Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

How dangerous? Incredibly. That's why a minister of a country experienced a lot about that knows how to get faster to his gate (Blitzkrieg):

NATO to set up Schengen system for military, German minister says

NATO wants to set up a system to ease military movements across Europe, akin to the Schengen border-free system for people travelling across the continent, said German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

"We want to establish something like a military Schengen within Europe, that can move [troops] quickly and straightforwardly, without great bureaucracy, with great speed," von der Leyen said ahead of a meeting with her NATO counterparts in a two-day meeting in Brussels, DPA reported yesterday.

Germany has offered to host the command center for this, she added, noting that the country is "not only geographically in the heart of Europe, but also has great experience in logistics and support."

https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/20...-minister-says

I'm surprised they even make the token effort to pretend to be in it.

Russia could withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and end cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights, the state-run RIA news agency has reported.
Citing unnamed government sources, the agency said the reason for the possible withdrawal was the fact that many of the court's decisions ran counter to Russia's interests.
Russia has in the past adopted laws that allow it to overrule judgements from the European court, which is intended to protect human rights. In 2015, it passed a law that meant its own constitution took precedence – on the same day the country was criticised for its spying regime by the court.

Russia could withdraw from European Convention on Human Rights, state news agency RIA reports | The Independent

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

^The EU was started by the US. Not really surprising that the Russians won't follow their rulings is it?

The European Union always was an American project.

"It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...iteers-discov/

The entire migrant crisis in europe was created by US wars by proxy or similair methods, on countries such as Syria and specifically Libya. Their wars, based on geopolitics, profit and ultimately control, led to the disaster the continent of Europe is now suffering. The ECJ (which is ultimately controlled by Washington), now has the bare-faced audacity to demand that European countries have to take in the refugees that they don't want, due to these illegal and frankly sick invasions the US has instigated.

In reality, the US should be taking in all the refugees.

But it's Europe who has to clean up the mess that the US has again foisted on the world.

You really do know how to waffle off topic don't you Albert.

Trying to obfuscate or just completely missed the fucking point?

Putin unveils new 'untrackable' super missile
01/03/2018
The "new supersonic weapon" that can reach almost any point in the world, Russia President Vladimir Putin said in his annual address.

Russia has developed missiles that no other country possesses, President Vladimir Putin has claimed in comments that could spark a new arms race with the US.

They include a "new supersonic weapon" that can reach almost any point in the world and cannot be tracked by anti-missile systems, he said.

The weapon was successfully tested in late 2017, he added.

He later suggested Moscow only envisages using the missile in response to a nuclear attack, rather than being the aggressor.

"The response would be immediate," he said.

Putin made the claim during his annual state of the nation address to Russian MPs in Moscow.

It comes after the US was said to be developing smaller nuclear weapons in the belief they would be more of a deterrent than larger ones.

Putin also claimed Russia was testing underwater drones that can carry nuclear warheads.

This year is the first time the speech has been delivered in March, according to the Moscow Times. It is usually given in December.

Russia will hold presidential elections on March 18 and Putin is the overwhelming favourite to win another term in office.

Putin unveils new 'untrackable' super missile | Euronews

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Russia has developed missiles that no other country possesses, President Vladimir Putin has claimed

Oh sure.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

This year is the first time the speech has been delivered in March, according to the Moscow Times. It is usually given in December.

Should have done it tomorrow.

Was just browsing WWII stuff on Wikipedia and I noticed from the dates that 2nd February will be the 75th anniversary of the defeat of the German 6th Army at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad.

Nearly 2 million killed, injured or captured during the 5 month long bloodiest single battle in the history of warfare.

Originally Posted by Looper

2nd February will be the 75th anniversary

Your post has been 1 month delayed (perhaps hold up by Al-Kaida?)
Or do you have another calendar?

BTW, about the Stalingrad battle anniversary was here recently (1 month ago) a discussion - also some deletion...

