Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, peterms said:

Yes, I suppose the report doesn't say there was actually any of the stuff there - I had assumed there would have been and that OPCW would maintain a list of nasty stuff from all over, but perhaps they only keep lists of what signatory countries have declared they hold.

Actually, thinking about it, the reason OPCW doesn't list novichoks is that they had no evidence to confirm that such stuff existed, as their scientific advisory board reported in 2013.  Tim Hayward's blog, linked earlier, covers this.

[snowychap]

On 14/03/2018 at 19:26, blandy said:

Corbyn is a privy councillor and also able to see the evidence. It would be astounding if he hadn't seen it. It's interesting that he didn't mention not having seen any evidence. He's seen it, I'm sure.

Jeremy Corbyn 'not given full access to top secret information Salisbury poisoning'

Quote

According to The Times, the Prime Minister did not allow the Labour leader to be briefed on the attack on former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the same way David Cameron allowed Ed Miliband to see key information held by the state ahead of the Syria vote in 2013.

Mr Corbyn was extended a briefing on the attack under privy council rules but was not given access to the same detail as Mrs May, the paper says.

This signalled a move away from predecessor, who invited Mr Miliband and Tim Livesey, his chief of staff, into his office for a full briefing.

It is thought Mr Cameron was far more welcoming to Mr Miliband as he had hoped to persuade him to support military action in Syria after the Assad regime had launched a chemical attack against civilians.

Privy Council briefings on top secret information can be extended to other members of the house on the discretion of the Prime Minister.

However, in this case neither Mr Corbyn nor his chief of staff Karie Murphy were, nor were they invited to a national security council meeting.

Downing Street refused to comment.

 

[villakram]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

Craig Murray has descended on twitter into the usual redoubt of the hard left and is blaming the Israelis. Quoting the guy as a credible source is like repeating the witterings of David Icke, imo.

Meanwhile the Russian government has said Novichok doesn't exist, then said it might have been made by UK to kill Skripal, but in so acknowledging the agent does exist. We know it exists because the defector scientist Vil Mirzayanov who coined the term “Novichok agent” told us  that he’d invented out and gave us the formulas. Then he wrote a book about it. The Russian embassy in UK acknowledged this by quoting an interview he gave stating he’d given us the formulas!!

The OPCW has confirmed the Novichok family the Russian CW agents was never declared to them, putting Russia in breach of the treaty, so they held this back - illegally. 

This pattern of Russian behaviour is called disinformation, or ‘BS’ in Anglo-Saxon talk. At this point I really fail to see how people are engaging in this willful dissembling over what has happened. 

Finally why on earth should we start providing samples to Russia and engaging further in their charade? I’d much rather we supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine so they can chew up the non-existent armoured vehicles of the non-existent Russian army that isn’t currently sat in the east of their country following a non-existent invasion. 

We know the Russian invasion never happened and those soldiers aren’t there because Putin said so, & the first rule of international relations is Putin isn’t a lying, murdering, gangster bastard who authorized the use of chemical weapons in the UK.

It’s like living in a parallel universe sometimes. 

Hope you're ready to sign up tough guy. Nice job supporting the fascists in Ukraine too.

[Awol]

27 minutes ago, villakram said:

Hope you're ready to sign up tough guy. Nice job supporting the fascists in Ukraine too.

Supporting Ukraine against the Russian invaders of their country isn’t a difficult call. Ever read a history book? The Russians killed more Ukrainians than Hitler killed Jews, but they were never held to account for it & now they’re back. The shame of the West is that we’ve ignored it, just one of the reasons Putin believes he can act with impunity now. 

[bickster]

39 minutes ago, villakram said:

Hope you're ready to sign up tough guy. Nice job supporting the fascists in Ukraine too.

You do realise that its the Kremlin that accuses Ukraine of being Fascist?

You might want to look up what fascism really is.

[OutByEaster?]

While the CIA were organising a coup in Ukraine, a puppet government of neo-Nazi fascists were put in place,  this unbalanced the country and the Russians were afraid that it would turn completely toward Europe and NATO expansionsm. Russia did what it does when it's worried, it put tanks on the ground. Ukraine a victim of both sides.

 

 

[peterms]

On 14/03/2018 at 21:50, peterms said:

How would he or anyine else know if he had been denied access?  No doubt he had a briefing.  What possible basis could he have for knowing if they had disclosed everything or withheld  crucial infornation?  Possibly a high-ranking whistleblower might have known if he had been duped and might have told him in the interests of truth and justice, but that's pretty unlikely, I think. 

