Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[NurembergVillan]

23 minutes ago, Chindie said:

May visiting Salisbury today.

Would it be too much to ask to have someone just leave her stood next to the bench for a while? Or in Zizzis?

"My bace beels bunny"

[coda]

There's a stream of interesting replies from a research chemist if you click on this tweet.

[Chindie]

Craig Murray is either really good, or mental, and nothing in between. In this case, I fear it's the latter. Some will lap it up because he thinks it might be Mossad though.

[Xann]

13 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

The naive view of the world as “goodies” and “baddies”, with our own ruling class as the good guys, is for the birds - Craig Murray

It's depressing how many people haven't worked this out yet. Even since our former 'enemies' now live in same streets as us.

 

Ruling over the plebs these days is about muddying the waters.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Over this? As others have said, I can't see it. Where would 'it' happen? How?

I think, though, that we ought to be very wary about assuming that things will just carry on in (relative) peace between first world nations. As mentioned in other threads, people tend to see the current world as what is 'normal' and tend to think that this is therefore the way things will always be. We don't need to go back very far in history to know that this isn't true.

There's a level of bellicosity in the language being used that seems to be a step up from the kind of thing that we've heard in a long time (I listened to some of Gavin Williamson's speech this morning and it left me in little doubt that he's the kind of guy who would be just itching to deploy troops somewhere on a giant scale).

Add in increased nationalism almost everywhere, a bucketful of protectionist policies, demands for hard(er) borders, demands for increased military spending, increased authoritarian policies, demands for 'strong leaders', various proxy wars, &c. and I don't think it looks great for the future.

I still believe that a conflict between serious military powers is very likely in the next couple of decades and what will spark it will probably be something trivial.

I agree, so we should certainly be thankful for having chosen wise people with expertise in defusing tensions and good relations with other nations for the Great Offices of State such as Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary. 

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree, so we should certainly be thankful for having chosen wise people with expertise in defusing tensions and good relations with other nations for the Great Offices of State such as Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary. 

Dunno what you mean.

Gavin Williamson's "Russia should go away, it should shut up" is some pretty statesmanlike oratory.

Sorry, my mistake. It's the sort of thing that would be embarrassing for a six year, complaining that her brother had pulled her hair to say.

[HanoiVillan]

Oh look, a well-qualified person in a position of authority giving a reasoned opinion on an important topic:

EDIT: Great minds think alike at the same time, obviously 

Edited March 15, 2018 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

2 hours ago, coda said:

There's a stream of interesting replies from a research chemist if you click on this tweet.

Just seen that on twitter and came here to post the same thing. 

[Risso]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

May visiting Salisbury today.

Would it be too much to ask to have someone just leave her stood next to the bench for a while? Or in Zizzis?

It needs to be an all Parliament affair, and take along BoJo, Corbyn, and McDonnell as well then.  Oh and Abbott of course.

[Risso]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

It's depressing how many people haven't worked this out yet. Even since our former 'enemies' now live in same streets as us.

 

Ruling over the plebs these days is about muddying the waters.

 

[Chindie]

42 minutes ago, Risso said:

It needs to be an all Parliament affair, and take along BoJo, Corbyn, and McDonnell as well then.  Oh and Abbott of course.

Now now, there's only so much nerve agent to go around. Give the boys at Porten Down some time to slap together a batch and then we can talk about Parliamentary day trips to the bench of no return.

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 the bench of no return.

thought that was the one at VP Gabby and Richards sat on

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Xann said:

It's depressing how many people haven't worked this [The naive view of the world as “goodies” and “baddies”, with our own ruling class as the good guys, is for the birds] out yet. Even since our former 'enemies' now live in same streets as us.

Well sort of. I know there's a tendency amongst some people to sort of do the "get behind the team" thing at times of conflict or whatever. But also I think a lot of, even most,  people are highly sceptical of politicians generally. They tend to be viewed alongside estate agents etc. for honesty and integrity.

I generally look on people who attack other people with chemical weapons as baddies, though., I will admit.

[peterms]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

That's absolutely lamentable.

An argument that is along the lines of "I can't possibly have any Baked beans, because baked beans are made in Wigan and I'm in Preston and anyway the dastardly Bolton folk have all the beans" is particularly rubbish.

I think you're misrepresenting the argument.

The claim has been made that we know it must be the Russian government because the substance in question was made in Russia and therefore only the Russians could have it.  The argument Murray presents is

Quote

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

which is explaining that it was another state, and one politically close to the US, which inherited the claimed production facility.  It doesn't mean that the Russians couldn't have it, which is how you present the argument, but it does mean that the claim that only the Russians could have it is patently false.  (And that's quite separate from the claim of the defector, who published what he says is the formula in a book still available on Amazon, that it could be manufactured by others with access to a sufficiently sophisticated facility).

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I generally look on people who attack other people with chemical weapons as baddies, though., I will admit.

Fairly sure my neighbours that originate from behind the former Iron Curtain are more Duo-Flush than binary nerve agent.

Could be wrong though?

[peterms]

3 hours ago, coda said:

There's a stream of interesting replies from a research chemist if you click on this tweet.

I've read the research chemist's posts.  Murray asked him "How does this show it was made in Russia?".  His posts don't answer that, he simply seeks to show that he knows about the compound in question.  Have I missed his answer to that question?

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

which is explaining that it was another state, and one politically close to the US, which inherited the claimed production facility.

One difficulty is that what he has claimed appears to be contradicted by people who ought to have a better handle on things e.g.

Quote

The nerve agent novichok was developed and produced in Shikhany, home of a military research establishment in central Russia, according to a chemical weapons expert. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said the information was contained in a report submitted several years ago by Russia to the international body that monitors chemical weapons, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). ....

Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the now disbanded UK Chemical, Biological, Radiation and Nuclear regiment and its Nato equivalent, said Shikhany was the sole location for development and production of novichok, dismissing suggestions that the chemical could be found in other places in the former Soviet Union such as Ukraine and Uzbekistan. “They have no more anywhere else,” he said.

 

[peterms]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

what do you think Corbyn would have said in Parliament - would he perhaps have mentioned that the information shared with him was, at this stage, extremely sparse/lacking, or that "as the PM knows, I have requested access to the detailed  findings but this has not been provided by the PM" or some such.

The terms of privy council briefings preclude him from discussing it.

6 hours ago, blandy said:

if he doesn't feel he has seen sufficient evidence, the better look would be to ask for more from the Gov't of the day and to point out where the evidence is lacking, in his view.

I gather he's said the evidence points towards Russia as the country of origin.  I don't think he's concluded that it's the Russian government.  He's asking for fuller involvement of the OPCW (which presumably will include clarifying why they don't have this stuff listed, and why they signed off Russia as having destroyed stocks of chemical weapons).

6 hours ago, blandy said:

I think "Almost certainly  it was the Russians" is about right and that's pretty much what May said. There's the chemical itself,  the motive, the long lamentable past record of this kind of thing , the level of expertise, if that's the right word, to conduct the attack, the timing and so on.

Well, we are told that the chemical can be made by a range of countries.  Motive and timing can be argued both ways - to do something which is seen as having a Russian hallmark and invites action against Russia, well, why would they do that?  The argument I've heard is that it sends a strong signal to potential spies.  Is there a better argument?

[blandy]

Just now, peterms said:

The terms of privy council briefings preclude him from discussing it.

But not an absence of it...

[blandy]