Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

We, as punters, have two options: we accept the integrated assessment of our police and intelligence services, having pieced together sufficient evidence for the CPS to charge these miscreants with murder, or we reject all of that and chose to believe Russia and their shills in the West, because...what?

I do think that's a very dangerous line to take.

There's more than a valley in between.

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

Okay. What is your evidence for scenarios 1-3? Any evidence at all that you have gleaned would be cool.  I'm assuming you haven't just made them up and there is something to lead you to rank order these scenarios over the painstakingly assembled case put forward by the British authorities?

 

8 hours ago, snowychap said:

I do think that's a very dangerous line to take.

There's more than a valley in between.

I agree with both the above.

Of course it's valid to have a level of scepticism regarding the things our government, or authorities tell us. It's the sign of a naturally inquisitive mind and is healthy. And of course there's plenty of precedent of us being misled and lied to. Dodgy dossiers and all. So not being sceptical would be unduly lax.

There's a difference though between being sceptical of what we're told by our Government, or Police and starting not just from a position that they're outright lying to us, but on top of that to utterly fail to apply any apparent sceptisism to the "alternative" narrative, put out by the Kremlin, or by whoever lese might want to come up with a "theory". Because for all the mendacity sometimes exhibitied by the UK authorities, the level of propoganda and disinformation emanating from Moscow or from the useful idiot, ten a penny conspiracy theorists is in a different order all together.

It frankly astounds me that so many seemingly intelligent people, and also Jeremy Corbyn, start from this anti-western, pro-Kremlin stance, exerting much effort and contortionism to pick at what we're told by the UK, whilst happily nodding through any old tat from Moscow, however incredible and unsupported by the slightest evidence it might be.

So yeah, of course apply sceptisism and questioning to what our Gov't tells us, but at least, if not more so, apply the same standard to the "alternative explanations" coming from parties who have an interest in stirring the pot, covering up nefarious deeds, self publicity, pulling in hits and/or sewing the seeds of distrust within our society.

Or alternatively, just put on some tin foil headwear and have away at it furiously on their blogs and twitters.

Somewhere along the line a balanced critical approach fell down a crack. It's led us to Trump and the hard right and hard left nutters currently having their moment in the sun.   

[peterms]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

Okay. What is your evidence for scenarios 1-3? Any evidence at all that you have gleaned would be cool.  I'm assuming you haven't just made them up and there is something to lead you to rank order these scenarios over the painstakingly assembled case put forward by the British authorities?

To be clear, like you, I'm not gleaning evidence, I'm forming a view and commenting on information made publicly available and proposed as evidence by others.

The reason for wanting to look beyond the official narrative is that it is so implausible, in so many ways.  For example, we are told that the poison was applied to the handle of the front door, that the Skripals left the property in the morning, and that the assassins arrived in Salisbury later that morning and were seen in the vicinity of the house near midday.  There would need to be an account of the victims returning to the house after that time to make the story even possible, never mind credible.  But there hasn't been.  On the timeline given to us, we are told that they received the poison via contact with the door handle at around 9am, so presumably different doses, and that this very quick-acting and highly deadly poison affected them both at the same moment many hours later, despite their very different physical characteristics which would presumably influence how the poison would act on them.  We hear that vehicles used in the investigation are considered so dangerous that they have been buried in a landfill site for contaminated waste, but the boys who were handed bread by Skripal's contaminated hands are fine, and the ducks that ate the bread don't seem to be floating lifelessly in the lake.

If the story had been that they met the assassins by arrangement and were poisoned at that point, it would at least fit with things like the reportedly quick-acting nature of the substance, the Skripal's phones being turned off for several hours, his reported agitation just before leaving the restaurant, the movements of the suspects and so on.

As well as the obvious holes in the story, there's the question of motive.  We are told it's revenge for betrayal, and a warning to others, but apparently this isn't what happens in cases of spy exchanges.  As Craig Murray said months ago, the reason is more probably to do with something Skripal has been doing more recently.  It's been suggested that he's been doing three things to supplement his pension, using his background, knowledge and contacts.  First is giving talks to UK intelligence staff about how the GRU operates, as part of their training.  Apparently that would be general information, not current, nothing the intelligence services don't already know, and therefore not a threat or a reason to kill him.  Second is giving information on some of the activities of some of the Russian criminals operating in the UK or elsewhere.  Third is that he was supposed to be the provider or the conduit for some of the information in the Steele dossier, the reason for the link being that his handler is Pablo Miller, colleague of Steele and the subject of the two D notices issued to stop the media naming him.  The second and third of these seem more plausible reasons for people wanting to harm him, because they are current, and threatening to powerful and dangerous people.

