Awol

Russia used a nerve agent to attack targets in the UK, in what way does that not qualify as the action of an “enemy”? For the record, Assad emptied his jails of 100’s of jihadi terrorists at the beginning of the war he launched on his own people. His aim from the beginning was to undermine the democratic opposition and turn the outcome into a Hobson’s choice of him or the jihadists. Similarly when Russia got involved they immediately targeted the few remaining FSA units that were not aligned with the jihadists. Now, as you say, they are the only alternative to Assad, that doesn’t mean he should get a pass for using chemical weapons on anyone.

Remember the Russian Foreign Ministry claim about a Swiss laboratory casting doubt on the Salisbury/Novichok findings? They were lying their tits off, for a change.

Some people want to believe it because it fits a narrative they are personally and deeply invested in. How else to explain that ‘stop the war’ crowd outside Downing Street last night waving modern Russian and old Soviet flags screaming about not bombing Syria. Russian aircraft had flown over 30,000 sorties and hit 90,000 targets in Syria by summer 2017 alone, yet they wave the flags painted on those aircraft. Total cognitive dissonance.

Well, no one could have predicted this...

The no-show of Russia’s vaunted air-defence network means one of two things: it failed completely (no way), or an agreement was reached (way).

UK Tornado aircraft carrying Storm Shadow cruise missiles targeted a combined production and storage site for Sarin gas and precursor chemicals. Operation is complete, no loses and Russian air defences did not engage coalition aircraft. It looks like its over for now unless Assad uses chemical weapons again. Clearly the US and Russia struck a deal.

Moot point, it’s started.

The same thing you do with a bully in any walk of life, face him down. Strength wise Russia is not the Soviet Union and Putin has bluffed his way to this point through threats, belligerence and a lack of western leadership and willpower to effectively oppose him. He also knows that the West is vastly more powerful in economic and military terms, if push came to shove. The allies collectively have to take a stand here, consider Russian aggression in the aggregate and say ‘no more’. Putin's no fool and will take any face saving off ramp given to him if he believes we are serious, but it’s essential to force his hand (IMO) for longer-term European security. If not, we’ll very likely face another challenge later that’s closer to home & can’t be ignored. It’s risky but that’s life. We faced off many times during the Cold War & Putin no more wants nuclear escalation than we do. He won’t risk mother Russia over Syria, particularly if we are clear that any action isn’t about removing Assad, but solely to punish his CW use. Thats not a popular view (putting it mildly) but I don’t see any better options at this point. Both Putin & Assad have pushed things too far.

Can I get a “lol” please..

Lavrov alluded to foreign security service being involved, his Russian military counterpart came right out and said it was the UK - in collusion with the White Helmets. Should be meme heaven on twitter shortly!

Those eyes... she’s a scary lady. You get the sense Trump isn’t going to leave quietly when Meuller drops the hammer.

Not just once, Russia has vetoed an independent UN investigation of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime SIX times. The UN is impotent when a Security Council member refuses to cooperate - see a gazillion resolutions on Israel vetoed by the US. International law isn’t really a thing, it’s just a set of norms the West is willing to coercively impose on others. Best case it is mostly done with benign intent, but that’s clearly not always the case. That’s why this current political/media debate over Syria is so frustrating. Of course it is preferable to get UN backing & stick to letter of international law, but where that’s impossible, what to do? Accept chemical weapons is bad but won’t be punished? May is wrong not to have recalled Parliament to debate this, but equally (going by Diane Abbott’s interview on Radio 4 earlier - which btw was up to her usual comical standards) its a conversation based not on reality, but on intellectually dishonest positions that are objectively impossible to reconcile with reality.

Russia denied Novichok (a Russian word) even existed, or if it did it, was certainly nothing to do with them, or the defector scientists who invented it in and for Russia, before fleeing to the West with the recipes... It’s important that an independent body has said the UK was correct as regards the chemistry of the substance used, it won’t quieten the fruitier parts of the internet but closes off another avenue of evasion i.e. the UK is lying about the type of substance, or there was no substance at all, or ad Infinitum BS.... OPCW’s remit was only to ID the substance, not get involved with attribution. UK allies seem utterly convinced by the intelligence they’ve been shown on that front.

Yup, poor fella is off the deep end. Also worth remembering Russia had never even heard of Novichok before Paddington Bear (freelancing for MI6) put it in Skripal’s marmalade. Furry little Peruvian b******.

OPCW confirm substance used in attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal was Novichok. Over to Craig Murray...

