Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I can certainly think of examples from cop dramas where police show some piece of incriminating evidence to a suspect to see their reaction to it, and so there right back at you. 

I know this is a silly chat, but I can't think of anything analogous in any drama - it's usually "here's a picture of you..." or whatever. It's never the actual gun, or actual poison, or actual whatever - it's a photo or a lab report, or someone's positively ID'd...

So in your face HV - go back to analogy school or come up with an example from out of films and telly to prove Putin's right to a thimblefull of nerve agent.

[HanoiVillan]

EDIT: deleted as I can't be bothered continuing this argument. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 if Russia were accusing us of the same thing, and we weren't to see what we were being accused of. 'Oh how ridiculous we are to ask to see the evidence', I'm sure I would be reading. 

 VT has countless posts that begin with " Twitter says " so I don't think there is any precedent for asking for proper evidence , we'll accept anything on here 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by tonyh29

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm fairly sure Blandy is just playing with you , don't think it's something to get worked up about tbh

 

but to answer your point , VT has countless posts that begin with " Twitter says " so I don't think there is any precedent for asking for proper evidence , we'll accept anything on here 

 

You're right, I'm sure he is, so I deleted the post as it's needlessly aggressive. 

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know this is a silly chat, but I can't think of anything analogous in any drama - it's usually "here's a picture of you..." or whatever. It's never the actual gun, or actual poison, or actual whatever - it's a photo or a lab report, or someone's positively ID'd...

So in your face HV - go back to analogy school or come up with an example from out of films and telly to prove Putin's right to a thimblefull of nerve agent.

I am completely out of my depth in the Russia chat, but not in the cop drama chat  

I can think of instances in "The Wire" and "Mindhunter" where exactly what you've described happens. The actual murder weapon is shown to the suspect.

The actual gun in "The Wire", and the actual rock used to smash a little girl's head in in "Mindhunter". In The Wire the suspect is told his prints are on the gun so they know it's his, so he may as well confess. It doesn't work.
In Mindhunter it's to try and shock the suspect into a confession. It does work.

And Mindhunter is based on true events/techniques so whilst that's not proof of anything, it may well be a real thing.

 

 

I've no idea what any of this has to do with Russia though  

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're right, I'm sure he is, so I deleted the post as it's needlessly aggressive. 

I was just playing, HV. I wasn't being wholly serious. Should have used better smileys, sorry.

The only serious part is that rather than give the accused tha actual poison, we'd give a lab report of the analysis of the poison - based on your analogy to a police interview.

But anyway, we're unlikely to solve this caper using half arsed references to unspecified, formulaic, Police procedural docu-dramas. That's best left to the proper authorities.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The actual gun in "The Wire", and the actual rock used to smash a little girl's head in in "Mindhunter". In The Wire the suspect is told his prints are on the gun so they know it's his, so he may as well confess. It doesn't work.

You had me all the way, I was about to concede, and then you said "it didn't work".

Close scrape there. I was nearly wrong on the internet.

[bickster]

Personally, I think we should all do what the best TV detectives do... go to the pub

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

You had me all the way, I was about to concede, and then you said "it didn't work".

You didn't read the next line then?  

Edited March 20, 2018 by Stevo985

[a m ole]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

Personally, I think we should all do what the best TV detectives do... go to the pub

On that note, I’ve never sat in a pub and seen a couple of high level police officers chatting about a case, come to a sudden realisation and dash out without finishing their drinks.

I wish they would, perfect opportunity for a minesweep.

Edited March 20, 2018 by a m ole

[blandy]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

You didn't read the next sentence then?  

I've seen the Wire and it's close to, if not the best thing that's ever been done on telly. I didn't point out that they were going against procedure when they did the gun thing, either.

Now, as for the next sentence, I've never seen or heard of the Mindhunter, but allowing that it exists and is as you describe, we need to asess whether Putin and the child murderer are comparable and thus whether showing Putin an actual thimblefull of nerve gas will cause him to confess all, or continue to deny it and claim "I never dun it, Copper, I want my brief".

