Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

So Russians aren't allowed to holiday in Holland from now on either?

jeesh, you guys

[snowychap]

Edited October 8, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

A bit of common sense from Dejevsky (oops, very dodgy sounding name).

Quote

It is now more than seven months since assassins from Russia’s military intelligence service tried to kill a former double agent and his daughter with a nerve agent in Salisbury. Or did they? The only incontrovertible fact in that assertion is the location, Salisbury. Pretty much everything else remains speculative.

The Skripal case has troubled me since the first news broke in March. It is not the improbability of what was reported to have happened – improbable things are the stuff of news. It is rather the mixture of utter certainty, unsubstantiated claims and glaring information gaps that is so disconcerting, from the immediate rush by UK officials to blame the Russian state, to the way the main figures in this drama have simply vanished, and now to the contradictions that have gained blithe, and almost universal, acceptance.

When the Metropolitan Police showed the passports of two Russians they believed to be the assassins, they strongly hinted that the names on the documents were false. The invitation to establish their real names was taken up by investigative organisation Bellingcat, which has now – amid a blizzard of documentation, seductive reference to “open source” techniques, and not a little help from Russian whistleblowers – come up with what it says are their real identities.

One of them is Colonel Anatoly Chepiga; the other is a medically qualified agent called Alexander Mishkin, and both have received state honours from President Putin.

What’s so suspect about this, you may ask. Well, let’s start with Belllingcat, which has presented itself in the past as a microcosm of well-meaning and very British amateurishness, based in a Leicestershire bedroom, producing results that put the professional sleuths to shame. In fact, Bellingcat has grown rather a lot beyond its shoestring origins. It has money – where from? It has been hiring staff. It has transatlantic connections. It has never, so far as I am aware, reached any conclusion – whether on the downing of the Malaysian plane over eastern Ukraine, or chemical weapons use in Syria, or now, with the Skripals – that is in any way inconvenient to the UK or US authorities.

That need not cast doubt on its findings. But should the authenticity of the documents it cites not be subject, at very least, to the same scrutiny as might be applied to other evidence? And when, as this week, UK officials say they do not “dispute” Bellingcat’s identification of Chepiga and Mishkin, does this not prompt a few questions about whether, say, our “agencies” reached the same conclusions long ago, but kept quiet, or why most of the UK’s media apparently find Bellingcat a more trustworthy source than the UK intelligence services (possible answer: Iraq)? Might not the group’s good name be being used to get information into the public domain that officials do not want to vouch for? And, if so, would this be to inform, or to mislead?

What else do I find troubling? How about the UK and US focus on Russian military intelligence, still referred to as the GRU? I don’t recall any specific Soviet or Russian agency being so clearly fingered in this way before. Accusations might have been levelled at the KGB – or its Russian successor, the FSB – but this was usually in a generic, not specific, sense. Why the change?

It could be, of course, because the UK knows for certain that it was the GRU that targeted the Skripals. But it could equally be that officials simply assumed this because the GRU was Sergei Skripal’s agency, or because the GRU was already in the dock in the US for alleged involvement in hacking. Or it could be because it sounds much scarier than just saying “intelligence”, or even – though I concede this is unlikely – to make clear to Vladimir Putin that we are not blaming him, because the GRU was never “his” agency.

But there is a big contradiction here. On the one hand, the GRU is being presented as a bunch of duffers, whose decorated and highly qualified agents were booked into an east London dive, behaved badly, were deterred by a bit of snow, abysmally failed in their mission, and now face the wrath of Putin. On the other hand, we are told that the GRU is the crème de la crème of state agencies, that Russia is mighty and malevolent and that we should be very, very afraid. Which is it?

Lastly, let’s consider the connections that the UK public is being encouraged to make. Between the two Bellingcat identifications of Chepiga and Mishkin, a clutch of western states, including the UK and the US, came out with a coordinated condemnation of specific cases of Russian cyber-espionage. One related to the chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, back in April; another to the World Anti-Doping Agency in Switzerland. All this was presented to the UK public at least in the context of the Skripal case.

But there is a broader and more obvious explanation for Russia’s “behaviour” here – which is that, whether in sport or in matters of chemical weapons, the western allies have closed ranks to exclude Russia from information it is entitled to as a member of these international organisations. In such circumstances, wouldn’t you try to find out what was going on? Might you not also wonder why an apparent attack in an English city was being treated not as a crime – so a police matter – but as “the first use of a chemical weapon in Europe since the Second World War”, which allowed it to be immediately shut behind the impenetrable wall that supposedly protects UK intelligence and state security?