I’m not disputing that Assad winning (and nothing will reverse that now) is the least worst option in Syria, it’s the ‘how’ he does it that actually matters. For better or worse the international community allows the use of bombs, bullets and bayonets as weapons of war, but doesn’t allow CBRN, as you know. The “we don’t allow that” must carry coercive force, or else becomes “we don’t approve of that” and the taboo dissolves. The Russians have probably murdered more than a dozen people in the UK over recent years, we’ve (correctly in my view) gone tonto over Skripal because of ‘how’ they tried to do it. Using nerve agent crossed a ‘red line’. CBRN use must carry a cost for its prohibition to have any meaning at all, so Assad needs to be hurt for doing so. Operationally there are various ways to go about it & killing regular joe Syrian soldiers to no purposeful end isn’t one of them, but - for example - inflicting major pain on Iranian & Hezbollah assets/HVT’s in country would be, and would also serve an operational purpose. I take the point about CW use by non-state actors, but by their nature they are very difficult to get at in the same way, and are already - if you take ISIS as an example - paying a very significant price for their whole repertoire of activity. The fact Russia is standing behind Assad giving it “yeah, and what?” isn’t a reason not to do it, imo. Putin is not going to start a fight with the West he cannot win, and if it got serious in Syria his airwing there is a speed bump, nothing more. They know this, but the fact Russia is working (on multiple fronts) to normalise chemical weapons use as a proxy for undermining the rules based order is itself an incentive not to let CW use pass unanswered. Again. Taking the ‘least bad course’ has often led to much greater trouble, further down the road.

No one (sane) looks at it from the perspective of wanting people to die, but there is a bigger issue, imo. *puts on tin hat* For the sake of argument let’s assume, as seems likely, Assad has again used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. If, as in 2013, we again fail to take a stand over battlefield chemical weapons use, then the world can conclude there is no penalty for doing so. What happens then if another state uses biological, or radiological weapons in a conflict where the major states don’t have a vital interest? Once the taboo against the use of CBRN is broken I don’t see how it’s rebuilt again, so IF the UK participated in any punitive action against Assad in the coming days then it’s not about the Syrian war - that’s decided. It’ll be about enforcing the international norms of conflict & standing against those like Russia who are working to tear up all the rules.

Bellingcat has done phenomenal open source work geolocating Russian actions in Ukraine and on the MH-17 shoot down. Moscow understandably loathes Higgins, a pretty good indicator that his firm’s work is of a high standard.

What’s the source on that mate?

The Russian ambassador to Lebanon has stated that if any missiles are fired at Syrian targets in response to the latest chemical weapons attack they will shoot them down and directly target the firing platforms (aircraft, ships, subs). Basically he’s threatening war against the West. I suspect that’s a very ballsy bluff, but ramps things up to the point the US cannot really back down without a massive loss of face and a huge PR win for Moscow. Meanwhile at the UN Russia vetoed a resolution for an independent investigation, proposing instead that Russia picks the investigators and interprets the results. Not suss’ at all, obviously.

@peterms It’s not a surprise that ISIS had so much US kit. The US totally equipped the new Iraqi military before leaving in 2011, and when ISIS took Mosul an entire Iraqi division downed (those US supplied) tools and ran. Over the following weeks ISIS swept up a lot more as they moved south, hence ISIS sporting a lot of US kit - they destroyed rather than deployed the M1A1 Abrams tanks they captured because they are complex to use, maintain and resupply. Even the 1000’s of Toyota Hi-Lux technicals ISIS used we’re primarily taken from stocks purchased by the US for the Iraqi State. The conspiracy about the US supplying ISIS with equipment is deep in tinfoil country, they simply picked up what the Iraqis dropped/abandoned. Edit: and the French haven’t been in Syria for a century, they were there a century ago, until the end of WW2, more than 70 yrs ago. So a more accurate statement would be “the French haven’t been in Syria for over 70 yrs.”

The Americans are in Syria for two main reasons: the first is/was to defeat ISIS, still unfinished business in the rural Euphrates river valley. The second is to disrupt the land bridge Iran is trying to establish with Lebanon, through Iraq and Syria. Deir-ez-Zur in eastern Syria is a key province that straddles the overland route, that’s why US forces are there. Why? If Iran has clear lines of supply to Hezbollah in Lebanon then the latter, along with a multi-national IRGC led milita currently fighting for Assad, will eventually be turning their gunsights on Israel, and a war that’s bigger, wider and more destructive than anything that’s happened to date will engulf the Middle East. The French are there because of Paris and the numerous other attacks, but it was Paris that pulled them in. The Elysse directly requested assistance from London at the time to support them based on the bilateral UK-French alliance and Cameron, rightly, acceded. The same alliance has seen UK recently deploy heavy lift helicopters to Mali to support French efforts there. Its a very complicated situation, but tinfoil doesn’t help in getting a handle on what’s actually happening and why.

Fella called Norman Angell made that exact economic/financial argument in a book titled “The Great Illusion”. It was well received when he published, in 1909. There won’t be a war with Russia* because escalation can’t be controlled and that road ends in nuclear exchange. *crosses fingers...

Or, framed differently: Russia used chemical weapons within the UK, a state it is not at war with, contaminating multiple sites in an urban area, putting several hundred UK civilians at risk and breaking all norms of international law. The last people to use chemical weapons in Europe were the Nazis, so on face value, that’s a pretty big meal deal. Ps. Russia can’t start a conventional war with the UK. It’s why we keep hold of nukes.

Have a few mates in the Met & they say exactly the same, cuts in police numbers & stop & search being curtailed are the two biggest factors, plus the amount of resources going into non-discretionary counter-terrorism activity. I get the argument about racial profiling with stop and search, but when the facts apparently show it’s primarily young black men killing and being killed, you’ve got to ask what’s worse, feeling victimized or being a victim?