Putin’s Soviet Throwback: Build More Nukes, Blame the West

MARCH 2, 2018 | CIPHER BRIEF ANALYSIS
On March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted of new nuclear-capable weapons that could overcome any U.S. missile defenses, in a feisty pre-election “state-of-the-nation” speech. He presented Russian military force as a “guarantor of peace on our planet,” and also made some over-the-top economic and social promises, just 17 days before Russia’s March 18 poll, where Putin will seek a fourth term in an electoral contest that has already seen a major challenger excluded.

We asked our experts to comment on Putin’s speech. Comments are adapted below for print.

Adm. (ret.) James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, & Dean of the Fletcher School

Putin’s public announcements about new Russian weapons systems sounded like Q explaining to James Bond all the goodies in the MI6 locker, or a bit like the North Korean annual “big missiles” parade. Nonetheless, we should take him seriously for three reasons.

First, U.S. intelligence has been tracking these systems for years and this provides us useful information to consider; second, this illuminates his “go big” strategy for dealing with the U.S., including an aggressive stance backed up by destabilizing weapons; and third, it should spur us to develop counters to what he is describing. The history of warfare is the history of offense versus defense, with first one, and then the other in ascendency. We need to do the research and development, testing, fielding and training to deal with the new battlefield he is describing, with both offensive and defensive capabilities.

I’d say take him very seriously as he is a serious person with deep and abiding antipathy toward NATO in general and the U.S. in particular. He is also backed up by capable scientists. We should not overreact, but we need a strategy for Russia that includes diplomatic, economic, cultural and military elements. With this announcement, Vladimir Putin is forcing us to adjust our strategy in all dimensions.

Rob Dannenberg, former Chief of the Central Eurasia Division, CIA

I’m not surprised at all that Putin used his annual “state of the nation” speech (moved from its traditional December timeframe to March, just ahead of the Russian presidential election) as a platform to highlight Russia’s military prowess. This is consistent with his pattern in his nearly 19 years of running Russia (he is now Russia’s longest serving leader since Stalin) striving to regain for Russia a prominent position on the world stage. Putin surely knows Russia can never compete with the U.S. and the West economically so his only option is through demonstrating military power—and the willingness to use it, as in Crimea and Syria. I don’t think his speech revealed anything that wasn’t already known to the U.S., and after the release of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, it’s no surprise Putin used the speech pulpit to look tough in front of the Russian people.

There is certainly some grandstanding for the Russian people in Putin’s speech and accompanying digitally-enhanced video, but more importantly, there is a message to the U.S. that there is a new arms race underway—and Putin may have stolen a march on us as we have underinvested in strategic weapons for at least the past decade. Moreover, as Putin threatened nuclear weapons use if Russia or its allies are attacked, how does that factor into a U.S. “bloody nose” strike against North Korea or another U.S. strike against Bashar Assad’s forces in Syria? I would also note Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner force mercenaries (allegedly hired by Putin) certainly suffered their own bloody nose in their ill-fated attack on U.S./anti-Assad forced in Syria in early February.

Frankly, the U.S. needs in my view to re-evaluate completely its approach to Russia. First, we need to recognize Putin is the arch enemy of the West. He and the clique of former KGB officers that run Russia hate everything for which the West stands: market economy; rule of law; freedom of choice and freedom of expression. These concepts are threatening and loathsome to Putin and his gang. That understood, we need to recognize there is no negotiating with him. (He will lie and cheat on any negotiated agreement—look at the Minsk agreements that are supposed to lead to peace in Ukraine, for example.) Our graduated approach toward sanctioning Russia for misbehaving has patently failed.

Have our sanctions persuaded Putin to renounce the annexation of Crimea or reduce support for secessionists in the Don Basin? Has our CAATSA sanctions package—slow in coming—caused Russia to cease its cyber malfeasance? Russia’s behavior will not change until the regime is changed. That should be our focus and strategy. Putin has turned Russia into a pariah and rogue state and he should be treated as a pariah. We should relentlessly expose to the Russian people the corruption and cynicism of Putinism. Look at the work of [opposition activist] Alexei Navalny in exposing corruption and the impact it has had in Russia, especially among young people. We should support, expand upon and replicate that work. Lastly, we should go after the money of the oligarchs that support and benefit from the system Putin has created.

