 16:22 Permalink

Russia will become a major power but the huge population of China and also India will keep Russia probably in the No. 2 spot for quite some time.  Putin and the Russians would be very content with that because they who have suffered beyond American understanding for 150 years, do not want war ever again.   But if they have to, they will do it and they will win.

In reply to by inhibi