When choosing to brief a member of an opposition party (and your own members), you choose what to brief and how far it goes.  As is commonly remarked, Mrs May is notoriously averse to letting anyone know anything, including her own MPs, her party members, and her Cabinet, so I hold out little hope that she's been open and inclusive with the dangerous commie Czech spy in this.

.

 

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

Jeremy Corbyn 'not given full access to top secret information Salisbury poisoning'

 

Hmmm.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

You do realise that its the Kremlin that accuses Ukraine of being Fascist?

You might want to look up what fascism really is.

There's a pretty big facsist presence in Ukraine.

[peterms]

8 hours ago, peterms said:

Yes, I suppose the report doesn't say there was actually any of the stuff there - I had assumed there would have been and that OPCW would maintain a list of nasty stuff from all over, but perhaps they only keep lists of what signatory countries have declared they hold.

At the risk of quoting that naughty Craig Murray, who we sre not supposed to mention without at least one reference to tinfoil hats, it seems OPCW already have enough info to add novichoks to their database, if they wish to.  (If they don't, that's a story in itself).

Quote

The line that novichoks can only be produced by Russia is now proven to be a complete lie. As I previously proved by referencing their publications, in 2013 the OPCW scientific advisory committee note the evidence was sparse that novichoks had ever been successfully produced, and in 2016 that was still the line being published by Porton Down in 2016. You can find the hard evidence of all that here.

I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could be produced from commercially available ingredients. Iran succeeded in synthesising a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.

This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May’s “of a type developed by Russia” line, used to parliament and the UN Security Council. This explains why Porton Down have refused to cave in to governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states.

While Iran acted absolutely responsibly in cooperating with the OPCW, there are a handful of rogue states operating outwith the rule of international law, like Israel and North Korea, which refuse to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, join the OPCW or destroy their chemical weapons stocks. Russia has cooperated in the OPCW destruction of all its chemical weapons stocks, completed last year, which included regular OPCW inspection of all the sites alleged to have been in the original “novichok” programme. Why nobody is even looking at the rogue states outwith the OPCW is a genuine puzzle.

Extraordinarily, only yesterday the Guardian was still carrying an article which claimed “only the Russian state” could make a novichok. Despite the lying propaganda regurgitated by virtually ever corporate and state “journalist”, in truth is it is now proven beyond dispute that “of a type developed by Russia” has zero evidential value and is a politician’s weasel phrase designed deliberately to mislead the public. The public should ask why.

 

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

There's a pretty big facsist presence in Ukraine.

There's an even bigger one in Moscow.

[blandy]

15 hours ago, snowychap said:

Jeremy Corbyn 'not given full access to top secret information Salisbury poisoning'

 

If that’s true, it underlines the utter uselessness of both May and Corbyn. Putin must be laughing himself silly. We’ve got two of the worst party leaders at a time when we need two of the best.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

 

Hmmm.

Yes, I do appear not to have fully accounted for the sheer incompetence of both Corbyn and May in that particular comment you reference. If the Times report is right it underlines your point on May’s control freakery, and also underlines Corbyn’s ineptitude. Neither of them is remotely fit for the role they occupy.

May should clearly be acting in a way to facilitate the thing she calls for, a consensus and United, non party partisan response to the Chemical weapons incident. Withholding the more detailed information from Labour and so on is exactly the wrong approach in that situation. Lamentable.

As for Corbyn, under the circumstances of being given only a summary document and not, as the article says

Quote

Privy Council briefings on top secret information can be extended to other members of the house on the discretion of the Prime Minister.

However, in this case neither Mr Corbyn nor his chief of staff Karie Murphy were, nor were they invited to a national security council meeting

Then as I previously posted, he should have been expressing this very clearly in his responses in parliament and in the media. He should be doing this both because it his job as leader of the opposition and perhaps even more importantly because of the nature of the incident and it’s implications.

[Awol]

Russia’s Ambassador to the EU back to blaming the UK, the “you did it to yourselves” defence. 

Apparently he missed the briefing from Craig Murray that the Iranians/Uzbeks/Mysterons were responsible. 

[blandy]

11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

While the CIA were organising a coup in Ukraine, a puppet government of neo-Nazi fascists were put in place,  this unbalanced the country and the Russians were afraid that it would turn completely toward Europe and NATO expansionsm. Russia did what it does when it's worried, it put tanks on the ground. Ukraine a victim of both sides.