Adm. (ret.) Sandy Winnefeld, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

These “new” weapons come as no surprise to the U.S. intelligence community and, by extension, to the policy and military communities. We have been aware of them for some time, and much of what the U.S. has been doing in nuclear policy is in response. For example, the Nuclear Posture Review’s resurrection of a sea-based nuclear cruise missile is an attempt to level a future negotiation playing field in response to Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.
Putin’s speech reflects a combination of traditional Russian paranoia, which has resulted in willful misinterpretation of the scale and purpose of U.S. missile defense systems, and grandstanding by Putin in advance of Russia’s election. We have to remember that, even though he is sure to win, in an authoritarian state like Russia, the win has to be overwhelming or the leader loses legitimacy. Thus, Putin’s speech is principally aimed at his public.

U.S. policy-makers should not over-react, much less panic. They should see the speech for what it is, remain firm in establishing a strong position, and highlight Putin’s hint in his speech about negotiations.

Some are reacting to Putin’s statement that Russia’s new weapons can defeat missile defenses. This only reflects the depths of Russian misunderstanding. U.S. missile defenses are not designed to, and are not intended to, defend against an intentional Russian nuclear attack. They are designed to defend against a limited attack from a nation such as Iran or North Korea, or perhaps an accidental single launch from a more capable nation like Russia or China. This truth has never penetrated Russia’s calculus. But we know what our defenses are, and are not, intended to do.

John Sipher, former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service

I don’t think any of it is a surprise to those in the U.S. government that have been watching Russia. It is vintage Putin.
I would advise our policymakers not to make too much of Putin’s comments. They are not a surprise. It is his means to deter the much bigger and more powerful West, and signal to his people prior to the Russian Presidential “election” that he is a serious player on the international stage. Our reaction should be to continue to modernize and improve our nuclear and military capability, and support our allies.

So much of this goes directly to Putin, his mindset and a long-held sense of betrayal and inferiority. It may be surprising to those who don’t follow Russia, but it is 100% consistent for anyone who has been watching Putin over the years.

First, the weapon systems he described are real and the U.S. has been aware of them for years. I don’t know, but would bet that our recent discussions of nuclear modernization etc. was in reaction to some of these things that we have witnessed the Russians working on.

Creating doomsday weapons is also consistent with what we saw in 2016. Russian hybrid warfare, information warfare known as “Active Measures” are the weapons of the weak against the strong. Like terrorists who cannot take on a superpower frontally, they look for weaknesses to exploit. Our tribalism and hyper-partisanship was our weakness. Likewise, seeking a powerful nuclear capability – to include “secret” weapons – is a means by which a weaker power can deter a stronger one.

Putin is all about staying in power. He needs to look powerful to his people and his neighbors. He needs to have an enemy to blame for the problems at home. He has been bitter for a long-time over the U.S. comfort with taking action around the world, without taking Russia into account. He grew up in a superpower and was scarred by its downfall for being “weak.” Likewise, he has seen the U.S. involved in regime change in Serbia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Ukraine etc. He fears and is angered by it. He blames us for things we’ve done and much we haven’t. He is obsessed with appearing strong.

By taking such an aggressive tone, he is like a cornered animal. He is escalating the debate, and also appealing to his people that Russia is a great power.

Andrew Weber, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs

What is so striking about President Vladimir Putin’s macho nuclear saber-rattling and announcement of new nuclear weapons systems is how closely it echoes President Donald Trump’s recent nuclear chest-thumping and announcement of new nuclear weapons systems. Look out world, we are in an arms race that is spinning out of control. Where are statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev when we so badly need them?

Granted, some of this is political posturing, as Putin’s speech is on the eve of the Russian presidential elections. Although they are uncontested, Kremlin worries over an embarrassing low turnout persist. After 18 years of economic cronyism and corruption under Putin, the economy is in a doldrums, reminiscent of the Leonid Brezhnev-era stagnation.