Going back to the two supposed assassins, we hear they are GRU agents though their names are not known (though the radio this morning reports anonymous hints that maybe their names are known - again the drip feed of little snippets from unnamed sources, an abiding characteristic of the whole thing).  Would GRU agents travel from Moscow, with Russian passports, dumping the evidence in the street, and reporting back along the way that "the package has been delivered" despite being due home shortly after and knowing that communications are being intercepted?  I suppose it's possible, but it sounds rather unlikely, don't you think?  I thought spies were supposed to take more elementary precautions and be a bit more discreet.  It would be more plausible as a description of hitmen operating without the resources of a state behind them, as it sounds rather more amateurish than we are led to believe is how state spies work.  But if we are given some reason for believing them to be current GRU staff, and if a timeline of suggested events is proposed which is physically possible, then perhaps the official account would look more credible.

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

It frankly astounds me that so many seemingly intelligent people, and also Jeremy Corbyn, start from this anti-western, pro-Kremlin stance, exerting much effort and contortionism to pick at what we're told by the UK, whilst happily nodding through any old tat from Moscow, however incredible and unsupported by the slightest evidence it might be.

What has Moscow proposed as an explanation for the attack?  I thought it was mainly denial of involvement, plus (refused) requests to be shown some evidence, to speak to the Skripals, and to get a visa for his very old mother to visit him.  And some comment on the apparent holes in the story.

[StefanAVFC]

ITK's about military intelligence, on a football forum.

Bit heavy for my morning cornflakes this

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

The reason for wanting to look beyond the official narrative is that it is so implausible, in so many ways.  For example, we are told that the poison was applied to the handle of the front door, that the Skripals left the property in the morning, and that the assassins arrived in Salisbury later that morning and were seen in the vicinity of the house near midday.  There would need to be an account of the victims returning to the house after that time to make the story even possible, never mind credible.  But there hasn't been.  On the timeline given to us, we are told that they received the poison via contact with the door handle at around 9am, so presumably different doses, and that this very quick-acting and highly deadly poison affected them both at the same moment many hours later, despite their very different physical characteristics which would presumably influence how the poison would act on them.

That's not accurate, though is it?

We were told that Skripal's car was seen on cctv at 9:15 on the Sunday morning. Afaik we were not told that he did or did not return home after that time or that one or two people were in the car?. The first question to ask, surely is where was he/they between 9:30 and 1:30. So for example, dId he nip out for a paper, or some milk and bread? then return home and they later went out together for the afternoon? or were both of them out for the morning, then they returned home after middday, got changed, and went back out again shortly after?  If so the theory put to us that the toxin was put on the door in the morning, that's entirely consistent with either of those two. You're right there's no account of them returning to the house, but there's no account of them being elsewhere either. So sceptically , there's a gap in the information there. But it absolutely does not make the official version non-credible in that instance. Nor does it make an alternative explanation/theory more likely.

Secondly,  on the timing of the door handle contamination, I don't think we've been told they were contaminated at 9 am at all. Maybe a blogger or paper has speculated that? We have been told that the toxin was put on the door after 9 and before or around midday.

In regards of them recieving different doses, "quick acting" and both being affected at the same moment etc. that's all untrue or assumption/guesswork. Either way it's not a sound basis to disprove or bring the UK account into doubt, or support more strongly a different theory/explanation.

Absolutely there are gaps and confusing aspects of the "tale" and the Police have said they need more info in some areas. But there is nothing which suggests an alternative explanation is more credible or likely and much that suggests the ones you put forward are less likely.   

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, peterms said:

What has Moscow proposed as an explanation for the attack?

Do you really not know the answers to that?

They include New Labs at Porton down...the poison was made there, and the attack was done by the UK to distract from how badly Brexit is going...sacrificing Skripal who we don't need any more.

Or a grotesque provocation rudely staged by the UK and US intelligence agencies

Or it was done by the UK to smear Putin right after his re-election

or to destroy Russia's peacemaking reputation in Syria (yeah, really)

Ukraine did it, using leftover CWs from the soviet era

The one you posted about non-state hoodlums

Bill Browder, a putin critic was behind it

The USA did it with stuff they got from decomissioned CWQ facilities in Uzbekistan

The UK made the novichok and used it on the Skripals

The Russian MFA has tweeted all kinds of stuff, RT and Sputnik ditto.

