Utopia Talk / Politics / Russia attacks

jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 17:32:27 Seb The point was valid. May is giving Russia the benefits of a former agent dying in the UK. It dictates resolute pursuit no matter the merits. Backing off now would be insane. Anyone former agent dying would re-enforce a deterrent to Western intelligence agent recruitment in Russia almost perpetually. And indeed. 76. I underestimated your ability to decypher obscure references.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 17:58:07 Your point on the UK potentially needing to counterbalance the EU, Russia, and the USA (to name a few is of course valid. But the envelope can be pushed very far. See Turkey and Russia today (and Turkey shot down a plane with a strong implicit threat of isolating Russian forces in Syria). Russia can be very forgiving. Indicating again the room for resolve now.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 14 18:47:39 jergul: Oh, if it were me, I'd probably suggest the sensible thing to do is kill Ana Chapman. I'm only half joking. But look at the government right now - they have no fucking clue on how to think strategically on *anything*, from the mundane stuff like procurement, digital transformation, industrial strategy etc. Grand geopolitical strategy is beyond them. Fuck no. Understand their sole focus is winning the new cycle in the UK. So 76 diplomats it is. In an ideal world - given where we are - you do this slightly slow burn. Kick out RT and Sputnik and some diplomats, build resolve for pan European Magnistky type stuff - once the infrastructure is in place you can seize Putin and his top levels overseas wealth and deal all the dirt we can get about top level corruption. BUT, once you do that, the cupboard is bare. Also, just freezing and confiscating the assets is pretty much an end game move if you believe the Russian state is essentially a self interest oligarchy. Cyberwarfare is a fools errand too. While we could no doubt seriously fuck up the Russian economy and infrastructure, they can do the same too. So what does it buy us? Ok, so we can throw some more troops at eastern Europe, but it's a hollow threat. The truth of the matter here is that a response to Russia on this is going to look more like rebuilding a cold war footing in terms of counter espionage, hybrid warfare, and the ability to conduct information warfare in Russian, and a targeted cyber operations that can be used to forensically damage the financial interest of specific Russian individuals. Or you match Russia - and start disappearing Russian agents. But we don't want to do that because bluntly, the Russians are better at it. In terms of resolve, I'd spend the time building alliances. I suspect part of the motive for doing this is to try and prise the UK loose from the Atlantic alliance. If we can't mobilise US support or European support for meaningful action, it's far less likely that post Brexit Britain will be willing to put in to the security of the EU. Within Europe, the UK is the force majeure on intelligence and even though increasingly being run down, about a third of the military capability of Europe. Lets think strategically about Russia's goals here - it's the disruption of the EU as an institution that is capable of damaging Russian economic interests and containing Russian influence. So, if we want to show resolve, the key thing here is not to back ourselves into a situation where we are seen to be being let down by the US and the EU, because that will make it politically much harder to support the EU in such situations going forward. I.e. Russia will have succeeded in isolating us. So if we are going to respond here, we need to avoid rising to a provocation beyond things we can do unilaterally until such time we are absolutely on the ball in terms of support. And, if at some point we are going to find ourselves selling out the EU, it should be for a benefit rather than as a consequence of blundering into a dilemma. Yeah, May is playing this all wrong. But unilateral action here is going to end badly from a strategic point of view, even if it scores tactical victories.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:00:58 Seb The thing about Russia's goal. Any gain it expects to have from covertly poisoning someone relies on May actually doing something. The trigger is not in Russian hands, which is a flaw in in any plan. Disruption is the wrong word. It is not in Russian interests to disrupt the EU. May should stick to unilateral stuff without involving allies. Meanwhile. Russia is demanding in the UNSC that the UK meet its treaty obligations: "Any chemical weapons discovered by a State Party after the initial declaration of chemical weapons shall be reported, secured and destroyed in accordance with Part IV (A) of the Verification Annex" The annex is a female dog. But yah, the UK has to disclose the chemistry of it has found. http://www...s/verification-annex/part-iva/
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:01:36 (I would almost suggest freezing diplomatic relations - shut down the Russian Embassy for 6 months).
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:03:34 The reason for not involving allies is because the disapoint can play out the way you suggest and the long game can be played more informally as a dish best served cold. Not that May will last long enough for a long game, but still.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:04:26 somebody's working real hard to get back "in".
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:06:28 ST This is not an "in" game. The UK is reminding the EU exactly how much of a diplomatic pain in the ass it can be.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:13:38 i said nothing about a game.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:14:47 I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to Brentry.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:15:11 Tuesday, March 13, 2018 False Flags for Newbies Britain is in a media frenzy over the recent poisoning of the former Russian intelligence service colonel turned British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England. British PM Theresa May demanded that Russia explain itself, claiming that they were poisoned using a nerve agent called “Novichok” (Russian for “Newbie”) that was a product of Soviet biological weapons research. It is no longer produced and the destruction of its stockpiles has been verified by international observers. However, its formula is in the public domain and it can be synthesized by any properly equipped chemical lab, such as Britain's own Porton Down, which, incidentally, is just an 18-minute drive from Salisbury. May provided no evidence to back up her claims of Russian complicity in the attempted murder. Russia's Foreign Ministry has requested that Britain turn over all available evidence to back up its accusation of chemical weapons use (under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention Britain must do so within 10 days) but Britain has refused. Therefore, Russia's FM Sergei Lavrov has announced that Russia will not be responding to such baseless allegations. An important key to spotting a false flag is that the “knowledge” of who is to blame becomes available before any evidence is in. For example, in the case of the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 over Eastern Ukraine, everyone in the West was convinced that “pro-Russian separatists” were to blame even before the means could be established. To this date, it isn’t understood how they could have done it given the equipment they had at their disposal. In this case, Russia was accused almost immediately, while British FM Boris Johnson was quick to volunteer that Britain should not send its team to the World Cup in Russia this summer, disclosing the real reason behind the assassination attempt. Is there anything new and different behind this latest provocation? Not really; it seems like a replay of the Litvinenko assassination back in November 2006. The choice of an exotic poison (Polonium 210), the lack of evidence (the British claimed that compelling circumstantial evidence exists but haven’t provided any), and the instantaneous leap to “blame Russia” are all the same. The Russians offered to prosecute whoever is responsible if only the British would provide them with the evidence, but the British have failed to do so. Giving the British story the benefit of the doubt, let’s see what would compel Russia’s secret services to go after Skripal. In Russia, he was convicted and sentenced for treason, then pardoned