Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

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.

 

I saw that.  It conflicts with other accounts.  He doesn't mention that OPCW apparently signed off that Russia had destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons, which made me wonder if he is seeking to make objective comment.  I've also not seen anything contradicting the line about it having been produced in Uzbekhistan - have you?

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, peterms said:

which made me wonder if he is seeking to make objective comment.

And do you wonder if Craig Murray is seeking to make objective comment? Because his twitter feed reads like someone with a massive grudge (with good reason, I know). But it clearly colours his capacity for objectivity and that comes across in his blog and twitter feed.

Quote

  I've also not seen anything contradicting the line about it having been produced in Uzbekhistan - have you?

Yes, I provided it in my earlier post above and bolded it. Here it is again.

Quote

"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.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

He doesn't mention that OPCW apparently signed off that Russia had destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons

According to the OPCW only the US, Japan and Iraq have declared chemical weapons stocks. So if that's really accurate then it rules out Craig Murray's Israel dun it notion, and also the notion that it was the UK wot dun it.

Dunno how they got used in Syria, then....unless someone did a fib.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

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?

I don't see a better argument anywhere. The one I've seen with (for me) the strongest case is that:

The attack on these people sends a signal that not only will Russia kill "traitors", they'll die, suffering horribly.

That just prior to the imminent Russian "elections", this act stokes nationalism to increase turnout to a level which gives better "credibility" to Putin's re-election.

That Putin knows from past attacks on Russian "traitors" in the UK, that nothing of note will result in terms of retaliation - he's showing Russia's ability to act with if not impunity, near impunity.

That the traceability of the chemical used to Russia is a deliberate signal that it was Russia, rather than a bullet would have done it completely untraceably.

The Russian media have been basically smirking about it, as have their embassy.

It shows division within the "weak" West, in the lack of a coherent response - lots of word no action.

I don't see any credible arguments for the UK to have done it - it's not exactly going to encourage other to defect to the UK. It may temporarily boost May, though there's no election due. It doesn't help the more pro Russian Corbyn at all.

The USA - Trump, well, 'nuff said, so it wasn't them. Ditto it being against their interests, given the intel sharing with the UK.

Israel. I saw Craig Murray's idea that they might have done it to "weaken" or isolate Putin because Syria. It seems a bit tenuous that, to say the least, as it clearly strengthens him.

Occam's razor.

[mjmooney]

Interesting that Trump's got onside. Perhaps Putin will release the golden showers tapes now. 

[blandy]

Even Corbyn's (sort of) joining in now  - this is much better.

Quote

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. 

 

[Xann]

 

[snowychap]

7 hours 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. 

 

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Yes, I provided it in my earlier post above and bolded it. Here it is again.

Apologies if I wasn't clear.  I meant someone other than the person I referenced in my post and whose objectivity I questioned.  Someone who is not a key player in the UK security apparatus, perhaps.  Someone who might take an independent view?  Otherwise, it's like asking Liam Fox for a view on Boris Johnson's assessment of the situation.  Same verdict, different voice.

 

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Dunno how they got used in Syria, then....unless someone did a fib.

You know, I think you might be on to something there.

 

[terrytini]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

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.

I think you are right, from my own interaction with people and the media “ a lot, even most, people are highly sceptical of politicians generally”....... which is a terrible shame, since amongst the cheats, fraudsters, hypocrites and free loaders are many many fine and dedicated people who care deeply and sincerely about the welfare of people, and without whom we would truly be utterly sunk. Sadly, the modern way of forming big views on few facts affects the world of politics more than most.

As to the second point, I tend to agree, although it’s a wide list and includes the Greeks, French, Germans, Italians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, America, and, of course, the UK.

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

That Putin knows from past attacks on Russian "traitors"

Lots of inverted commas in this post.  Just on this one, it implies they are not really traitors.  As far as I know, all countries define their own nationals who spy against them for rewards from other countries as traitors.  Don't they?  Do you think they are not really traitors if they do it to benefit the country you live in, or its allies?  That "traitor" is a term relating to whether you approve of the action, not whether it is an action against the country of which they are a citizen?  That would be an unusual use of the word, but is that what you are suggesting?