 

 

[Demitri_C]

11 hours ago, Brumerican said:

Not at all . 

I just know a lot more than you do on this particular subject. I may have left the forces but thanks to social media  every bugger I've ever stood on parade with still keeps in touch . Most of those guys are warrant officers now but my closet pal in Cyprus was a Welsh lad in the Royal Intelligence Corps called Craig .  We were Lance Jack's at the time but he's worked his way through the ranks to Captain . (A big deal to go that route)

He's forgotten more about Russian counter ops than you'll ever know and I'll take his word over yours all day, everyday . 

I know better than to ask him shit he's not allowed to divulge but sometimes he'll tell me stuff the public don't know a jot about.

Russia did it fam.

Believe.

Kool can you ask him if he wants to go for a little souvlaki with me next week as I'll be over there 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

We were told that Skripal's car was seen on cctv at 9:15 on the Sunday morning. Afaik we were not told that he did or did not return home after that time or that one or two people were in the car?. The first question to ask, surely is where was he/they between 9:30 and 1:30. So for example, dId he nip out for a paper, or some milk and bread? then return home and they later went out together for the afternoon? or were both of them out for the morning, then they returned home after middday, got changed, and went back out again shortly after?  If so the theory put to us that the toxin was put on the door in the morning, that's entirely consistent with either of those two. You're right there's no account of them returning to the house, but there's no account of them being elsewhere either. So sceptically , there's a gap in the information there. But it absolutely does not make the official version non-credible in that instance. Nor does it make an alternative explanation/theory more likely.

One thing that's been mentioned is visiting his wife's grave, though I don't remember hearing how that fits the timeline, eg how far away it is, how long they spent there etc.  Since she is apparently recovered, presumably she can describe the sequence of events, and they could issue a clearer timeline if they wished.  At present, you're right there are gaps, and people will draw varying conclusions.  If they were to say for example that she reports them returning to the house and then leaving again after 1, that would help clarify things.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Secondly,  on the timing of the door handle contamination, I don't think we've been told they were contaminated at 9 am at all. Maybe a blogger or paper has speculated that? We have been told that the toxin was put on the door after 9 and before or around midday.

I think the 9am thing is based on the assumption that they didn't return to the house after that point, because there is no account of them doing so - the accounts I've seen have been on the lines that it's not known what they did that morning after 9, and I'm puzzled why it's not known, since she is conscious and lucid.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Absolutely there are gaps and confusing aspects of the "tale" and the Police have said they need more info in some areas. But there is nothing which suggests an alternative explanation is more credible or likely and much that suggests the ones you put forward are less likely.   

Part of the reason the official report lacks credibility, for me at least, is the quickness to blame, the refusal to hand over a sample (on the basis that "we know it's them so it's pointless" or words to that effect), and putting forward information that turned out to be false that it could only be made in Russia.  These are not the hallmarks of a patient inquiry into the facts.  It really makes it look as though conclusions come first, and evidence second.  I hope the police at least are open to considering more than one possible explanation.  So on the two men in the news yesterday, presumably the police are asking about the basis for believing them to be current GRU staff, and hopefully won't be deflected by some vague handwaving about national security being compromised if the question is answered.

[peterms]

11 hours ago, Brumerican said:

I understand that the above may read like the most arrogant ITK post ever  but I stand by it .

I'm not trying to impress anybody but when it comes to Russia snide ops my mate isn't just ITK .

He is the know.(At DPM level in Cyprus anyway) 

 

So if this is about messages intercepted by the Cyprus listening post, then it's no surprise to the Russians that the listening post is there and that it's intercepting their communications.  If there is evidence of Russian government involvement based on such communications, it would hardly be giving away state secrets for our government to say so.  That's the kind of thing that would be much more convincing than the current approach.

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Kool can you ask him if he wants to go for a little souvlaki with me next week as I'll be over there 

Brandy sours and a meze is more up his alley.

[Brumerican]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

ITK's about military intelligence, on a football forum.

Bit heavy for my morning cornflakes this

Says we have put a bid in for a young rightback from Nicosia.

[Brumerican]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

So if this is about messages intercepted by the Cyprus listening post, then it's no surprise to the Russians that the listening post is there and that it's intercepting their communications.  If there is evidence of Russian government involvement based on such communications, it would hardly be giving away state secrets for our government to say so.  That's the kind of thing that would be much more convincing than the current approach.

The intercepts are just a small part of it .

[peterms]

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

The intercepts are just a small part of it .

You little tease.

[Brumerican]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

You little tease.