And the point that troubles me. For all the “revelations” of recent days, we are no further forward in knowing what happened to the Skripals – or to Dawn Sturgess, who remains the only person to have died, or to her partner, Charlie Rowley, who has now, like the Skripals and Detective Constable Nick Bailey, disappeared from the media. The two men caught on CCTV in Salisbury may indeed be GRU agents – though why the GRU would squander its brightest and best on such an apparently incompetently executed operation raises doubts. But no UK court would convict them of even attempted killing on the “evidence” that has so far been produced.

The CCTV footage from Salisbury has huge lacunae – though it is established that the cameras were working in Salisbury that day – and does not include any of the pair less than 500m from the Skripals’ house, nor any of the Skripals themselves. Why not? We still do not know where they were for most of that Sunday morning, who they might have met, or for what purpose, or precisely when the presumed attack occurred. Those are huge gaps.

Now, it is also true that Russia’s information machine has hardly covered itself in glory. Its response to at least some of the UK accusations have been weak or in dubious taste, to put it mildly. The RT interview (which was also broadcast on Russian domestic TV) seemed designed to make the Salisbury “tourists” a laughing stock. And Russia has not been as vocal as might perhaps have been expected in demanding consular access to Yulia Skripal, which might seem to cast doubt on its claims of innocence.

But the flaws in the way Russia has presented its case are not my prime concern. I am in the UK, a British citizen and a UK journalist, and I find the evidence and the explanations so far offered by our own side in what is becoming an all-out information war both deficient and scandalously short on credibility – and so, I suggest, should you.

 

[Brumerican]

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Brumerican said:

 

Not just a sense of decency, but an "honest sense of decency". Yay, for the good guys!

And don't forget to privatize, privatize, privatize or else you're a dirty smelly communist.

[tonyh29]

On 10/10/2018 at 20:14, peterms said:

A bit of common sense from Dejevsky (oops, very dodgy sounding name).

You’re still going with it wasn’t the Russians ?

that Dejevsky article might as well have been written by Putin  

[peterms]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

You’re still going with it wasn’t the Russians ?

Might be some Russians, but the idea it was the two "suspects" (as the police refer to them) or "assassins" (as Panorama calls them), smearing novichok on a door handle, seems risible.

[chrisp65]

There is clearly still something of a gap between what the likes of Panorama want to tell us and what actually happened down to the last scintifically provable detail. An element of shorthand that people can see as gaps in the story.

That we're told on Panorama by an ex Russian scientist that worked on the chemical that a milligram will kill someone. Then we're shown a reconstruction of someone squrting about 100ml on a handle. Which doesn't kill someone. But then it's explained that this, the most dangerous chemical warfare weapon ever invented, doesn't fare very well outside in the air.

But that doesn't mean that it isn't the nearest version of the truth.

Unless they really did go to world famous Salisbury to see the world famous spire, but got driven back by the snow and ice.

[peterms]

6 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Unless they really did go to world famous Salisbury to see the world famous spire, but got driven back by the snow and ice. 

That seems unlikely.

It also seems unlikely that trained assassins would do what these two are known to have done (travel together from Moscow, wander in front of many CCTV cameras, leave a very visible trail, traipse around taking photos of a river and looking in shop windows etc).  In fact it's so vanishingly unlikely that a former spy has written about what a stupid story it is, and how far it is from basic operational routine of real life spies.  I think I may have posted a link to that a while ago.

Suspension of disbelief works when reading novels.  I find it unhelpful as a guide to real life.  Some actual evidence would be helpful, but we've had astonishingly little, and nothing convincing, but lots of bluster, assertion, and repetition.  That doesn't work too well for me.

[tonyh29]

Meanwhile Russia appear to have open fire on a Ukrainian ships ... more to follow 

Edited November 25, 2018 by tonyh29
Edit - think they are commercial ships not warships

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Meanwhile Russia appear to have open fire on a Ukrainian ships ... more to follow 

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

That seems unlikely.

It also seems unlikely that trained assassins would do what these two are known to have done (travel together from Moscow, wander in front of many CCTV cameras, leave a very visible trail, traipse around taking photos of a river and looking in shop windows etc).  In fact it's so vanishingly unlikely that a former spy has written about what a stupid story it is, and how far it is from basic operational routine of real life spies.  I think I may have posted a link to that a while ago.