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Russia is denying it ever manufactured the nerve agent and claims to have destroyed its chemical weapons stocks in 2017;

We are told it was developed by the USSR, in Uzbekhistan, in the 1970s.  OPCW states Russia destroyed its chemical weapons by 2017, the end of a long process.  It is claimed but not proven that Russia has continued to manufacture novychok secretly.  Some people have asked that this claim be proven, but this request has been loftily dismissed, on the grounds that "it's obvious" or some such.  The form of words used by the UK, the EU, and the joint statement by some EU countries, has adhered to the formula (sorry) "of a type developed by Russia" (meaning USSR rather than the Russian Federation), which as we have discussed and as Craig Murray has described, deliberately stops short of stating that it continues to be made.

1 hour ago, Awol said:

 Novichok was never declared to the OPCW by its Russian inventors which is itself a breach of the treaty

The Russian Federation came into existence in 1991.  Novichok was developed in the 1970s by the USSR.  The Chemical Weapons Convention came into force, and OPCW came into existence, in 1997.  It could not have been declared to OPCW at the time of invention as it predated OPCW by two decades.  I don't think there is a duty on Russia as the successor state to the USSR to declare to OPCW things that were developed twenty years earlier if they were not still being made, but I would welcome any correction based on facts.

If Russia continues to make it and has not declared it, that is a breach of the treaty.  If it was not made after that date and if Russia did not continue to hold stockpiles (I gather it degenerates and would not be stored for long), then presumably it is not in breach of the treaty.

[villakram]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

Corbyn calling again for a sample of the nerve agent to be sent to Russia for analysis.

When investigating attempted murder would the police normally ask the chief suspect to assist in interviewing witnesses? 

well, they normally would like the murder weapon to compare to the bullet hole or stab wounds. Very old fashioned kind of thoughts in this world of cold warriors.

[peterms]

4 hours ago, Risso said:

Could somebody point out would be gained by giving a sample to the Russians?  A state who you can't even trust to put on a halfway fair election isn't going to play by the rules in a situation like this is it?

We have accused them, the treaty requires us to seek to resolve the situation with them in the first instance by seeking information and clarification, and so supplying a sample in response to their request is obviously being seen to do what we can to exchange info and clarify.

Because it would look better to third parties who we wish to take our side.

Because we avoid being seen to throw out accusations without being willing or able to substantiate them, or make demands for explanations without being willing to meet requests for information.

Because we would look less like arrogant, high-handed arses who expect everyone to fall in line because we say so.

What would be lost by doing so?  Anything at all?  Would we be seen to play along with what we claim is trolling and game-playing, and would that damage or demean us in some way?  Any credible reason whatever to think we lose something by doing so?

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, villakram said:

well, they normally would like the murder weapon to compare to the bullet hole or stab wounds. Very old fashioned kind of thoughts in this world of cold warriors.

The OPCW will get that, we're told.

If the UK Police are the Police or Prosecutor in this analogy, and Russia is the accused the OPCW are sort of the court, or a judge I guess, who get to assess the evidence. Once they have their view, all sides can see what the come up with, can't they and mount any defence or denial.

it's not a perfect analogy, because the initial question from HV wasn't (IMO) quite the right one, as we've discussed a bit frivolously above.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I've seen the Wire and it's close to, if not the best thing that's ever been done on telly. I didn't point out that they were going against procedure when they did the gun thing, either.

Now, as for the next sentence, I've never seen or heard of the Mindhunter, but allowing that it exists and is as you describe, we need to asess whether Putin and the child murderer are comparable and thus whether showing Putin an actual thimblefull of nerve gas will cause him to confess all, or continue to deny it and claim "I never dun it, Copper, I want my brief".

If I know Putin, and I don’t want to, then they’re exactly the same  

 

We’re miles off topic now but you should check Mindhunter out. It’s very good

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

We have accused them, the treaty requires us to seek to resolve the situation with them in the first instance by seeking information and clarification, and so supplying a sample in response to their request is obviously being seen to do what we can to exchange info and clarify.

Not really.

