Utopia Talk / Politics / Sovjetskij Sojuz attakujet

jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 11:41:40 Seb "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." TL:DR There is no good way of doing Novichexit either. You are pointing to commonality in clusterfuck.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 17 11:45:00 ST Good OP
Paramount Member	Sat Mar 17 14:41:31 http://www...xin-origin-claim-idUSKCN1GT0ML "Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the Rossiya 24 TV channel on Saturday that the most likely source of the Novichok nerve agent was Britain itself or the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden or the United States." The Czech Foreign Minister Martin Stropnicky replies to the accusation: “This is a standard way of manipulating information in the public space through a highly speculative message being introduced which can not be proven.” – ^ Isn't this what Britain did? Blaming Russia while being unable to present any concrete evidence.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 15:21:51 jergul: "TL:DR There is no good way of doing Novichexit either." That's a complete non-sequitur. As I pointed out: *There is no signficant division in government or the ruling party on the general outcome desired: deterence of Russia from further attacks while minimising costs and risk to the UK. This is not the case for Brexit. *There is no leverage of this incident or it's response for internal party politics that would prevent the cabinet from forming a unified position on this issue. That is not the case for Brexit. *The issue is not one that will change electoral calculations - no significant swing will occur either way in an election as a result of this. This is not the case for Brexit. *There is a clear set of objectives, dedicated resources with the required skills and knowledge to develop options for response, under leaders with a clear mandate for developing detailed plans for responses. This is not the case for Brexit. *Brexit had no preceding analysis and planning. Response planning for another Litvenenko is likely 12 years Finally, responding to this situation is much much simpler than Brexit which involves unwinding of a 40 years of domestic and social policy, law and regulation and replacing it with ones for an uncertain future to an unknown and frankly unkowable economic strategy (economic strategy not being something we've done since the 70s and have lost all the required capabilites to do)across all areas of one of the more complex and sophisticated market economies in the world. So, no, Brexit is not a good model for this.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 15:23:36 Paramount: "Blaming Russia while being unable to present any concrete evidence" It sounds like concrete evidence was indeed presented to close allies. In any case, the information available in the public domain points to Russia. It has a long list of potential motives, it's the only country ever known to produce the poison, and it has a history of offing people through poison.
Paramount Member	Sat Mar 17 15:51:34 If Britain has concrete evidence, why doesn't May present it to Russia?
Seb Member	Sat Mar 17 15:53:31 Jergul, I get the sense that when I provide a short summary of the detailed arguments (e.g. "in a word no" or "tl;dr") to contextualise before diging in deep, you get super offended and don't see it as a summary of the rest of the post but a sarcastic and glib brush off. If not, just to point out provision of a summary is not a license to ignore the detail above or below.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 18 00:27:34 Seb Frankly, I find you are being irrational. One thing is to expect me to toe the party line. Which I do. Another is to expect blind obediance to the logic behind the accusations. Which I find flawed and lacking in substance. Can you explain to me why you require obediance?
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 08:01:14 Jergul: Who is asking blind obedience? We are speculating on the strategy being pursued by the UK Govt and the outcome it will have. This depends on information we are likely not to be fully privvy to and deliberations of government ministers and figures none of which are us! I've simply pointed out that the response so far more more premeditated than ad-hoc and the shift in particularly French and Us position post briefing looks like the UK has something persuasive. I'm not asking you must believe Russia was involved. It really matters nothing at all what you believe. It only matters what UK, US, Her and French govts believe and what they then do. But I'm suggesting it is imprudent to believe the UK has no evidence and judge its strategy on that basis given the facts available. If the UK evidence was weak, I don't think Macron, for example, would have swung in line like he has.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 08:06:08 Paramount: Because if May has evidence that convinces her, then what benefit does it serve to show Putin that we know he did it? He'll still deny it. And the nature of the evidence may disclose other UK assets in Russia to Putin, which is a fairly terminal course of action for those individuals. Coordinating action requires convincing allies, not Russia. So you share evidence with allies. Russia should be shown the evidence at the time where coordinated response through international channels like OPCW meetings. This limits their ability to think up ways to discredit the evidence.