Suspension of disbelief works when reading novels.  I find it unhelpful as a guide to real life.  Some actual evidence would be helpful, but we've had astonishingly little, and nothing convincing, but lots of bluster, assertion, and repetition.  That doesn't work too well for me.

Yes, I mostly agree... but astonishing stupidity does exist, e.g., the Saudi "Intelligence" services.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

Yes, I mostly agree... but astonishing stupidity does exist, e.g., the Saudi "Intelligence" services.

I suggest the comparison is flawed.  The Saudis have become accustomed to thinking that anything is permitted (eg Yemen - if you can do that without being stopped, what can't you do?).  This reading was largely borne out by the immediate reaction of the US, which was to offer a cover story about rogue agents, then to play for time, then to obfuscate.  They are still trying to shield MbS, though I doubt that will work, long term.

In that situation I can see why they would be puzzled that anyone should be bothered about what they did with one of their own, inside an embassy which is technically sovereign territory.  They seemed not to understand why they had to concoct a cover storym which may explain why it was so pathetic.

The case of killing someone who is officially under the diplomatic protection of another country, on that country's soil (and the emotionally evocative word "soil" has been much used), using what is claimed to be the most deadly weapon known to mankind, is very obviously a quantum leap away.  The Russians very clearly don't think they could expect the same reaction of shielding and making excuses and looking the other way, which is why the rationalisation of western apologists for the government line has descended into farcical arguments like "they did it like this to show they could get away with it, they're that brazen!".  Ludicrous.

Of course the available evidence in the two cases is vastly different, one giving very good grounds for thinking the state killed the person, the other being hints and allegations and nods and winks, and refernces to mountains of evidence which somehow is never actually exhibited.  And the reaction of other states has been totally different, in one case agreeing to expel diplomats and in the other, well, what? which in itself illustrates that it is a political response to an opportunity for otger purposes,  not something detemined by a calibrated scale of reaction to events.

[chrisp65]

Out of curio, do you have a proposition for what happened in Salisbury? Something more likely?

Fair enough if you don't, just interested.

[tonyh29]

40 minutes ago, peterms said:

suggest the comparison is flawed.  The Saudis have become accustomed to thinking that anything is permitted

And Russia don’t ? According to some they interfered in a US election , Brexit , annexed the Crimea , single handily kept Assad in power ... I think a brazen we can poison who we want and don’t care if you know it . Is well within them tbh 

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

And Russia don’t ? According to some they interfered in a US election , Brexit , annexed the Crimea , single handily kept Assad in power ... I think a brazen we can poison who we want and don’t care if you know it . Is well within them tbh 

and timed to test our relationship with the EU as we were embarking on brexshit

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

And Russia don’t ? According to some they interfered in a US election , Brexit , annexed the Crimea , single handily kept Assad in power ... I think a brazen we can poison who we want and don’t care if you know it . Is well within them tbh 

Many countries interefere in each other's elections, but profess shock when others are said ro be doing the same.

Brexit, the links with right wing groups will be interesting if they are revealed.

Russia clearly liberated the Crimea.

Helped Assad retain power, good move compared with the US support for Isis and their assorted mates who are the alternative.

But the very obvious diplomatic and other sanctions make it clear that any move attracting sanctions would have to give some clear and practical gains, to be worth it.

What exactly are these gains claimed to be, in the Skripal  case?

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

Many countries interefere in each other's elections, but profess shock when others are said ro be doing the same.

Brexit, the links with right wing groups will be interesting if they are revealed.

Russia clearly liberated the Crimea.

Helped Assad retain power, good move compared with the US support for Isis and their assorted mates who are the alternative.

But the very obvious diplomatic and other sanctions make it clear that any move attracting sanctions would have to give some clear and practical gains, to be worth it.

What exactly are these gains claimed to be, in the Skripal  case?

 

 

I'm sort of with you on the rest of it, but I'm not following the bolded?

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Meanwhile Russia appear to have open fire on a Ukrainian ships ... more to follow 

Are we sure it was a Russian military ship and not a Russian tourist boat?

[peterms]

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm sort of with you on the rest of it, but I'm not following the bolded?

I mean that public opinion in Crimea seems to have been consistently pro-Russian rather than pro-Ukrainian, not just the most recent referendum held while Russia was occupying the area (and which therefore reasonably calls into question the results) but back to the 1990s.  There's a majority that is in support of aligning with Russia, and that's not a new thing.