A pretty big fish got flipped about 6 weeks ago. 

GRU guys aren't particularly loyal.

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, peterms said:

the refusal to hand over a sample

The independent OPCW came and took their own samples. The results from the OPCW analysis tallied with the UK DSTL analysis completely.

The point about it could theoretically, under specific highly technical circumstances be made elsewhere is valid. It couldn't be made in a kitchen or workshop. It's not a DIY substance. It could only, practically be made by a state with the necessary facilities. There's a limited number of those. Now we obviously know the Soviet Union/Russia both invented and made the stuff. So yes, it's curcumstantial to a degree, but alternative theories also need to address the same issue. If it wasn't produced by Russia, who was it produced by? And how would that tally with the rest of what we know? 

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The independent OPCW came and took their own samples. The results from the OPCW analysis tallied with the UK DSTL analysis completely.

The point about it could theoretically, under specific highly technical circumstances be made elsewhere is valid. It couldn't be made in a kitchen or workshop. It's not a DIY substance. It could only, practically be made by a state with the necessary facilities. There's a limited number of those. Now we obviously know the Soviet Union/Russia both invented and made the stuff. So yes, it's curcumstantial to a degree, but alternative theories also need to address the same issue. If it wasn't produced by Russia, who was it produced by? And how would that tally with the rest of what we know? 

A chemistry professor has said it could be made in a reasonably well-equipped lab, not only by a state.

There was a case in 1995 where a Russian banker and his secretary were killed with something believed to be novichok but not named in the court case, which had been stolen from the Russian lab and sold to criminals.  I suppose Russian analysis would show whether the Salisbury sample has the same signature as that, or not.  This would get back to the charge May made, but which has more recently been overlooked in favour of the "state act" idea, that Russia may have failed to control access to its supply - it did fail to do so, it's documented, and people died.  So that possibility could be ruled in or out.  But as we've heard, the people who know say that unless you can match a sample against a previously known sample, you can't say where it was made nor by whom.  Of course, you would only give the Russians a sample if you're prepared to have a discussion about it, and that seems not to be the case.  The reasons for this seem to be political.

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

I suppose Russian analysis would show whether the Salisbury sample has the same signature as that, or not.

Well, there's just a tiny weakness or two in that notion isn't there?

I can guarantee that the result of any investigation, under any circumstances would be like the following statement:

"No, our analysis proves it wasn't us".

There are no conceivable circumstances in which Putin is going to say "you know what, it turns out it was us after all. Silly me, how forgetful I am. Now you come to mention it I do remember something about an assasination attempt with a CW. Pah!  Look at me and my funny forgetful ways. Richest man on the planet, and I can't remember who I ordered killed"

So they'd deny involvement if it was them, they'd deny involvement if it wasn''t them. They could have said (were it the case) and as you point out  "you know what, we did lose track of a load of toxins back in the day" when May made her original assertions about Russia failing to control access to its supply. But Russia said it didn't make Novichoks, then that it had destroyed all it's CWs and then that the UK /US/ etc. did it.

[peterms]

47 minutes ago, blandy said:

I can guarantee that the result of any investigation, under any circumstances would be like the following statement:

"No, our analysis proves it wasn't us".

The way to approach that would be to involve a third party, someone accredited by OPCW, to see if the signature matches the stuff previously stolen.  In your scenario, of Russia wanting to deflect blame, the best way to do that would be to show it was part of the same batch as was stolen, so that it becomes plausible that some is still held by criminals.  The presence of an independent inspector would prevent misreporting the findings.

Russia has today said it is open to involving third parties in the case, suggesting that if the UK won't allow Russia to see the Skripals, they should allow eg Human Rights Watch, or MSF, or a country like India which has good relations with both the UK and Russia.  It would seem reasonable to apply the same principle of involving a neutral party in testing the sample against records of the stolen batch, wouldn't it?  Assuming such records exist.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The way to approach that would be to involve a third party, someone accredited by OPCW, to see if the signature matches the stuff previously stolen. ...  Assuming such records exist.

Well, um, can you think of any drawbacks to that? I dunno like, say, if Russia was to tamper with any sample they use or provide to ensure a mismatch?

But let's assume that Russia will behave with an exemplary level of integrity and honesty, then in that case, yeah, the third party aspect is an excellent idea - all Russia needs to do is to provide a  genuine sample of their poison to the OPCW for comparison with the samples collected by the OPCW and they can clear clear their name. Sorted. Those perfidious Brits will be well and truly stuffed and shown up, and there's nothing the Brits can do to stop it.