and released to the British in a prisoner exchange that included ten Russian spies who had worked in the US, including the rather memorable Anna Chapman. It is a very important rule of the spy business that those released in a spy swap are never acted against; if this rule were violated, the resulting bad faith would make spy swaps impossible to negotiate. Thus, if the Russian authorities were to order the hit on Skripal, this would not just be immoral and illegal. That would be neither here nor there, since there are instances where raison d’état obviates the need for such scruples. Worse than that, such behavior would have been unprofessional. Then there is the question of timing. Russia’s presidential elections will take place in just a few days, on March 18. This is a particularly inopportune time to cause an international scandal. What possible urgency could there have been behind killing a pardoned former spy who no longer possessed any up-to-date intelligence, was living quietly in retirement, and at that moment was busy having lunch with his daughter? If the Russian government were involved in the poisoning, what possible reason could have been given for not waiting until after the election? The attack on Skripal is by no means an isolated incident; there have been multiple suspicious murders of high-profile Russians within the UK for which no adequate explanation has been given. There is a consistent pattern: a strange murder; an instantaneous leap to “blame Russia”; and an attempt to exploit the incident politically. It would be beneficial to put this incident in context, but that would require a much longer article. You would be justified in thinking that none of this makes much sense. Given the dearth of evidence, to make sense of this story we are forced to indulge in a bit of conspiracy theory. However, if a conspiracy theory is what it takes to produce the simplest, most elegant and most internally consistent explanation, then that in itself can be considered as circumstantial evidence for the existence of a conspiracy. My simple and consistent explanation, expressed in a single sentence, is as follows: Under direction from their colleagues in the US, and closely following a script previously worked out in the Litvinenko case over a decade ago, the British secret services, in close coordination with the British government and the press, poisoned Skripal and his daughter using a nerve agent obtained from Britain’s military research base at Porton Down in order to obtain an excuse to compromise the World Cup games in Russia this summer and also to create a scandal immediately before the Russian presidential election. This is deplorable, of course, but there is a silver lining to this cloud as far as Russia is concerned: Britain (and, by association, the US) will now have a much harder time recruiting double agents from inside the Russian government, since their recruitment prospects will now know that they will remain vulnerable even if they escape, or are pardoned and exchanged. Clearly, the British consider them disposable and see it fit to kill them in exotic ways, then to exploit the incident for political purposes. As far as Skripal himself… well, that’s just a really sad story: reputation ruined, life ruined, living in exile, wife dead from cancer, son dead from liver failure, and now this. All for the sake of serving as a warning unto others, which is: Don’t trust the Anglos, for they are devious and without shame. http://clu...e-flags-for-newbies.html#more/
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:20:16 "I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to Brentry." I was there while brexit was happening. I saw first hand the going ons involving the issue. I witnessed it all,the good the bad and the ugly and the way the media was in bed with the government was abhorrent. that's all I have to say about brexit/brentry.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:21:29 March 14, 2018 Theresa May's 'Novichok' Claims Fall Further Apart The British government claims that 'Novichok' poisons, developed 30 years ago in the Soviet Union, affected a British double agent. Such substances may not exits at all. The 'whistleblower' for the 'Novichok' program and poisons published some chemical formulas that should enable any decent laboratory to reproduce them. But neither the existence of the claimed program nor the existence of the alleged substances were ever accepted by the scientific community. The highly constructed drama around the alleged poisoning of a British double agent Skripal and his daughter has thus turned into a surreal play. The British government has so far given no evidence that the Skripal's were poisoned at all, or were poisoned by someone else. No detailed medical bulletin was published. The British accusations against Russia lets one assume that a suicide attempt has been excluded. Why? There is no independent evaluation of the alleged poison. The British government claims that its own chemical weapon laboratory at Porton Down, only a few miles from where the incident happened, has identified the poison as one of the 'Novichok' chemicals. But in 2016 a leading chemist at Porton Down published a piece in a scientific journal that denied that such chemicals exist. (Tim Hayword and Craig Murray both point this out): As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown. In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016) Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry Additionally the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not recognized Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. The U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this evaluation: The OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) appeared to doubt the existence of “Novichoks”, and did not advise that the compounds described by Mirzayanov, or their precursors, should be designated as Scheduled Chemicals that should be controlled under the Chemical Weapons Convention: [The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013) The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanjaov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the 'Novichoks', now lives in a $1 million home in the United States. The AFP news agency just interviewed him: Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin. "Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They kept it and are still keeping it in secrecy." The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon. "Russia did it", says Mirzanjaov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK". The book was published in 2008 and is available as hardcover, paperback or for $8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas which, Mirzanjaov says, could be used to produce those chemical agents. But neither Porton Down nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may believe that Mirzanjaov is just full of it. One customer reviewing Mirzanjaov's book remarked: [Needs] an editor to throttle back his epic "i'm an epic awesome martyr" stuff and stick to the science. Another reviewer wrote: State secrets is by far the most long winded and painfully slow novel on chemical weapons written by a disgruntled defected scientist from Russia I have ever read! If you want to hear an employ with delusions of grandeur moan about every person he ever worked with then this is the book for you, otherwise don't waste your sweet time. Seriously! Nothing happens except Vil somethingkov helps make things that kill people for 30 years, gets a (sort of) conscience, defects, and constantly whinges about.....everything. Vil Mirzanjaov promoted his book in a 2009 video. Shortly after he published his book he blogged an explanation why he included formulas in it: While I was writing my book “State Secrets: An Insider’s Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program”, some people from Washington persistently advised me not to include the formulas of the chemical agents of the Novichok series in my book. ... I asked why it would be a bad idea to publish this information, since it would be for the safety of all people. Then the governments would work to have those chemical agents and their precursors included into the Control List. They responded, “Terrorists could use them for their criminal actions.” This kind of reasoning is used all the time now to scare people and prevent any discussion. We are already used to ignoring a lot of real problems thanks to that. Mirzanjaov further points out that only experienced personal in well equipped laboratories would be able to use his formulas. State actors have such laboratories, like the British Porton Down, but terrorists do not have such capabilities. Mirzanjaov urged to included the substances he described into the OPCW list of controlled material. But the OPCW, as seen above, rejected that. Neither its scientific board nor the head of a Porton Down laboratory were convinced that these substances or the Soviet program Mirzanjaov described existed at all. The Soviet chemical weapon laboratory in which Mirzanjaov had worked was in Uzbekistan, not in Russia as Theresa May falsely claims. The laboratory was dismantled with the active help of the United States. Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for this is obviously bollocks. The existence of the substances as described by Vil Mirzanjaov is in serious doubt. But if he is right then any state or company with a decent laboratory and competent personal can produce these substances from the formulas and descriptions he provides in his book. That is at least what Mirzanjaov himself says. But most disturbing about the case are not the false claims Theresa May makes. She is in deep political trouble over the Brexit negotiations and other issues and needs any political diversion that she can get. Blaming Russia for something is en vogue and might help her for a while. No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that May's claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims. The only paper that is somewhat skeptical is the Irish Times which finds it highly unlikely that the Russian government is behind the poisoning. May demanded and got a NATO meeting on the case. But the statement NATO issued afterwards was extremely weak. It only offered support in conducting the British investigation and it asked Russia to respond to the British questions. Neither did it support the claims May made, nor did it take any measures against Russia. A French spokesperson said "We don’t do fantasy politics" and demanded 'definite conclusions' on the case before deciding anything. No support was given to May by the Trump administration. The story May wants to tell has way too much holes to be sustainable. The involvement of the British double agent Skripal in the fake Steele dossier about Trump is likely the real story behind the incident. No international support is coming for May. The British opposition leader Corbyn was right today when he demanded that she produces evidence for her claims. A few more pushes and her house of cards will surely come down. Posted by b on March 14, 2018 at 03:17 PM http://www...ovichok-claims-fall-apart.html
Renzo Marquez Member	Wed Mar 14 19:34:10 Seb Member Wed Mar 14 18:47:39 "Oh, if it were me, I'd probably suggest the sensible thing to do is kill Ana Chapman. I'm only half joking." Confirmed gay.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 14 19:39:17 ST Your two articles underline factual issues. To me that just underlines the need for May to make a stronger response. She needs to double down unilaterally and not try to draw allies into something they are unlikely to support convincingly unless the evidence improves dramatically. She cannot back down for reasons I mentioned earlier (and for those the articles raised in terms of domestic stuff). I was not aware that the novochuk class is not reckognized. Heh, you can't make up stuff like this. What a dog's breakfast.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Mar 14 19:46:52 yes,evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.
Aeros Member	Wed Mar 14 22:56:06 UN Security Council session was an absolute shit show today. Britain's allies went absolutely ballistic, and Russia and its allies pretty much derailed the whole thing. Meeting of the North Atlantic Council is going to be formally called now. The use of a chemical weapon is being considered as an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against a NATO member.
Aeros Member	Wed Mar 14 23:02:28 We will probably see an Article 5 declaration in the coming weeks, and the expulsion of Russian diplomats from all NATO members. The sanctions regime against Russia will also become far more severe. The Eastern euro members will demand far more stringent action. Germany will demand moderation, France will see which way the winds blow and it will boil down to where Trump lands. He'll have to tread carefully though because the neocons in his own party will pounce if he appears to give cover to Putin.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 02:18:26 Jergul: Using nerve agents means it will get at least some gains. There's no way to hush this up. Consultation isn't an obligation. Not seeing how residue of a chemical weapons attack on us fits in the scope of a declared chemical weapons, a stockpile, etc as per article III. The annex seems to deal with the declared weapons and facilities. Arguing the fact we have residues after being attacked means we possess a chemical weapon that needs to be treated as a declared chemical weapons is beyond insulting.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 02:49:24 Aeros: Not a chance.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 03:55:59 Jergul: Here's an alternative interpretation. https://twitter.com/aurelsari/status/973647576720379904?s=19
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 06:02:28 Seb Its not consultation. Its disclosing all information on the chemical. Alternatively, a chemical weapon was not in fact used and the UK of course has not obligation. The wording is very clear. Either disclosure, or the UK is abandoning the claim that a chemical weapon was used. It matters in sense that the UK is setting itself out to feeling abandoned by its allies. Aeros Don't be silly. The UK should probably freeze relations for a defined period of time. Unilaterally. Because is has a very weak case factually. Weak in part because May is allowing that the incident may stem from lax chemical plant security (and in that case, got the country wrong).
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 15 09:16:52 Look at the russian apologist trying to make up flimsy and pathetic excuses. Youd have a lot more credibility if you owned it and simply said "spies get poisoned". But russia is a nation without honor.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 09:24:25 Look at sammy trying to pretend to be able to read. I am saying the UK should break off diplomatic relations with Russia for a specified period of time Sammy. I dare you to find a more hawkish position.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 15 09:36:59 You are also trying to shed confusion about the chemical weapon.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 09:56:42 Jergul: The annex you referred to relates to the obligations of a state with chemical weapons to disclose it's programme pursuant to destruction of it. It is not an obligation on a country attacked by such a weapon to disclose information to an attacker. Do I really need to copy paste the deffinitions? Aside from being obvious to the reader in the text, the idea the treaty expects a county attacked by chemical weapons on the battlefield to break off military operations, disclose intelligence and begin consultations with its attacker is obviously ludicrous.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 09:57:07 Sammy The facts do not matter beyond the UK setting itself up for disappoint if it tries to mobilize its allies behind its position. May has to own the accusation and follow through independently. The disappoint factor is the thing that can threaten western alliances. So, yah, overplaying the factual basis to involve allies should be avoided at all costs.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 10:02:09 Seb The treaty obviously expects a country attacked by chemical weapons to document the attack so that the breech of treaty can be properely pursued by the international community. There is no reason to consult with the country in question, or otherwise break off ongoing operations. The treaty wording is quite clear. What we currently have is a poisoning incident and the UK making claims. Documentation is quite in order, or lacking that, then unilateral flag waving measures that should include terminating diplomatic relations for a set period of time.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 10:30:20 Jergul: The treaty wording is indeed clear, I'm therefore surprised by your interpretation. France as Germany seem to have become more vocal after we briefed them. It is possible some proof isn't being disclosed (perhaps because it requires info we do not wish in the public domain as it disclosed Intel on Russia).