“Puppet governments of neo nazi fascists”, aren’t known for their love of the EU. Someone somewhere may have slightly miscalculated risk.

[Awol]

This Russian being interviewed on Marr is great. “No, we have never produced Novichok. Never.” The Russian embassy in UK was retweeting an interview with the defector scientist who designed and produced it. In Russia!!! 

 

[Awol]

Boris’ interview on Marr pretty much sums up the UK’s (our) current problem.

On one side is Corbyn, clinging desperately to a theory of chemicals getting loose from Kremlin control, a possibility offered to Moscow and vehemently denied at the beginning of this episode. Motive? I can’t think of a flattering one.

On the other side is Johnson admitting taking £160K from the wife of an ex-Putin Minister for a game of tennis. Not illegal, but utterly squalid & impossible to believe doesn’t compromise them in the broader sense of how much Russian cash they’re in receipt of. 

Behind a paywall so can’t link but The Times is reporting UK intelligence claims that Russia has been producing and stockpiling Novichok agents for a decade. If that is the info shared with our partners it’s easier to see how they did a 180 after being briefed. Also shows how farcical the Russian denials are. 

 

[Brumstopdogs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43421431

Quote

Salisbury attack: How much of the UK's gas comes from Russia?

By Reality Check teamBBC News

• 9 hours ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

Related Topics

• Reality Check

In Parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May was questioned on the measures she was taking in response to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

Conservative MP Stephen Crabb asked: "Is she aware that Britain has recently started to receive shipments of liquefied natural gas, and does she agree that Britain should not provide a market for Russian gas? If we need to bring in extra LNG imports, we have allies such as Qatar, Malaysia and Australia who are more than willing to sell it to us."

Mrs May responded: "I can reassure my right honourable friend that in looking at our gas supplies we are indeed looking to other countries."

So how reliant is the UK on gas from Russia?

Throughout Europe, 37% of gas demand was met with Russian-sourced gas in 2017, according to energy analysts Wood Mackenzie. 

However, in the UK, most of the natural gas imported comes by pipeline from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium.

There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow to the UK from Norway (the biggest source of imports). 

But it's impossible to establish the source of gas flows from continental Europe coming to the UK through pipelines.

The government estimated in 2016 that Russian gas via this route would make up around 1% of the UK's gas imports.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told BBC News that the UK "benefits from highly diverse and flexible sources of gas supply. We estimate less than 1% of our gas comes from Russia and are in no way reliant on it". 

About a quarter of natural gas imports are shipped to the UK in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). 

LNG is a liquid form of the ordinary natural gas we use. When it reaches its destination it is reheated, turned back into gas and distributed through pipelines to homes and businesses.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

In 2016, 92% of LNG imports came from Qatar. Russia did not appear on the list of suppliers. 

But in 2018 the UK has bought some liquid natural gas from Russia. 

Energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie said that this year the UK has imported three cargoes of Russian LNG from the Yamal gas project in northern Siberia.

Murray Douglas, research director at Wood Mackenzie, said: "Each cargo provides around 0.1 billion cm of gas. UK gas demand so far in 2018 stands at 21.15 billion cm. So, direct Russian gas imports to the UK have accounted for 1.4% of total supply so far."

A BEIS spokeswoman confirmed that Russian LNG was unloaded at the Isle of Grain terminal near Kent, and at the Dragon LNG terminal in south Wales.

Consultancy firm McKinsey has said that the closure of the Rough gas storage facility in the North Sea means that the UK is more reliant on gas imports from overseas. 

In the early part of this decade, the UK's reliance on imported energy had an upward trend, according to the ONS, but then started falling. Net imports accounted for 36% of energy use in the UK in 2016, down from a peak of 48% in 2013,

 

[Xann]

Fracking Hell

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

On one side is Corbyn, clinging desperately to a theory of chemicals getting loose from Kremlin control, a possibility offered to Moscow and vehemently denied at the beginning of this episode. Motive? I can’t think of a flattering one.

Just on Corbyn, is this actually a fair summary, that he is 'clinging desperately to a theory of chemicals getting loose from Kremlin control'? His Guardian editorial on Thursday said:

'Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. 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 that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible.

As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights.'

. . . which seems like openly acknowledging two possibilities, rather than 'clinging to' one. 

[bickster]

How does the government look to buy the gas in a privatised market?

Seeing as 43% seems to come from that place the mad bitch wants to leave... the prices are going up or stopping pretty soon aren't they

And then there's everyone's friends Qatar.