Although presidential nuclear rhetoric, or declaratory policy, matters a lot, as a former director of the Nuclear Weapons Council, I tend to focus on actual investments in nuclear weapons hardware. The most worrisome recent trend is major Russian and American investment in new nuclear weapons systems, especially the most dangerous and destabilizing class of nuclear weapons – cruise missiles. These weapons, which come in indistinguishable conventional and nuclear variants, can be launched without warning in decapitating first strikes. They are also nearly impossible to defend against, so it is not surprising that Putin framed his new nuclear cruise missiles as intended to bypass America’s ballistic missile defenses.
So what next? Intriguingly, both Trump and Putin have explicitly left the door open for a return to the arms control negotiating table. In a best case scenario, all of these new nuclear weapons systems could be used as bargaining chips in the arms control deal of the 21st Century.

Since 2015, Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and I have been quietly building the case around the world for a bold next step in global arms control – an effort to cap and eliminate all nuclear armed cruise missiles. This would include all nuclear-tipped sea-, air- and ground-launched cruise missiles of any range, and could also capture the underwater drone cited in Putin’s speech. The alternative to arms control is a costly and dangerous arms race nobody can win.

Daniel Hoffman, former CIA Chief of Station

Putin’s speech was very much a domestic campaign stump speech, but in addition to being aimed at Russian constituents, it was directed at regional and global allies and enemies, including the United States.

There are three takeaways. First, Putin deliberately exaggerates the military threat from NATO, and he does this for two reasons: to justify the existence of his own military spy state, and to conflate this purported military threat with the West’s democratic ideals, which are the real existential threat to Putin’s security. That’s an old Soviet tactic.

Secondly, he is essentially outlining the Putin Doctrine, which is Soviet-style military strength focused on a nuclear capability. Putin has mounted aggressive military campaigns in former Soviet states as well as the Middle East, and this approach gives Russia a measure of deterrence as well as a free hand as it acts the aggressor in these regions.

And lastly, we’re hearing a little bit of the same economic message that we heard 10 years ago when [current Prime Minister] Dmitry Medvedev was “running for president.” He talked about the “three I’s”: innovation, investment, and infrastructure. Putin is similarly promising economic growth for his citizens, and it sounds to me like a Soviet five-year plan. But that message is delivered in the context of this “serious threat from the West,” which is, as Putin would argue, making his job of economic growth that much more difficult. This supposed threat is the reason for whatever he has failed to do domestically.

As for technology – what’s new is Putin’s open description and bluster about a new intercontintental ballistic missile (ICBM), a supersonic weapon, and a new small nuclear warhead. It’s like the equivalent of the Soviet military parade on “Defend the Fatherland Day,” but Putin is just doing it with words. And he’s got to do it now because he has an election on March 18.

The person Putin holds in the greatest esteem is his mentor, Yuri Andropov, former director of the KGB and General Secretary of the Communist Party. Putin follows a lot of the same basic central tenets of governance, including a real effort to project military power even though his economy is the size of Italy. He wants to project a level of Russian military power that allows it to go toe-to-toe with the United States on the world stage. It’s a little bit of bluster, but it’s designed psychologically to show he’s on the world stage and competing against the United States—“just like the old days.”

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/artic...kes-blame-west

^Harry, it's really a surprise (for somebody) to get such comments by people in those positions, isn't it?
Or did you expect anything else? (in case you have read it thru...)

Originally Posted by Klondyke

^Harry, it's really a surprise (for somebody) to get such comments by people in those positions, isn't it?
Or did you expect anything else? (in case you have read it thru...)

You haven't read it Klondyke, and clearly you don't understand it, so STFU.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Your post has been 1 month delayed

Doh!

Originally Posted by Klondyke

BTW, about the Stalingrad battle anniversary was here recently (1 month ago) a discussion - also some deletion...

Linky?

This thread or somewhere else on teh forum?