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 10:33:42 "Any chemical weapons discovered by a State Party after the initial declaration of chemical weapons shall be reported, secured and destroyed in accordance with Part IV (A) of the Verification Annex" Was the word "Any" the one you are having trouble with?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 10:55:10 But, again. This matters only if you think the UK now has enough support to avoid feeling disappointed by its allies as things move forward.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Mar 15 11:28:44 "It is possible some proof isn't being disclosed (perhaps because it requires info we do not wish in the public domain as it disclosed Intel on Russia)." like how russia killed David Kelly & Robin Cook. good call.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 11:43:52 ST And kidnapped baby Lindbergh?
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Mar 15 11:49:00 forgot that one. thanks.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 15 13:30:00 "Because russia hasnt committed all the crimes ever, it is innocent" -retards.
Paramount Member	Thu Mar 15 13:32:14 Russian Embassy, UK @RussianEmbassy .@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce suspected nerve agent http://mob...assy/status/974258070422544384
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 15 13:33:53 But russia has the motive.
Forwyn Member	Thu Mar 15 13:54:01 Actually more of a motive for other actors than for Russia to kill a traded ex-spy. But Putin is known to occasionally flip the table.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 13:55:40 Sammy Russia does not have much of a motive days before a presidential election and an international soccer tournament. The UK has a lot more profound motives for accusing Russia. *Punishing it for saving the Syrian regime *Punishing it for the ongoing successful operations in East Ghouta. *Using the incident to slip through domestic legislation *Using the Russian threat as part of Brexit negotiations *Using the Russian threat to deter US tariffs And so on.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 15 14:13:28 Lol jergul is completely nuts.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 15:40:52 Sammy Nah, I am just showing that if we are playing the motive game, then we should play it properely. Lets call the UK variant "Someone was poisoned. Let us make hay". Crazy would be to like take at face value the words that come out of politician's mouths. So I guess crazy would be you.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:07:04 Jergul: Part IV(A) refers to chemical weapons signatories possess and are declaring. We haven't discovered chemical weapons we have forgotten or overlooked. We have been attacked with a chemical weapon. We don't have the weapon, we have residues. Stop being a pillock.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:08:15 Swordtail: David Kelly committed suicide, and Robin Cook died of a heart attack. You are being ridiculous.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:12:49 Paramount: Complete bullshit. Samples not needed. Mass spectrometry and gas chromatography will do if formulas available. Formulas don't mean production capability. For a start the precursors are nasty in themselves, synthesis pathways for production not straight forward, and a drop less than the sizeof a pin head will kill. The whole deal with novichok is that Russia was producing then after chemical weapons ban, and got caught when defector blabbed. Far more plausible they lied regarding decommissioning than a clandestine operation to produce it by the UK to create a diplomatic crisis for no obvious gain. Take off the tinfoil hat
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:13:18 Forwyn: No. See above for potential motives.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 16:20:28 http://www...cles/article-iii-declarations/ Part IV(A) refers to article III for the purposes of what a weapon actually is. Nitpicking on what amounts to a weapon and what is just residue is being a pillock. Either you have the agent, or you do not have the agent.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 16:24:10 Anyway, you are just digging the hole deeper. We are obviously just supposed to take May's word on it. Fair enough. Russia attacked the UK in UKs opinion and the UK will respond in ways it finds appropriate. Disecting the evidence will not be a service to the UK unless it is willing to use proper channels to deal with the agent it has in its possession. Starting with the simple question of: Why is the UK not availing itself to a Convention that very comprehensively deals with chemical agents?
Forwyn Member	Thu Mar 15 16:35:00 "David Kelly committed suicide" With a knife with no fingerprints?
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:45:03 Jergul: "a) With respect to chemical weapons: (i) Declare whether it owns or possesses any chemical weapons, or whether there are any chemical weapons located in any place under its jurisdiction or control;" "For the purposes of this Convention: 1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately: (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices; (c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b)." So no, samples of material contaminated by an attack do not constitute a chemical weapons, do not need to be declared, and declaration doesn't mean hand evidence to the suspected attacker.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 16:50:41 Forwyn: The coroner addressed this. The knife handle was wrapped in gaffer tape which doesn't take fingerprints. He died of severed artery,drug overdose and heart condition. And if it were a murder cover up, getting prints on the knife would be an obvious thing. Stop with the tin foil hattery.
Forwyn Member	Thu Mar 15 17:06:57 Lol. And the pill pack was wrapped in gaffer tape? His phone was wrapped in gaffer tape? "He died of severed artery" Negligible blood loss, irrelevant to cause of death.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 17:08:20 Jergul: There's nothing in the treaty that requires or provides remedial action for attacked country. The closest is article IX: "2. Without prejudice to the right of any State Party to request a challenge inspection, States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of any two or more States Parties to arrange by mutual consent for inspections or any other procedures among themselves to clarify and resolve any matter which may cause doubt about compliance or gives rise to a concern about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. Such arrangements shall not affect the rights and obligations of any State Party under other provisions of this Convention." So basically, the only thing you can say is Russia has up to 10 days to respond. But that's not the and same thing as saying a party that has been attacked rights to take other measures are in any way limited.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 17:12:57 Forwyn: You don't think shock, pain, blood pressure drop and exposure, drug overdose can trigger a heart condition? He was outside. It had been raining. You won't always get obvious finger prints, depends on the material and the coronor wouldn't have been hunting super hard for them using techniques youd use in a murder investigation looking for forensic evidence. Seriously, this is silly. I'm not having this conversation. It's been done to death.