The treaties require both parties to communicate and exchange information. There's no requirement to provide a sample, only information. There's been nothing from Russia (other than accusations and taunts). If the situation and general relations between the west and Russia were normally friendly then I'd have a lot more sympathy with your point of view, but when they and the west are where we are, it's utterly futile playing their game. There's no requirement to send them a sample. Neither of us know the extent of the information the UK has provided to Russia, and I doubt we ever will. But even if it's limited to "these people were poisoned with a CW which we and you both know (from testimony from the Russian who made it in Russia and detailed how and where) Russia developed and had, we think (as T.May said) either Russia did it or lost control of it, please explain"  - Russia's reply was "ha ha, no you did it, we're innocent". It's futile. Let the OPCW and others do their thing now.

It'll all go away anyway, job done by Putin.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The treaties require both parties to communicate and exchange information. There's no requirement to provide a sample, only information.

Correct.  And refusing to send a sample would be seen as a full and open attempt to communicate and exchange information, whereas refusing on the grounds that the treaty doesn't explicitly require it is a weak position.

I don't see a benefit in presenting ourselves in this way.  The audience is not Putin or Russians or the Russian media, but other states.  They are being noticeably cautious in what they say, backing us with a limited form of words which undoubtedly stops short of what May would like.

It is foolish to fail to take simple steps which could reassure third parties and help bring them on side, for the sake of being obstinate.  What possible gain is there by doing so?  In whose eyes?  Would we rather play tough to the gallery of the swivel-eyed UK media rather than seek to bring international opinion behind us?

I see Merkel and Macron have phoned Putin to wish him success in his new term in office, but have stopped short of using the term "congratulate".  Well, I bet that'll show him.

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

Correct.  And refusing to send a sample would be seen as a full and open attempt to communicate and exchange information, whereas refusing on the grounds that the treaty doesn't explicitly require it is a weak position.

I don't see a benefit in presenting ourselves in this way.  The audience is not Putin or Russians or the Russian media, but other states.  They are being noticeably cautious in what they say, backing us with a limited form of words which undoubtedly stops short of what May would like.

It is foolish to fail to take simple steps which could reassure third parties and help bring them on side, for the sake of being obstinate.  What possible gain is there by doing so?  In whose eyes?  Would we rather play tough to the gallery of the swivel-eyed UK media rather than seek to bring international opinion behind us?

I see Merkel and Macron have phoned Putin to wish him success in his new term in office, but have stopped short of using the term "congratulate".  Well, I bet that'll show him.

You’re proposing that we go beyond what we are required to do, for a hostile state.

other states are already well aware of Russia’s modes of operation, hits, murders and so on. Giving Russia a sample, which they will 100% deny is their stuff will change not one thing. There is nothing at all to be gained in terms of other states views by providing Russia a sample which they will claim is, I dunno, Israeli, or American , or British, it would make things worse. Go beyond what’s called for and have some Russian state scientists say “ it’s Israeli poison”or whatever. How the heck does that help? Why would we be so utterly stupid?

other states reluctance to do much is highly likely to come from things like gas pipelines, weighing their own national interests and political situations against going through the motions of “support” to an ally over a targeted, but messy hit on a spy.

Corbyn’s words on that particular aspect ( the sample ) are again just, being kind, “niaive”. Put in is not some wayward innocent, who’s just strayed momentarily, he’s a cold blooded, calculating violent, crooked tyrant, who is playing the West and our values.

we should stick to what we’re obliged to do, and not indulge him further.

[peterms]

Oh please.  Hits and murders?  How many weeks is it since our defence secretary (was it?) called for extrajudicial killings of people who went to fight for Isis? 

As for Israel, I doubt anything could be positively identified as being theirs, since they have refused to ratify the treaty or declare their chemical weapons stocks, so there is no record of what they have.

I suppose if we give the Russians a sample and they claim it is Israeli that could be slightly uncomfortable, as it gets into a discussion that isn't supposed to happen, about what they have and why it is not declared.  Best not do that, then.

Saying we should produce evidence is not naive or foolish, it's a very basic step in building support rather than posturing.

But if Russia is so beyond the pale, so barbarous and unreformable that there is no point in dialogue with them, perhaps our media ought to be asking more about why our party of government has so many members who take money from them, or in the case of Mr Jizz-Magg, invest very large sums with one of their dodgy banks.

It's like an alternate reality.  Clutching the pearls in horror at what they do, while selling Turkey the weapons that killed that Brit girl this week, feting the vile Saudi regime, and turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by the US and Israel.  Yuk.