If I am not mistaken,

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) (1972—2002) was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against ballistic missile-delivered nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the treaty, each party was limited to two ABM complexes, each of which was to be limited to 100 anti-ballistic missiles.[1]

Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years.[2] In 1997, five years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, four former Soviet republics agreed with the United States to succeed the USSR's role in the treaty. In June 2002 the United States withdrew from the treaty, leading to its termination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-B...Missile_Treaty


The new weapons announced by Russia are so advanced that the money U.S. taxpayers have spent on missile defenses "has been thrown out into the wind," President Vladimir Putin told NBC News on Thursday.

He said the new weapons were Moscow's response to the United States' withdrawal in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibited nationwide missile defenses. President George W. Bush said when he announced the U.S. withdrawal that the treaty was outmoded and promised to deploy U.S. missile defenses to protect against "growing missile threats."

"If we are to speak of an arms race, then an arms race started precisely at that point," Putin said.

Putin said he had offered to cooperate on joint development of missile defenses with the United States but had been rebuffed, so he had to act in Russia's best interests.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/p...combat-n852496

Putin said he had offered to cooperate on joint development of missile defenses with the United States

Oh fucking yeah, you're going to trust that c u n t, aren't you!

^Who do you trust to, disclose it to us please...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

^Who do you trust to, disclose it to us please...

What the fuck are you on about?

Who is going to give Putin the keys to the kingdom you stupid little boy.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Who is going to give Putin the keys to the kingdom you stupid little boy

The overwhelming majority of his subjects - as unlike in other kingdoms (don't mind Cambodia) - you big ignorant...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

The overwhelming majority of his subjects - as unlike in other kingdoms (don't mind Cambodia) - you big ignorant...

I thought repeater had the monopoly on dementia here. It seems I'm wrong.

More than 130,000 participate in rally For Strong Russia in Moscow
March 03, 15:39



MOSCOW, March 3. /TASS/. More than 130,000 people have come to participate in the rally dubbed For Strong Russia in Moscow on Saturday, the Interior Ministry's representative Irina Volk told TASS on Saturday.

"The rally For Strong Russia, organized at the Luzhniki sports complex features more than 130,000 participants," she said. "The police and Russian Guard provide order and security at the event."

The rally in support for presidential candidate Vladimir Putin began at midday on Saturday. The candidate’s election headquarters said the event "is paid for from the election fund," and the candidate will report the expenses to the Central Election Committee, to be published on the Committee’s website.

The headquarters’ press secretary, Andrei Kondrashov, said 299 Russian and 125 foreign reporters had been accredited to the event. They represent the media from the U.S., Japan, Spain, Germany, China, the UK, France, Denmark, he added.

More:
TASS: Russian Politics & Diplomacy - More than 130,000 participate in rally For Strong Russia in Moscow

"I have the best crowds.....".

Diplomat excoriates US State Department’s discriminatory conduct towards Russian reporter
March 02, 17:41 UTC+3
Heather Nauert’s outright rebuff stirred indignation even among some American journalists



MOSCOW, March 2. /TASS/. The Russian Foreign Ministry will allocate special seats for American journalists at press briefings, if the United States dares once again to infringe upon the rights of Russian reporters, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert rejected questions from a Russian reporter at a press briefing on Thursday, which concerned bilateral relations and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s State of the Nation Address to the Federal Assembly.

"You’re from Russian TV too? OK! Enough said then, I’ll move on," Nauert interrupted.

She thus reacted to the Russian reporter’s attempt to clarify Nauert’s remarks about Putin’s speech. Nauert’s outright rebuff stirred indignation even among some American journalists.

"This behavior is unacceptable! If the State Department once again dares to label our journalists who are present at press briefings ‘journalists from Russia’ and stop communicating with them because of that, we will carry out what we promised," Zakharova said. "We will arrange special seats for the so-called journalists from the US at the Foreign Ministry’s press center so that your journalists could feel this time what it is all about."

"Earlier, literally several decades ago, people with different skin color were not allowed to ride on the same bus in the United States. It is necessary to overcome that instead of returning to the flawed practice of the early 19th century, dividing journalists into countries and nationalities. You have no right to deny them access to information due to their nationality," Zakharova stressed. She also thanked "those American reporters who defended their Russian counterparts’ right to access information and be treated equally."