Forwyn Member	Thu Mar 15 17:17:00 So basically, the Hutton inquiry was elementary-level sloppy, operating under an initial assumption and never deviating, and tried to cover that up with a three-generation seal. That's a fair assessment.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 17:28:26 Seb It has a robust verification system. Which would seemingly benefit the UK (Yes, this is a chemical compound on the chemical weapon list. Yes, the chemical compound matches stuff former USSR countries have reported destroyed). Not doing this actually raises questions on if a chemical weapon was involved (as opposed to toxic chemicals) and/or if the chemical compound matches stuff former USSR countries have reported destroyed. You can say that the treaty binds both Russia and the UK to respond within 10 days. Russia has also requested information.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 15 17:29:29 So lets just stick with us just believing that the UK believes it was attacked by Russia and will respond to that belief. Even that much is being a bit charitable.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 19:36:45 Forwyn: What are you on about? The main focus of the Hutton Inquiry was around the leaking, spin and media attacks which are thought to have led to his death. It was not predicated on the idea that it was necessary to ensure he wasn't murdered.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 15 19:45:38 jergul: Fun fact - Novichok isn't on the named substances list. "You can say that the treaty binds both Russia and the UK to respond within 10 days." I am not aware that Russia has not raised a doubt about our compliance with the treaty through formal channels so we have nothing to respond to. Russia has elected not to respond to us at all, irrespective of the UK setting a time limit less than 10 days. It's not at all clear to me why Russia needs to have a sample - the concern raised here is whether all Novichok production ceased and has remained ceased, and precursors disposed of. Why would Russia need a sample to do that? The exchange of information etc. is caveated as "where possible" - and obviously there may be, at this time, information the UK has obtained that gives rise to some of its concerns that it is not yet willing to disclose.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 04:19:20 Ah jergul, you can be happy now. The UK has provided a sample to the OPWC as per treaty. Clearly, although states should attempt to resolve concerns and ambiguity where possible, as we were not able to we appear to be exercising our rights (without prejudice) to pursue other channels. Maybe I did May a disservice and officials have wargamed this following litvenenko.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 04:53:30 Seb The fun fact is indeed fun. It is not on the list because there are huge doubts to if the class of drugs exist, and programmes ever existed. This according to UK experts amongst others. Good to see the UK supplying a sample as per the treaty. You should still attempt to resolve concerns and ambiguity per treaty. As should Russia now that a sample has been provided. Of course you can pursue other channels. You have not done May a disservice. Wargamed it, read my posts about it. Whatever. It is not rocket science. Have you landed on the UK now having enough allied support it will not suffer disapoint? That is the only thing that really matters and even that does not matter very much. Strong response. Freeze diplomatic relations for 6 months (put the embassy in caretaker mode).
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 05:06:45 Corbyn is more in line with what I have said, but he errs on the side of caution. The factual basis will never be particularly solid and if you are going to go that road, then the response has to be robust. What has Russia gained by May's handling so far? The perception that spies will never be safe. A distinct possibility that the UK will feel betrayed by its allies at some juncture. The problem with seeing this as Russia's motive is that it never controlled the trigger. The UKs reaction to the poisoning is not in its control. So it would be a hideously poor operational plan.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 05:31:48 The existance isn't in doubt. The classes pf structure definitely act as a nerve agent, and Russia admitted it was working on them and decommissioned the site and stockpiles. The MEN testimony in the degectors trial was that the toxins (not drug) existed in orderc to prove the individuals had committed treason by disclosing them. Uzbekistan has received assistance in decontaminating test grounds. The samples been provided to the organisation, not Russia. Mo joint investigation as they demanded.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 05:57:52 Seb Read up on why "novochuk" agent class was not granted status under the treaty. You may want to google "culpable". May has not actually claimed Russia has planned and executed a chemical weapon attack on British soil. You have begun to hard-sell a line that will definately set the UK up for disappoint. Allies may have bought into the narrative that Russia had poorly protected samples or recipes unauthorised persons got a hold of (to name not so much a plausible alternative theory, as the main theory May seems to hold). Don't push that too far.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 10:31:34 jergul: May said Russia was culpable - which means to blame - and France, Germany and the US have accepted that as the only likley explanation. US has adopted further sanctions. So the interesting thing is the short deadline given to Russia looks likely to me to be intending to cause Russia to overplay, remove the opportunity for bilateral queries and allow the UK to press for formal investigation through the OPWC.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 10:49:34 Russia would be culpable if it did not safeguard specimens or recipies. "Allow the UK to press for formal investigation through OPWC" That is always allowed. I think I will run with the Government not really having a clue on what it is doing. See Brexit for establishing a pattern. You are setting yourself up for disappoint. Which is the great danger of the whole affair.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 12:00:14 "The United Kingdom briefed thoroughly its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. We share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia´s failure to address the legitimate request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility. We call on Russia to address all questions related to the attack in Salisbury. Russia should in particular provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)." So, responsible for the attack.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 12:08:25 As it would be responsible if it did not store specimens and recipes securely. May was clear that this was a likely possibility in her speech where she held Russia culpable. Setting yourself up for disappoint. Surely you see this. Particularly when you try to over-sell what France and German signed up for in the joint statement. What do you expect will happen? That allies will tit-for-tat expel Russians when the Russians counter the UK expulsion with one of their own?