4 hours ago, blandy said:

That just prior to the imminent Russian "elections", this act stokes nationalism to increase turnout to a level which gives better "credibility" to Putin's re-election.

I don't speak Russian, sadly, but the few accounts I've heard say that the incident has attracted little attention in Russia.  I assume the Russian government would have a feel for how well or otherwise it would have gone down before doing it.  You are proposing that they would take an action inviting certain reprisals whose impact is uncertain, for the sake of a possible marginal gain in an election which seems to be safe in any event, where the added margin is very unlikely to add credibility to the result.

Do you see how unlikely that sounds?

4 hours ago, blandy said:

That the traceability of the chemical used to Russia is a deliberate signal that it was Russia, rather than a bullet would have done it completely untraceably.

The Russian media have been basically smirking about it, as have their embassy.

Channelling Johnson there, sadly.

They could have had the best of both worlds.  Kill him, celebrate it (or "smirk"), and offer plausible denial.  If they are systematically killing their enemies, or traitors, or "traitors", these people will get the message in any event.  Why on earth invite reprisals by using something believed to be hallmarked to themselves?  What further gain is there to be had?  I see none, only danger.

Unless you think their hubris is so great that they want to taunt the world community by saying "we've made it obvious that it was us but you can't prove it".  See how daft that sounds, how unlikely it is?

4 hours ago, blandy said:

 

It shows division within the "weak" West, in the lack of a coherent response - lots of word no action.

Well yes, but that can't be relied upon.  As we all know, the weak west has fairly recently killed 1m+ people and devastated countries in a fit of pique, attacking several countries on the pretext of a reply to an attack from an entirely different agent.  Why would you offer a new pretext to such a volatile and unpredictable enemg?

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't see any credible arguments for the UK to have done it

Nor me.  Has that case been made?  Ive seen a suggestion that Porton Down done it in order to gst a budget increase (I  think they have just had an extra £48m or something, today) but that seems unlikely.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Israel. I saw Craig Murray's idea that they might have done it to "weaken" or isolate Putin because Syria. It seems a bit tenuous that, to say the least, as it clearly strengthens him.

 

Why does generating an international axis in opposition to Russia strengthen Putin?  You'll have fo explain that one, I just don't get it.

By the way, the circumstantial evidence you mention about Russia, having chemical weapons, utterly ruthless, long history of murdering people both domestically and abroad,  probably applies more fully to Israel than to Russia.  On a per capita basis, I'm sure they would be world beaters.

[peterms]

We appear to have a child representing us on the world stage.

How did it come to this?

How can the Russians or anyone else take us seriously?

We have a national talent for self-parody, but this surely goes too far.

 

[tonyh29]

Breaking News: Downing Street release photo of first expelled Russian undercover agent leaving the country.

 

[LondonLax]

Putin’s election win is not in doubt but it’s not about whether he wins or not. 

Apparently the Russian government work on a 70-70 model for elections. The theory goes that Putin needs a 70%+ turnout and of those voters he needs 70%+ to vote for him. Any less and it encourages his opponents out of the woodwork. 

From what I have been reading there is a real danger of voter apathy in these elections meaning you might not see the 70% threshold reached. 

This assassination has come at a great time for Putin. Nothing like a bit of nationalism to drum up a vote before an election, a bit like Thatcher invading the Falklands, and if it causes further chaos in the West, all the better. 

He would have to be a pretty major suspect at this point. He certainly has motive and opportunity, and that is without seeing any of the evidence the UK government is privy to.

Edited March 16, 2018 by LondonLax

[Seat68]

My wife has worked a little with Gavin Williamson and she says he is a pretty solid guy for a politician, he comes across a petulant idiot in the video of his response to Russia.

[mikeyp102]

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Putin’s election win is not in doubt but it’s not about whether he wins or not. 

Apparently the Russian government work on a 70-70 model for elections. The theory goes that Putin needs a 70%+ turnout and of those voters he needs 70%+ to vote for him. Any less and it encourages his opponents out of the woodwork. 