More:
TASS: Russian Politics & Diplomacy - Diplomat excoriates US State Department?s discriminatory conduct towards Russian reporter

"I have the best crowds".

Vladimir Putin, flanked by cheering supporters, strode on to a stage in the centre of Moscow’s colossal Luzhniki Stadium and urged a crowd of tens of thousands of flag-waving Russians to join him in building a bright and joyful future for the country’s children.

“Our ancestors lived here, we live here, and this is where our children and grandchildren will live,” Putin said on Saturday afternoon, at what was his sole campaign rally ahead of this month’s Russian presidential elections. “And we will do everything to make them happy!”

Standing beside Putin were celebrities and sports stars, including members of Russia’s men’s ice hockey team fresh from their triumph at the Winter Olympics. At Putin’s bidding, they burst into a rendition of Russia’s national anthem. Police said 80,000 people were present, with another 50,000 watching on big screens outside the stadium.

It was, on the face of it, a perfect demonstration of popular support for Putin, who is all but certain to secure another six-year term of office when Russians go to the polls on 18 March.

Multiple reports before Saturday’s rally indicated that tens of thousands of Russians had been strongarmed into attending the event. University students, state employees, and workers at private companies were among those who came under pressure, according to opposition websites and social media posts.

“Organise yourselves into groups of no less than four, and photograph yourselves when you arrive at the stadium,” read an email, seen by the Guardian, which was sent to employees of a Moscow-based company. “Don’t forget to pick up your placards on Friday!” An employee at the company said he feared his wages would be cut if he did not comply.

Andrei Kondrashov, Putin’s campaign spokesman, denied anyone had been forced to attend the rally against their will.

However, as Saturday’s event got under way, long before Putin had made his entrance, thousands of people streamed towards the nearest metro station. “Let’s get out of here,” said one middle-aged man named Pavel, after posing for a group photo with work colleagues. “I support Putin,” he said. “But I’m not spending all day here.”

Others were paid to attend.

“Men and women. 20-55 years old. March 3rd, rally/concert ‘For a Strong Russia’ in support of Vladimir Putin. Payment 500 roubles [£6],” read an announcement posted on Tuesday on a popular ”rent-a-crowd” website.

Those who answered the advertisement were met near the stadium on Saturday afternoon by a man who identified himself as Rodion. “We’ll all go to the stadium together, then meet back here and you’ll get your money,” he said, before handing out Russian Ecological party flags and scarves. No one present appeared to have any connection to the party. The move was an apparent bid to create the impression of broad support for Putin across Russia’s political spectrum.

“What difference does it make if I pretend to be an Ecological party member? I mean, I don’t support Putin, either,” said one young man, who refused to give his name. A spokesperson for the Russian Ecological party was not immediately available for comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...campaign-rally

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

“Men and women. 20-55 years old. March 3rd, rally/concert ‘For a Strong Russia’ in support of Vladimir Putin. Payment 500 roubles [£6],” read an announcement posted on Tuesday on a popular ”rent-a-crowd” website.

Any link to that ”rent-a-crowd” website?
Or any photo how the 130,000 people got paid? There had to be a really long queue, hadn't it?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Any link to that ”rent-a-crowd” website?
Or any photo how the 130,000 people got paid? There had to be a really long queue, hadn't it?

I'm guessing the forum nincompoop doesn't believe it because it wasn't on RT.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I'm guessing the forum nincompoop doesn't believe it because it wasn't on RT.

In contrast to some who believe only what the trustful MSM (WaPo, NYT, FFF, etc) write...

...125 foreign reporters had been accredited to the event.

Pity, that the Guardian's reporters (or others) did not snap the paycheck queue... (but perhaps they were strip checked when leaving the stadium, weren't they?)

Since TheGuardian had been heavily involved in the WikiLeaks disclosure, they have been doing all they can to be back again among the "recognized MSM"...