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 12:43:50 MOSCOW, March 16. /TASS/. Russia’s Investigative Committee has launched criminal cases over the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal, the daughter of ex-intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, and the death of Nikolai Glushkov, a close associate of late tycoon Boris Berezovsky, the Committee’s Spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko said. "The Russian Investigative Committee’s Main Investigations Department has initiated a criminal case over the attempted murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal in the British city of Salisbury, under Articles 30.3.2 and 105.2 of the Russian Criminal Code (attempted murder committed in a manner posing an overall threat)," she said, adding that "another criminal case has been launched over the London death of Nikolai Glushkov." "An investigation will be conducted in accordance with the Russian legislation and international law," Petrenko stressed. She also said that the Investigative Committee planned "to engage highly qualified experts" and was ready to cooperate with British law enforcement agencies. Skripal case Former Russian military intelligence (GRU) Colonel Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia suffered the effects of an unknown nerve agent in the British city of Salisbury on March 4. They are currently in the hospital in critical condition. Skripal was earlier convicted in Russia of spying for Great Britain and exchanged for Russian intelligence officers. British Prime Minister Theresa May said the substance used in the attack had been a Novichok-class nerve agent developed in the Soviet Union. On March 14, she accused Russia of an "unlawful use of force" against the United Kingdom and announced that London would expel 23 Russian diplomats and take other restrictive measures. Russia has rejected all accusations and vowed to respond to the UK’s steps. Glushkov’s death Glushkov was found dead in his London home on March 12. In the 1990s, he served as deputy managing director at Russia’s flag carrier Aeroflot and worked for Berezovsky’s LogoVAZ car company. In 2000, he was arrested in connection with the embezzlement of Aeroflot’s funds, and later charged with fraud and money laundering. In 2004, he was sentenced to three years and three months behind bars but was released in the courtroom having served the term in custody. In recent years, Glushkov lived in the United Kingdom as he had been granted political asylum there in 2010. In March 2017, Moscow’s Savelovsky District Court handed him a second eight-year sentence in absentia for the embezzlement of Aeroflot’s funds. More: http://tass.com/politics/994559
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 16:00:09 Jergul: The fact France and Germany have signed up to that statement makes it hard for them to not follow through in some way. If they don't, it basically guarantees we won't materially help them in future - and they know that. They've worked hard to try and preserve defence, intelligence and sanctions as areas for future cooperation. The basis for them not doing stuff has to be refusal. This suggests the evidence we have is convincing to allies. Or it suggests the UK govt has provided assurances we won't be doing anything further. It sounds like tougher sanctions targeting individuals or some kind of humiliation via OPCW.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 16:01:00 The basis for them not doing stuff has to be refusal to accept that there's sufficient proof of culpability.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 16:03:15 Disappointment is more a problem for Europe than us if brexit goes ahead. It greatly reduces Europe's security and economic sanctions capability (they have the muscle but rely greatly on GCHQs capabilities on the enforcement side) but doesn't much affect ours.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri Mar 16 16:18:15 Of A Type Developed By Liars 473 16 Mar, 2018 in Uncategorized by craig I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a “novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China. To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type developed by Russia” is the precise phrase used in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday: This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War. When the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise. My FCO source, like me, remembers the extreme pressure put on FCO staff and other civil servants to sign off the dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD, some of which pressure I recount in my memoir Murder in Samarkand. She volunteered the comparison to what is happening now, particularly at Porton Down, with no prompting from me. Separately I have written to the media office at OPCW to ask them to confirm that there has never been any physical evidence of the existence of Russian Novichoks, and the programme of inspection and destruction of Russian chemical weapons was completed last year. Did you know these interesting facts? OPCW inspectors have had full access to all known Russian chemical weapons facilities for over a decade – including those identified by the “Novichok” alleged whistleblower Mirzayanov – and last year OPCW inspectors completed the destruction of the last of 40,000 tonnes of Russian chemical weapons By contrast the programme of destruction of US chemical weapons stocks still has five years to run Israel has extensive stocks of chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any state to synthesise “Novichoks”. Until this week, the near universal belief among chemical weapons experts, and the official position of the OPCW, was that “Novichoks” were at most a theoretical research programme which the Russians had never succeeded in actually synthesising and manufacturing. That is why they are not on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons. Porton Down is still not certain it is the Russians who have apparently synthesised a “Novichok”. Hence “Of a type developed by Russia”. Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured. It is very carefully worded propaganda. Of a type developed by liars. UPDATE This post prompted another old colleague to get in touch. On the bright side, the FCO have persuaded Boris he has to let the OPCW investigate a sample. But not just yet. The expectation is the inquiry committee will be chaired by a Chinese delegate. The Boris plan is to get the OPCW also to sign up to the “as developed by Russia” formula, and diplomacy to this end is being undertaken in Beijing right now. I don’t suppose there is any sign of the BBC doing any actual journalism on this? http://www.../of-a-type-developed-by-liars/
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 16:19:12 Seb "it basically guarantees we won't materially help them in future - and they know that." Would not that have been the result of not backing the UK in a statement that accepts that Russia at the very least had lax control of specimens and recipes? So suggests the allies had reasons to humour the British that has nothing to do with the credibility of evidence? You are setting yourself up for disappoint. Only Putin benefits from that.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 16:20:23 Stoltenberg was even more enthusiastic "We have no reason to disbelieve the British".
Seb Member	Fri Mar 16 16:22:07 Whataboutery and over-reading. Of course you can't say "this molecule was manufactured in Russia". You can say "this molecule was developed in Russia and Russia is the only known manufacturer".
jergul large member	Fri Mar 16 17:20:40 Overreading? You think? Now delve into your own musings on what the joint statement says about secret evidence that may or may not exist because, well, it is a secret. Except it was developed in the USSR (which became any number of countries) and has no known manufacturers. Your line of reasoning seems to be that the UK managed to convince allies (into writing a joint statement) and therefore there must be some credible evidence. Its a fool me twice thing. Politicians led the west to war in 2003 based on force of personality and flimsy evidence. No one reasonable will follow that path again. We can believe what we want about what happened, but believing the UK based on what has been released would just be too incredible. It is a question of believing Russia did it more despite the UKs position, than because of it. The important thing now remains the UK not causing permanent harm by mangling the affair as it moves forward. Just freeze relations for 6 months and be done with it (put the Russian embassy in caretaker mode).
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 04:30:10 Hell, come to think of it. Maybe the whole lets blame Putin personally idea is the UKs Brexit strategy. Its not as if they have anything better.
Paramount Member	Sat Mar 17 04:43:20 "Russia has also withdrawn permission for Britain to open a general consulate in St Petersburg and says it will be closing the British Council in Russia." http://new...d-to-russian-ministry-11293252 Now when Britain leaves the EU and they gets kicked out of Russia, will Britain be isolated in Europe?