Rugian Member	Sun Mar 18 08:28:58 "I've simply pointed out that the response so far more more premeditated than ad-hoc and the shift in particularly French and Us position post briefing looks like the UK has something persuasive." This is a massive assumption to make. As someone who lived through the Tony Blair years, you should know better than to believe that governments make rational decisions based on hard facts, even on issues as important as dealing with foreign adversaries.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sun Mar 18 09:46:05 News › Politics Russian spy may have been poisoned via air vents in his BMW, intelligence officials believe By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter and Jack Maidment, Political Correspondent 18 March 2018 • 1:47pm Sergei Skripal and his daughter may have been exposed to the nerve agent used in their attempted assassination through the Russian spy’s car ventilation system, intelligence sources have told a US television channel. ABC News said sources had told it that intelligence officials “now have a clearer picture of just how the attack was conducted”. Agencies reportedly now believe the toxin - identified as a fourth generation nerve agent called Novichok - was used in a “dust-like powdered form” and that it circulated through the vents of Colonel Skripal’s BMW. http://www...dium=Social&utm_source=Twitter
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 11:26:50 Rugian: Again, that's quite a different context. George Bush and the people around him long wanted to attack Iraq and Blair had a philiosphical desire to impose regime change and a clear view we must support the American position. We've had several inquiries regarding how they stretched inteligence and engaged in group think. Do we really believe that May has a long standing bent to precipitate a cold war? In the end the issue with Iraq was not that the inteligence services concocketed fake evidence so much as politicians tended to overemphasise things that supported their preferred course of action and downplay anything that contradicted it.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 18 11:49:45 Corbyn is not getting access to classified information. Are you suggesting that UK allies are being given access to classified evidence that is being withheld from the loyal opposition? "so much as politicians tended to overemphasise things that supported their preferred course of action and downplay anything that contradicted it." Different from now, how exactly?
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sun Mar 18 11:50:22 THE BLOOD LIBEL OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT (SIC) By John Helmer, Moscow Prime Minister Theresa May committed a blood libel against Russians in the House of Commons last week. This was the allegation that the Russian state and all Russians are murderers. May has subsequently asked the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to correct the record by charging that only one Russian, President Vladimir Putin, is a murderer. The Canadian Government was also requested by the British to urgently correct the record May has been making in refusing to allow the international rules of the Chemical Weapons Convention to decide what happened in the poison attack in Salisbury on March 4. According to the new Canadian statement, coordinated with the British, the international convention can be suspended by Prime Minister May in order to make her blood libel stick. If this is reminding you of Adolph Hitler’s blood libel against the Jews, followed by Austrian support after the Anschluss (union) with Germany of 1938, it should. A blood libel is an allegation of murder against a race of people. Its history is ancient; it’s most familiar today as the charge of ritual murder against Jews. Hitler and the Nazis followed many others over a thousand years of European history. That history also includes organizations associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and several Romanov tsars. Read a brief summary. The last tsar, Nicholas II, used to read the blood libel aloud to his family during Lent of 1918, and at the family’s Easter service that year, when the Romanovs were under arrest in Tobolsk; for the record, read pages 114-117 of this British history. In the form of allegations of ritual cannibalism, the blood libel has also been a recurring allegation in inter-tribal, genocidal and also colonial wars in Africa, Australasia, North and South America. In the UK, publishing or broadcasting a blood libel is an offence against the law, a hate crime. This is what the Metropolitan Police advise is British law, and how to enforce it in cases of verbal abuse or incitement to violence. According to the Home Office, as the British ministry of law and order is called, a hate crime is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ This common definition was agreed in 2007 by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service (now the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system.” Writing hate on walls is a crime in the UK. According to the Home Office, “offences with a xenophobic element (such as graffiti targeting certain nationalities) can be recorded as race hate crimes by the police.” The effect of media reporting and broadcasting has been to accelerate the rate of growth in the police statistics of hate crime. The Home Office reported last October that in the year between April 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017, the number of hate crime offences recorded by the British police was 80,393. That was up 29% over the previous year, and nearly double the number reported for 2012-2013. Part of the rate of increase is due to police improvements in investigation of evidence and reporting. Part is due to media