Awol

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?

Good to see the Russian Ambassador in London holding court again today and denying Russia has ever even made Novichok. As far as Western intelligence agencies and governments are concerned this is a bald faced lie. The Russians know they know, it’s more Milwall syndrome than disinformation now. Is ‘compound trolling’ a thing?

Yep. Put that together with the catastrophic f’up over the poor lass jailed in Iran and he really shouldn’t be in the job. Silver lining, every part of the country now knows he cannot be PM. That’s a good thing.

Not sure what the confusion is over Porton Down. Their job is to identify the substance & they did: Novichok, military grade. Attribution is not their role. The attribution has been made based on other sources not in the public domain, fusion of sources to make the int’ estimate. That Boris put his foot in it by playing fast and loose with a journo is predictably stupid. As someone said above he needs sacking as soon politically possible. It doesn’t change the fact that whatever evidence HMG put in front of the allies led to the biggest coordinated expulsion of Russian spooks in history, and many of those countries would have taken real persuasion. The government is incompetent, the alternative is even worse. Plus ca change.

I “think” CA pitched Leave.EU but didn’t get the work. They definitely worked on the Trump campaign. Further to that I thought CC had accused the leave team of doing all kinds of dodgy stuff with FB data. Then there was the camp dude with pink hair blowing his whistle all over the news - now seemingly a Walt telling tall tales. Mid essay right now but will catch up with it in the week, it just mDe me chuckle because CC’s ‘investigation’ got so much traction and now appears to be a little light on actual facts!

Interesting to read today that the Observer (or more precisely, Carole Cadwalladr’s) story of the relationship between Cambridge Analytica (the Trump campaign) and this AIQ firm in Canada (the Brexit campaign firm) are entirely untrue. The retraction is buried on page 50 next to readers letters so I’m not sure they are keen to publicize it. Oops.

Last go. No country can claim to own international waters beyond the national 200 mile exclusive economic zone contiguous to their coastlines. They are the global commons, that’s the law. Trying to ‘claim’ them by constructing artificial features and sticking flags in them isn’t legal. Look up the 9-dash line, what they are ‘claiming’ would make Cecil Rhodes blush. It’s a nonsense and would ultimately cause a regional war with their neighbours if it goes unchallenged.

Israel has annexed land which belonged to people the US doesn’t care about. The Chinese are trying to annex some of the busiest international waters on the planet that belong to everyone. Not consistent, but not an argument to let China just crack on regardless because Israel.

Sure they have bases in allied countries, which invariably the host countries want in their territory. To protect them from China. The point about annex or reclaim is that by definition a country can’t own international waters, ‘cos they are free for all to use. That’s international law and the fact China wants to change it by creating facts on the ground (or rather create new ground to establish new facts) is the reason for the persistent physical rejection of its claims through freedom of navigation operations. Its not western imperialism, it’s chinese imperialism in violation of the established (via the UN) international legal order.

In law China is allowed to do exactly that (with its naval vessels) and the US couldn’t do a damn thing - although 24 hour news channels would be funny to watch. On the other point I’m not aware that the US has built a naval base 30 miles off the Chinese coast?

That’s a good thing. Our oceans are the are global commons, the rules ranging from defining territorial waters to the right of innocent passage are laid down in international law - even though the US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS it abides by it. China is effectively trying to annex the South and East China Seas by creating and militarising new territory on top of reefs, an illegal policy and one that should be challenged by freedom of navigation operations - like the ones you reference. If not, innocent passage through international waters will soon be taking place with the ‘permission’ of Beijing where none is required in law. They are already causing serious problems for their neighbors from Vietnam and the Philipines right up to Japan. There’s a reason the first deployment of our new carrier is reportedly to be through those same waters. China can’t be allowed to unilaterally re-write the law of the sea & these operations deny the legitimacy of their attempts to do so.

Broad churches, yes. Synagogues however...

Corbyn needed a ‘look! Over there!’ moment following the latest expose of his special relationship with all things Jewish. Owen Smith is a bit of a knob so little collateral damage with his Trot’ base.