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 04:46:12 MOSCOW, March 17. /TASS/. Twenty three British diplomats have been declared personae non gratae and will be expelled within a week, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday. "On March 17, British Ambassador to Moscow Laurie Bristow was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry where he was handed a note saying that in response to provocative actions of the British side and evidence-free accusations against the Russian Federation over the incident in the city of Salisbury on March 4 this year, the Russian side has taken the following retaliatory measures. Twenty three diplomats of the British Embassy in Moscow have been declared personae non gratae and will be expelled within a week’s time. Taking into account the disparity in the number of consulates of the two countries, Russia withdraws permission to open the British Consulate General in St. Petersburg. Related procedures will be carried out in accordance with international law. Due to the unregulated status of the British Council in the Russian Federation it will be dissolved," the statement said. "The British side has been warned that if more unfriendly actions against Russia follow, the Russian side reserves the right of taking other retaliation measures," the ministry added. On March 4, ex-Colonel Sergey Skripal of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate convicted for spying for the United Kingdom, and his daughter Yulia were exposed to a nerve agent. They were found unconscious on a bench near a shopping center in Salisbury. On March 12, British Prime Minister Theresa May said it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack on Skripal and his daughter. She identified the substance used in the attack as a Novichok nerve agent, developed in the Soviet Union. PM accused Russia of "an unlawful use of force" against her country. Later she announced that London would expel 23 Russian diplomats and take other measures against Moscow. More: http://tass.com/world/994659
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 05:21:04 Jergul: Whattaboutery post was to swordtail. Manufacturing centre near Moscow and dismantled in mid 90s - so Russia yeah. Doesn't matter what citizens think here. If the goal is to get OPWC to launch inspections in Russia. Symmetric response so far rather than escalation.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 05:37:51 Seb A USSR era plant dismantled at a very early juncture (before the site in Uzbekistan was cleared for example). So Soviet. You should tell that to Boris. The Russians did that symmetric response you asked for. How are you going to respond without escalating? I was suggesting putting the Russian Embassy in caretaker mode for 6 months by freezing diplomatic relations. It by definition avoids escalation. A done deal. But that would suggest the UK had a clue.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 05:42:50 If the goal is to issue a challenge inspection, then simply do that. http://www...spection-exercise/key-aspects/ That is the mechanism.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 05:46:43 The problem with that of course is that you do not really believe Russia has a chemical weapons programme involving novichok or any other chemical compound, do you? So facility inspection would not do anything, even if you could name a facility you suspected was producing or storing "novichuk" class drugs.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 05:48:07 agents* Through drugs is technically correct as we are speaking of specimen level amounts at worst.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 05:48:31 Jergul: Reciprocal response for stopping embassy for 6 months would be for them to do the same. Which would disrupt our espionage on them. Yup, but the conference needs to initiate the inspection.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 05:55:07 It would impact disproportionately. You have allies that can pick up any espionage slack. Russia does not. The point is planting the flag. If you worry about having things disrupted, then you should not have expelled diplomats in the first place. The conference cannot refuse to initiate an inspection for as long as you tell it what you want inspected. Which of course is the problem, isnt it? What facilities do you suspect are manufacturing or storing schedualled agents?
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 07:21:40 Jergul: Depends if we think we know their spies better than they know ours. Full removal of diplomatic relations isn't necessary at this point, and we need escalation routes before going nuclear. It's also fairly hollow. Russia won't give a fuck. Targeted sanctions and asset freezes hurt but would be nuclear. "What facilities do you suspect are manufacturing or storing schedualled agents?" Big assumption being we don't know. But of course all we need to do is pick a facility that something else is happening that Russia doesn't want eyes on. At the very least you disrupt that.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 07:40:16 Seb Given how brexit is playing out, I think it safe to assume your State is heavily infiltrated at every level of information gathering, analysis, and decision-making. There is not other reasonable explanation. You thinking you know there spies better would simply be symptomatic of the infection. Russia actually does give a fuck. It disrupts careers among other things. Targeted sanctions and freezes bite both ways. The Convention wording on inspections is designed not to allow harrassement inspections to be effective. And there is the tit-for-tat. The UK is relying heavily on only Russia being able to manufacture the agent. What would an inspection of your main facility show?
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 07:42:55 Jergul: There's a much simpler explanation for Brexit handling. "What would an inspection of your main facility show?" Nothing that hasn't been declared.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 07:43:36 In sum: I support British action (because if you say A, you have to say B to avoid disaster), but I find it insulting you expect me to assume British competence.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 07:45:14 I think it would find novichok. You bloody well have to research it at this point. You may end up in a situation where the only proof of manufacture is in the UK.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 07:50:56 Simpler explanations? The daughter pissed off someone in Russia personally and that person got the formula from a published book, then sent it with her when she left Russia. For complex explanations - see accusing Putin personally.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 10:12:27 jergul: I don't expect you to assume. I assumed incompetencce. However: 1. Initially allies distanced themselves, then following full briefing significantly hardened their stance. Particularly the French and US. This tends to suggest something that is convincing to allies (but which may not be convincing to third parties or citizens - e.g. based on inteligence capabilities that allies trust but which can't easily be proven to others or would be damaging to disclose). 2. I took the three day deadline initially as an indication of incompetence, now it looks more like they were seeking to rapidly exhaust bilateral routes for resolving this outside the OPCW. 3. Russia apparently has been pushing hard to try and delay the OPCW inspection team from arriving. Seems they are rattled there might be some proof after all. This pattern looks to me more like "lets ambush Russia at the OPCW and do an Adlai Stevenson on them". Which is the sort of thing that, given the weak response to Litvenenko, someone probably put together as "what do we do the next time this happens". "You bloody well have to research it at this point." I imagine if we spun that up, we would declare it - as per the treaty which provides for this activity - and ensure there are robust and internationally auditable controls around it to account for any manufacture and stockpile and thus exclude it from any investigation of an attack. "The daughter pissed off someone in Russia personally and that person got the formula from a published book, then sent it with her when she left Russia." So, let me get this straight, someone with no background in chemical warfare decides that in order to commit a murder, they would manufacture one of the more deadly and finickity chemical weapons which has a high chance of killing the manufacturer? The precursors while far less deadly are still rather nasty and toxic. If our supposed vengeful civillian did this, why not simply have the individual shot? Or poisoned with something far more conventional? Hell, it's pretty easy to make ricin, and the manufacturing process is safer. Even if you do want to go for a nerve agent (god knows why) - why use one of the more obscure ones where there will be less information around the process of manufacturing it? Having the molecular structure of something you want to synthesise is miles and miles away from actually being able to make it. You need to figure out the synthetic pathways, develop a process to support said reactions with acceptable yields, be able to purify and remove by-product (particularly important for binaries)... so much know how. Skipral's daughter must have specifically pissed off an industrial chemist with a suspcisiouly high ammount of tacit knowledge and no how of those particular processes... probably making him in his, what, 50s-60's by now? I mean, it's possible...