publications and statements by politicians. “Part of the increase,” acknowledges the Home Office, “is due to a genuine increase in hate crime, particularly around the time of the EU Referendum in June 2016. There was also an increase in hate crime following the Westminster bridge terrorist attack on 22 March 2017.” On March 14, in her House of Commons speech on the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Prime Minister May declared: “the UK government concluded it was highly likely that Russia [sic] was responsible for this reckless and despicable act… Mr Speaker, it was right to offer Russia [sic] the opportunity to provide an explanation. But their [sic] response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. They [sic] have provided no credible explanation that could suggest they [sic] lost control of their [sic] nerve agent. No explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom; no explanation as to why Russia [sic] has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law. Instead they [sic] have treated the use of a military grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.” The Latin term ‘sic’ has been added. It’s short for the full Latin phrase, ‘sic erat scriptum’ (‘thus it was written’). It is a term of irony, used to qualify what was said or written when the correct spelling and grammar or the known truth are different. This was the way in which May intended to refer to all Russians. She did not refer to individual perpetrators of the crime she alleged to have been committed in Salisbury. She couldn’t. She and her government have so far presented evidence of victims, but no evidence of a weapon or a crime. “So Mr Speaker, there is no alternative [sic] conclusion other than that the Russian State [sic] was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.” The first ‘sic’ indicates that May was lying about the scope for alternative conclusions; there are many alternative conclusions, and these include press-reported leaks from the Foreign Office and the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology Laboratory . The second ‘sic’ identifies the term which, in Oxford Dictionary English, means a nation or territory or political community under a single government. May’s allegation was a blood libel against the nation and community of Russians, all of them. Two days after May, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attempted to erase the blood libel from the parliamentary record by broadcasting on the BBC: “The quarrel [sic] of the UK Government is not with Russian people, is not with Russians living here in this country… We have nothing against the Russians themselves. There is to be no Russophobia as a result of what is happening [sic]. Our quarrel — our quarrel is with Putin’s Kremlin, and with his decision [sic], and we think it overwhelmingly likely [sic] that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK, on the streets of Europe [sic] for the first time since the Second World War. That is why we are at odds with Russia [sic].” Another twenty-four hours elapsed before Johnson ordered his ministry to issue a fresh qualification of the blood libel. This reiterated May: “Russia’s response doesn’t change the facts [sic] of the matter – the attempted assassination [sic] of two people on British soil, for which there is no alternative conclusion [sic] other than that the Russian State [sic] was culpable. It is Russia [sic] that is in flagrant breach of international law and the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Johnson’s underlings then repeated part of what Johnson had said the day before. “We have no disagreement with the people of Russia and we continue to believe it is not in our national interest to break off all [sic] dialogue between our countries but the onus remains on the Russian state [sic] to account for their [sic] actions and to comply with their [sic] international obligations.” That last phrase by the FCO means one thing to the British; another thing for everybody else. This was revealed across the water in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, and at The Hague, the Dutch headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This Canadian statement was released on March 15; click to read here. The Canadian statement insists on “ the rules-based international order on which we all depend”. But Canada says it is allowing the UK to opt out of the rules when it wishes to accuse Russia, the Russian state, all Russians, and President Putin of attempted murder by chemical weapon on British territory. This is the meaning of Paragraph 2: “it remains the prerogative [sic] of each State Party to determine whether [sic] to employ the provisions of Article IX in requesting clarification on any matter which may cause doubt about compliance of another State Party with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United Kingdom made a request for clarification [sic] directly with the Russian Federation. And as the UK Permanent Representative informed this Council yesterday, Moscow has failed to provide an explanation. Russia’s insistence on employing Article IX procedures is an attempt to deflect and delay – pure and simple – so that it need not provide a credible response to uncomfortable questions.” For the story of the British ultimatum – in Canadian English, clarification – read this. The Convention, which can be read here, does not allow a member state or government to opt out of Article IX. In fact, as international lawyers point out, Article VII is mandatory for both the UK and Russia. This orders: “Each State Party shall cooperate with other States Parties and afford the appropriate form of legal assistance to facilitate the implementation of the obligations under paragraph 1. “ Article XXII of the convention, entitled “Reservations”, says bluntly there are none. “The Articles of this Convention shall not be subject to reservations. The Annexes of this Convention shall not be subject to reservations incompatible with its object and purpose.” The Canadian representative to OPCW, Timothy Edwards, is a junior diplomat from Ottawa who was standing in for his country at the OPCW because Sabine Nolke, the Canadian government’s official representative, doubles as Canada’s ambassador to The Netherlands. Nolke was elsewhere when Edwards was employed to break the Chemical Weapons Convention. Edwards didn’t say this aloud in front of other OPCW representatives. Instead, his March 15 “supplementary statement” was slipped into the OPCW’s mailbox for publication by a secretary on the organization’s website. Edwards did give a speech two days before, on March 13. That speech in the OPCW record reveals Canada was carefully avoiding the British jump to conclusion that Russia was to blame. When he was on his feet, mouth moving, Edwards didn’t have May’s script; that would follow the next day in London. Canada, said Edwards, was ready to “welcome their [British] commitment as a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention to keep the OPCW informed as the investigation proceeds.” How could Canada guess the British prime minister was about to declare the investigation proceeding at an end – and also that the British were unilaterally halting their commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention? By getting Canada to introduce the reservation to Article IX without open discussion by OPCW members, the British arranged an alibi for violating the convention themselves. http://joh...ish-government-sic/#more-18877
Freak Nation Member	Sun Mar 18 13:20:19 Putin gets elected: http://twitter.com/Gulay_Pole/status/975232062532870147?s=19
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 18 13:40:54 ”In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that is airing Friday on Morning Edition, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."” http://www...eed-to-take-action-and-we-will Maybe the attack on Skripal was made by USA with the help of their British allies. Obama basically already confessed. They attacked Skripal to blame it on Putin and Kreml just as there are elections in Russia.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 13:51:27 jergul: It's not been consistent that all oppositions get access to the inteligencce reports in all circumstances Normally it is done when a Parliamentary vote is needed. Sharing inteligence with other government that has not been shared with the opposition is the rule, not the exception.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 13:52:59 Swordtail: " This was the allegation that the Russian state and all Russians are murderers." I think actually the Russian state. I don't know where "all Russians" comes from. And are we seriously doubting the Russian state sanctions murder? They formally adopted the policy to be able to do so a few years back. Is it so crazy to assume they actually do what they said they would do.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 13:53:52 Yes PAramount. Obama did it. Everything is possible. Nothing is true.
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 18 13:56:40 USA has the motive. Also, would you trust a country who is arming terrorists and working together with terrorists?
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 14:13:41 Paramount: Russia has a ton of motives, and I can't really see the US doing this. If caught it fucks their relationship with the UK. The tin foil is not a good look.
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 18 14:17:15 US relations with the UK is not fucked if the UK was/is helping the US to frame the attack on Putin and Russia. It probably strengthens the relationship.
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 18 14:19:38 But yes, Russia has motives too.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 18 15:39:07 Seb The tons of motives being "scare all potential traitors"? If we are going by motive. Take the Ukraine. Or anyone disintrested in seeing sanction regimes against Russia weaken. We have not seen any evidence yet, so careful about waving that tinfoil hat card too dramatically Seb. It might land on top of your head.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 18 17:12:09 Paramount: What does the UK get out of this exactly? Sanctions on Russia are not hugely in our interests except and only as a response to them pulling crap like this. How is it helping us recruit spies if they keep turning up dead? The idea we would be burning our ability to recruit in order to create a pretext for sanctions is rather silly don't you think? If we were going to murder someone to create a pretext for these sanctions, why not someone unconnected with us in another country? jergul: Well, I think I included a number more. Ok, lets take the Ukraine. The idea that the Ukraine infiltrates the UK, tracks down this fellow, and poisons him but has no fear of being caught seems a tad far fetched. Risks don't seem to weigh the costs.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 04:30:01 You had a few more idle "speculations" I beleive. Ukraine inherited a chunck of KgB the same way Russia did. It has infiltrated the UK (it has an Embassy in the country), I was unaware tracking down the fellow was supposed to be challenging, poisoning him seems to involve sprinkling a binary powder into the two separate air intake vents of the BMW (leaked theory), and why should it fear getting caught. The gain in the Ukrainian mind would be regaining control of its territory eventually.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 19 09:05:30 Jergul: Did they poison litvenenko too?