From what I have been reading there is a real danger of voter apathy in these elections meaning you might not see the 70% threshold reached. 

This assassination has come at a great time for Putin. Nothing like a bit of nationalism to drum up a vote before an election, a bit like Thatcher invading the Falklands, and if it causes further chaos in the West, all the better. 

He would have to be a pretty major suspect at this point. He certainly has motive and opportunity, and that is without seeing any of the evidence the UK government is privy to.

On Panaorama earlier in the week, they were saying his strongest opposition has been forced to pull out. They believe that there will be an “80%” turnout, but some may be forced votes.

[Seat68]

Going off past events I see why Corbyn would be reluctant to blame the Russians.

Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.

Quote

On 2 March 2007, Paul Joyal, a former director of security for the U.S. Senate intelligence committee, who the previous weekend alleged on national television that the Kremlin was involved in the poisoning of Litvinenko, was shot near his Maryland home. An FBI spokesman said the agency was "assisting" the police investigation into the shooting. Police would not confirm details of the shooting or of the condition of Joyal. A person familiar with the case said he was in critical condition in hospital. It was reported that while there were no indications that the shooting was linked to the Litvinenko case, it is unusual for the FBI to get involved in a local shooting incident. A person familiar with the situation said NBC had hired bodyguards for some of the journalists involved in the program.[72]

In January 2007, the Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002.[73] The centre was not affiliated with the government and trained bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces,[74] although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation.[74] The targets were photographed when the chairman of the Federation Council of Russia Sergei Mironov visited the centre on 7 November 2006.[73][74]

Dr Matthew Puncher was a radiation scientist. He and his colleague calculated the amount of polonium inside Litvinenko's body following his death. [75] In 2015 i 2016 he made work visits in Russia. He returned from Russia "changed completely" - deeply depressed and obsessed about his error in a software program. In May 2016 he was found dead in his home with multiple extensive wounds from two kitchen knives. There was no evidence of a disturbance or a struggle. Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt could not entirely exclude that someone else had been involved but declared wounds were self-inflicted and a cause of death as haemorrhaging. Such suicides are extremely rare [76] - in one study was 8 cases of multiple site wounds for 513,182 suicides

 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, peterms said:

Apologies if I wasn't clear.  I meant someone other than the person I referenced in my post and whose objectivity I questioned.  Someone who is not a key player in the UK security apparatus, perhaps.  Someone who might take an independent view?  Otherwise, it's like asking Liam Fox for a view on Boris Johnson's assessment of the situation.  Same verdict, different voice.

That’s a slightly odd take on it. I quoted an expert, who has actual experience in the specific area. He’s not a government bod, or a politician. You seem happier with a blogger who cites unnamed sources.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

Lots of inverted commas in this post.  Just on this one, it implies they are not really traitors.  As far as I know, all countries define their own nationals who spy against them for rewards from other countries as traitors.  Don't they?  Do you think they are not really traitors if they do it to benefit the country you live in, or its allies?  That "traitor" is a term relating to whether you approve of the action, not whether it is an action against the country of which they are a citizen?  That would be an unusual use of the word, but is that what you are suggesting?

.....You are proposing that they would take an action inviting certain reprisals whose impact is uncertain, for the sake of a possible marginal gain in an election which seems to be safe in any event, where the added margin is very unlikely to add credibility to the result. Do you see how unlikely that sounds?

Channelling Johnson there, sadly.

.....Unless you think their hubris is so great that they want to taunt the world community by saying "we've made it obvious that it was us but you can't prove it".  See how daft that sounds, how unlikely it is?

....By the way, the circumstantial evidence you mention about Russia, having chemical weapons, utterly ruthless, long history of murdering people both domestically and abroad,  probably applies more fully to Israel than to Russia.  On a per capita basis, I'm sure they would be world beaters.

Short of time to reply, but I used “traitors” in commas because it’s encompassed journalists, political opponents, all sorts who are not actual traitors to their nation.

The rest of your post I genuinely don’t see any point replying to in any detail, I find the words very disappointing indeed.