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 10:12:43 But then, anything is possible. And nothing is the truth.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 10:41:56 I think you should have stuck with your gut instinct on "incompetence". Your theory is that a Government unable to handle something like Brexit is now going all Moriaty? Yah, right. Convincing the US involves the same skill-set you need to excite a cat with a laser pointer. Given who Potus currently is. Like I said, you are just insulting our intelligence to expect us to believe the UK government on faith and circumstance. Fool me twice as they say. You are setting yourself up for huge disappoint. And you are doing it with your eyes wide shut. How does a binary poison made from non-restricted chemicals have a high chance of killing whoever produces it? That would assume fundamentally misunderstanding "binary". Anyway, we do not actually know what poison was used.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 10:44:10 Paragraph order messed up.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 10:45:23 In sum: I support British action (because if you say A, you have to say B to avoid disaster), but I find it insulting you expect me to assume British competence. Lest there be confusion on that.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 11:03:09 I could write a lot about Brexit and the process of how is fucked up but I shouldn't. Tl;Dr there's no good way of doing Brexit. It's near 100% political in that there's no way of delivering the promise so the worst incentives of politicians drive the process. The UK govt is negotiating with the press and it's backbenchers, preventing it forming a position which officials can devise policy and process around. The previous govt blocked officials to plan and organise this contingency. On top of that, decisions to engage in machinery of government changes have added logistical, organisational, office politics and turf war challenges. There's confusion over who owns the policy: FCO, DexEu, DIT or no 10, and huge staff turnovers in those organisations at all grades, while the principles jockey for leverage to succeeded May. The UK is handling Brexit badly because it's near impossible to deliver due to the policies own internal contradictions, red lines from the govt, and the political forces preventing the govt forming a stable position on the outcome it wants. You cannot therefore produce a strategy. On the other hand, planning a response to litvenenko rests with clear leadership of the NSCS in Cabinet Office supported by JIC/O (FCO and MoD playing supporting roles). It has had no serious change in leadership, and 12 years to plan, and there is nowhere near the political constraints preventing the UK govt forming a position. It's quite possible that the Sedwill arrived at COBRA with a well planned folder of options and strategy, and which cabinet can all easily support because they all need a joint win right now. (Paramount and Forwyn will take this as a motive for MI5 to have done it). Apples and oranges.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Mar 17 11:11:15 "Convincing the US involves the same skill-set you need to excite a cat with a laser pointer. Given who Potus currently is." true,but his last 2 predecessors weren't much better when it came to facts.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Mar 17 11:13:14 Jeremy Corbyn is right about Russia Melanie McDonagh It’s not every day you find yourself thinking that, well, Jeremy Corbyn has a point, but that’s just how I felt when he wrote in yesterday’s Guardian and reiterated later that the Government was ‘rushing way ahead of the evidence’ in condemning Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal. Yesterday he observed that ‘this horrific event demands..painstaking criminal investigation…to rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security.’ I don’t think he was being treasonous in suggesting that Russia should have been given more time to respond, and possibly a sample of the toxin to analyse. He didn’t say the Government was wrong; he simply said it was precipitate. It’s difficult, in fact, to gainsay his analysis, that ‘either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups…cannot be excluded’. Well, quite so. And if, as the Daily Telegraph reports today, the nerve agent was given to Yulia Skripal on a visit to Moscow – a nice present in a box for her father, perhaps – then the best chance of establishing who was to blame is if this poor woman does not die but survives, to tell the police who she met with, who had access to her belongings, who gave her stuff before she returned. Of course I think that the Government has a duty of care towards its agents, especially those like Sergei Skripal, who were double agents. For one thing, if you don’t look after them, you won’t continue to recruit them. It’s also the case that the Russian government had the maximum access to the nerve toxin used to try to kill Mr Skripal, though security at chemical weapons sites appears to have been hair-raisingly negligent – culpably negligent. But really, in this as in so much else the question is, cui bono? Who gains from this blatant attempted murder? It’s by no means certain that the Russian state gains a great deal. The probable result of attempted murder of a British agent on British soil (even if the toxin was transported from Moscow) was exactly what has happened: the expulsion of Russian diplomats, ratcheting up of sanctions and a general sense that Russia’s in the global dog house. I don’t think that’s a gain in the Russian elections; it’ll probably be discounted, but it’s not particularly an electoral asset. The argument that cuts most ice in favour of Russian involvement is that this would send a message to other would-be spies that defecting to the UK isn’t good for your health – but killing a man who has been traded years ago in an orderly exchange of agents is a breach of the rules that doesn’t make much sense. Those who do stand to benefit from this attempted murder are opponents of the Russian regime; either organised criminals, Mr Corbyn’s ‘Russia mafia-style groups’ or other states – I dunno, maybe Ukraine? – which gain rather than lose if the Putin regime is even further discredited. If it were indeed a hostile state that carried out this attack, then it has worked better than they could ever have imagined. If it was the Putin regime, then a clumsy, terrifying murder bid has had precisely the predictable effect. Either way, I can’t help thinking that Jeremy Corbyn cuts a more convincing figure in this awful affair than either Mrs May or poor Gavin Williamson who told the Russians they should ‘just shut up’. Show how it’s done, Gavin; show how it’s done. http://blo...-corbyn-is-right-about-russia/
	show deleted posts