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 09:15:10 Or the Lindbergh baby?
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 09:24:27 Interestingly, the May only allowed for an inquest after that aircraft was shotdown in Ukraine. Previously she felt it would damage UK-Russian relations. From that perspective, it seems clear that May does not think accusing Russia has any political down-sides, and any number of upsides. I disagree on that analysis as the UK is setting itself up for major disappoint that could serve to isolate the UK more than otherwise in a post brexit world. But remarking on what you said earlier about "as politicians tended to overemphasise things that supported their preferred course of action and downplay anything that contradicted it" on Iraq. How would that not be a factor now?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 19 09:55:28 Russia is a dishonest nation filled with untrustworthy people. The entire civilized world will line up against you. Again.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 10:39:47 *Looks@Trump* Glass houses sammy.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 19 10:47:01 A temporary aberration, and even he is less scummy than russia.
TJ Member	Mon Mar 19 11:14:59 I'll play the devil advocate with an isolated post. It is Globalists reeling in the scavengers. They wish to dictate levels of supreme power. The bottom line is the absolute power to establish the dos and don'ts. The method and motive do enter the equation... The rationality doesn't appear rational to me. The question should be: Is Putin rational or irrational in protecting what he wants most for Russia?
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 11:15:39 The European Union strongly condemns the attack that took place against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK on 4 March 2018, that also left a police officer seriously ill. The lives of many citizens were threatened by this reckless and illegal act. The European Union takes extremely seriously the UK Government's assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible. The European Union is shocked at the offensive use of any military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, for the first time on European soil in over 70 years. The use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances is completely unacceptable and constitutes a security threat to us all. Any such use is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a breach of international law and undermines the rules-based international order. The EU welcomes the commitment of the UK to work closely with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in supporting the investigation into the attack. The Union calls on Russia to address urgently the questions raised by the UK and the international community and to provide immediate, full and complete disclosure of its Novichok programme to the OPCW. The European Union expresses its unqualified solidarity with the UK and its support, including for the UK’s efforts to bring those responsible for this crime to justice. The EU will remain closely focussed on this issue and its implications.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Mar 19 12:19:42 http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYqP6mBXcAEesJV.jpg
Seb Member	Mon Mar 19 14:20:38 Swordtail: In answer to your link, I would say because the UK has a huge human and technical surveillance operation, whereas the OPWC only knows what Russia has told them.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 16:13:53 Seb Hopefully that huge human and technical surveillance operation has resulted in an actual physical site the UK wants to call a snap inspection on.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 19 16:35:59 We shall see. My point was more that if there were one, the OPCW would be last to know. It would only find out after a countrt with intel reported.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 16:55:42 OPCW would be the 2nd to know you mean. After any country (including the host country) reported a site to the organization. And of course, the first to verify. By definition.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 19 17:09:09 Jergul: Only if you define verify to mean that the OPCW alone defines truth.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 19 17:11:03 Seb What an odd thing to say.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 25 15:10:26 The train-wreck continues. Nervegas placement is not theorized as what was theorized in this forum a while back (brought by daughter from Russia). Russia helpfully points out the formula is in the public domain (as pointed out a while ago in this forum). Time would sure pass faster if the powers that be just read crap here.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 25 15:41:23 The fact the formula is available doesn't imply just anyone could or would make it. If th Covered that in the last thread.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 25 15:57:10 Seb It counters any claims that only Russia posesses the formula and only Russia could make it. I would guess it could be made at 1000nds (not 10s of thousands or hundreds) of facilities. The problem here is the UK claim of Russian monopoly. It is simply untrue.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: