Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, bickster said:

Has global warming become that bad that sea level has risen 186 meters?

High tide  - You must have heard of Merthyr's tidey sea.

[NurembergVillan]

[peterms]

6 hours ago, snowychap said:

Cheers. Unfortunately, it's the FT so I can't look at it any further (paywall).

You can get access to FT articles despite the paywall if going via a search engine rather than clicking a link, so if you know a phrase that appears in the article, you can search for that and then get access from the results.

In this case, "US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe’s gas" gets you there.  Though there is then the 2-question survey Tony mentions.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

You can get access to FT articles despite the paywall if going via a search engine rather than clicking a link, so if you know a phrase that appears in the article, you can search for that and then get access from the results.

In this case, "US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe’s gas" gets you there.  Though there is then the 2-question survey Tony mentions.

That doesn't work for me. I'm just presented with the subscription options page.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

That doesn't work for me. I'm just presented with the subscription options page.

If you get this, then highlighting the phrase then right-clicking for "google search" works for me.  A bit of a tedious workaround...

 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

If you get this, then highlighting the phrase then right-clicking for "google search" works for me.  A bit of a tedious workaround...

Is it only through a google search? If so then that might be why. I don't use Google.

[peterms]

So I see France is asking for proof that it was the Russian state that did it, which presumably is more than the UK saying it's a compound originally manufactured in Uzbekhistan when the USSR was collapsing, and which has presumably been manufactured in lots of places since, including Porton Down, eight miles down the road, as is suggested here:

Quote

The Prime Minister stated that:

There are, therefore, only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on 4 March: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country; or the Russian Government lost control of their potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

However, Mirzayanov originally claimed that the Novichok agents were easy to synthesize:-

One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides. (Mirzayanov, 1995).

Soviet scientists had published many papers in the open literature on the chemistry of such compounds for possible use as insecticides. Mirzayanov claimed that “this research program was premised on the ability to hide the production of precursor chemicals under the guise of legitimate commercial chemical production of agricultural chemicals”.

As the structures of these compounds have been described, any organic chemist with a modern lab would be able to synthesize bench scale quantities of such a compound. Indeed, Porton Down must have been able to synthesize these compounds in order to develop tests for them. It is therefore misleading to assert that only Russia could have produced such compounds.

We have declined to give a sample to Russia, I'm not clear why.  Perhaps if the Russians can show that whatever was used is something easily made by people who do that sort of thing, then Mrs May's assertion that only two possibilities exist may look quite weak.  I assume we're looking for the truth, aren't we?  Even if it doesn't fit the narrative? 

Some Labour MPs have signed a motion saying they unequivocally accept that Russia did it, so there must be some hard evidence that I'm not aware of.  What can it be, I wonder?

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Is it only through a google search? If so then that might be why. I don't use Google.

I tried it in MS Edge, which uses BIng, and it worked.

[chrisp65]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Ironically a Russian tanker full of emergency gas docked in Merthyr a few days  ago as we were running low 

 

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Has global warming become that bad that sea level has risen 186 meters?

 

1 hour ago, blandy said:

High tide  - You must have heard of Merthyr's tidey sea.

 

To be fair, I once got a tug half way up the Rhigos. So I think it's technically possible.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

 

To be fair, I once got a tug half way up the Rhigos. So I think it's technically possible.

I hope it was above Tower no 4 so no miners were corrupted

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, peterms said:

So I see France is asking for proof that it was the Russian state that did it, which presumably is more than the UK saying it's a compound originally manufactured in Uzbekhistan when the USSR was collapsing, and which has presumably been manufactured in lots of places since, including Porton Down, eight miles down the road, as is suggested here:

We have declined to give a sample to Russia, I'm not clear why.  Perhaps if the Russians can show that whatever was used is something easily made by people who do that sort of thing, then Mrs May's assertion that only two possibilities exist may look quite weak.  I assume we're looking for the truth, aren't we?  Even if it doesn't fit the narrative? 

Some Labour MPs have signed a motion saying they unequivocally accept that Russia did it, so there must be some hard evidence that I'm not aware of.  What can it be, I wonder?

One reading could be as follows.

Our ally, France, would want to see the same evidence that the Gov't has seen. That's why they'd ask. That's reasonable.

Corbyn is a privy councillor and also able to see the evidence. It would be astounding if he hadn't seen it. It's interesting that he didn't mention not having seen any evidence. He's seen it, I'm sure.

The distance between Porton Down and the murder attempt is irrelevant within the UK. Whether it's 8, or 80 miles. That's a proper red herring.

There's no dispute that there was an attack with a nerve agent. The UK agencies have taken time and asserted they've identified the type and to do so that would mean analysing the exact chemical make up. It is not misleading to say that only Russia could have made the exact compound used. A daft analogy would be anyone can make red wine - well yes, but it is possible to trace red wine to precise vineyards and years via chemical analysis. The same or similar applies here.

In terms of sharing with Russia  - what's the point? we know that they have already said "not us Gov!" they're not going to go back on that. Letting neutral international agency(s) see/test the evidence/samples would be a fair step, though. There's also an issue with the UK wanting not to reveal the techniques we have to analyse / develop antidotes/ treatments.

I, like May, can think of only 2 scenarios as to how Russian made nerve agent would be used on a Russian FSB/KGB double agent. There's also a mass of circumstantial evidence/past history and motives for Russian killings of Putin opponents. A long and sorry history.

Corbyn was right yesterday (or monday was it?) when he talked about seizing the UK assets of Putin acolytes. He made May look stupid. But he was lamentable today and his spokesman made it worse. It's a bit of a trait with Corbyn. The bloke's a bell.

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Has global warming become that bad that sea level has risen 186 meters?

Good point , I meant Milford Haven but wrote something completely different .... both begin with M though so close enough 

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Corbyn is a privy councillor and also able to see the evidence. It would be astounding if he hadn't seen it. It's interesting that he didn't mention not having seen any evidence. He's seen it, I'm sure.

If he's seen it and it's convincing and he continues to harbour doubt, he will need to say why.  If it's not convincing, the question remains, and May and others will need to explain.

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

A daft analogy would be anyone can make red wine - well yes, but it is possible to trace red wine to precise vineyards and years via chemical analysis. The same or similar applies here.

The piece I quoted refers to a Russian defector saying the compound was developed from easily available supplies used in agriculture.  That doesn't at all correspond with the precisely geographically identifiable analogy you use.  What's your basis for saying the comparison you make is a valid one, in the face of what the informant has reportedly said?

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

In terms of sharing with Russia  - what's the point?

To remove one very obvious line of defence from them,  and also because to expect anyone to accept being found responsible for supplying and using a weapon without evidence being shown is, shall we say, unreasonable and contrary to normal practice. 

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

. Letting neutral international agency(s) see/test the evidence/samples would be a fair step, though.

It's also the agreed protocol with regard to chemical weapons, I gather.  The UK position is reported as being that this is a permitted but not required step; this seems weak, especially if trying to build consensus and support, if indeed that's the aim.

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

I, like May, can think of only 2 scenarios as to how Russian made nerve agent would be used on a Russian FSB/KGB double agent.

First, you assume it can only be made by Russia, and I'm not clear why, given the above account to the contrary.  Other parties could make it, apparently.

Second, it was reported in the 1990s that weapons including chemical weapons were being smuggled out of Russia (eg see article in the Irish Times from someone who was there at the time, commenting on this).  So that's another possibility.  May's comments are not historical.  She is not saying that one consequence of western destabilisation of the USSR 30 years ago was the loss of control over very dangerous weapons.  She is suggesting that the loss of control is now.  I'm not clear why either she or you would form that conclusion.

Actually, that's not quite right.  I think I know why she's saying it, and it has to do with manoeuvering around Syria, especially building credibility for the fothcoming story about a "chemical weapons attack" in Ghouta, which is being lined up as we speak as a pretext for more aggressive action against Syria, but which may have been delayed by the discovery of a chemical weapons lab run by a Saudi-backed gdoup of terrorists/rebels (select preferred description).

[sharkyvilla]

Would it not be easier to just have put a bullet in his brain than all this chemical weapon carry on?  It seems a very weird way of bumping someone off.

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Would it not be easier to just have put a bullet in his brain than all this chemical weapon carry on?  It seems a very weird way of bumping someone off.

Yes, if your aim is to keep yourself hidden and avoid suspicion falling upon you.

If your aim is to put a big flag on who you are and what you are doing, while still just about retaining enough plausible deniability, it's an ideal way to do it.

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Would it not be easier to just have put a bullet in his brain than all this chemical weapon carry on?  It seems a very weird way of bumping someone off.

Well yes.  It would also have been much easier when he was imprisoned in Russia.  And it wouldn't have meant undermining future possibilities for spy exchanges, which all sides find useful.  And it wouldn't have meant declaring open season on spies, among whom are the people who arranged the exchange, and who have a serious personal interest in preserving protocols about handovers and who is and isn't a legitimate target.

So it seems extremely complicated, and at least partly self-harming if the Russians did it.  The lazy narratives on the lines of "They did him in to warn off others" don't begin to address these things.  And comments on Russian radio about "This is what happens to spies" are perhaps best taken as macho posturing rather than serious  analysis.

It is probably more useful to ask about what he's been doing recently,  Has he upset someone?  Who?  How?  This is where being less accommodating to the Russian mafia and oligarchs might be a good idea, if they are playing out their gang wars in our country.

Possibly more productive than suggesting that the Russian Government has developed a new policy of hunting down people previously thought safe to exchange,  and killing them in exotic ways, inviting several levels of retaliation in the process.

Another line of enquiry is that it's not about him, he's just the vehicle, it's about developing a story about what Russia is up to, and someone else did it as a way to tell a story about Russia.  That might be an interesting idea to explore, as well.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

If he's seen it and it's convincing and he continues to harbour doubt, he will need to say why.  If it's not convincing, the question remains, and May and others will need to explain.

We're saying the same thing on this, with different emphasis, aren't we. I would have expected JC to be complaining like mad if he'd been denied access to the evidence. But he won't have been. That's why his (and worse the spokesperson's "clarification" are so awry).  If he's seen the evidence and said "well, it looks shaky to me, can we get some clarification on [wine analogy] or whatever, then that's one route, but to take the Donald Trump route "Don't believe the FBI/ DSTL as they're rubbish/biased" is ridiculous. This isn't papers about the existence of WMD in Iraq, this is absolute clear evidence of the use of a chemical weapon to top two people. It exists. It's real. The question is only over the origin - scientific dat, if you like, not made up bollex about 48 hours.

Quote

The piece I quoted refers to a Russian defector saying the compound was developed from easily available supplies used in agriculture.  That doesn't at all correspond with the precisely geographically identifiable analogy you use.  What's your basis for saying the comparison you make is a valid one, in the face of what the informant has reportedly said?...

First, you assume it can only be made by Russia, and I'm not clear why, given the above account to the contrary.  Other parties could make it, apparently.

The blog you linked to by the philosopher bloke from Edinburgh Uni asks reasonable questions. The counter points he makes are mixed in their, what's the word? value? (IMO).  i.e. there are doubts Novichok exists because it hasn't been independently verified. That's OK. He can doubt it. 

If it's theoretically possible for anyone to make the stuff in a chemical factory, then all they'd need is the details is the other claim. But he doesn't say that the details as to how to do that are or have been available. He pretty much (by commission) says they aren't - his assertion is if you know about a compound and its' charachterisitc that means you can make novichok - that's a big leap. If there were something more credible, he'd have used it.

Quote

Second, it was reported in the 1990s that weapons including chemical weapons were being smuggled out of Russia (eg see article in the Irish Times from someone who was there at the time, commenting on this).  So that's another possibility.  May's comments are not historical.  She is not saying that one consequence of western destabilisation of the USSR 30 years ago was the loss of control over very dangerous weapons.  She is suggesting that the loss of control is now.  I'm not clear why either she or you would form that conclusion.

Actually, that's not quite right.  I think I know why she's saying it, and it has to do with manoeuvering around Syria, especially building credibility for the fothcoming story about a "chemical weapons attack" in Ghouta, which is being lined up as we speak as a pretext for more aggressive action against Syria, but which may have been delayed by the discovery of a chemical weapons lab run by a Saudi-backed gdoup of terrorists/rebels (select preferred description).

The "Russia lost control over its Chemical weapons is the second explanation of the two. "No it wasn't us, but the big boys stole our nerve gas and ran off".

If you want to say the the west destabilised Russia and that's the reason for all this, well, that's up to you. I think she was suggesting that the second explanation is that at some point that would be the only other explanation. I didn't see that her comment was time based (I could have missed it, if she did).

Yeah, so what's happened is that Vlad Putin, who routinely has his opponents, defectors, Journalists, critics, killed, didn't have a hand in the life ruining attack of the former soviet agent and defector and his daughter. The Russian media saying "ha that's what happens if you betray Russia" all that stuff, right before Putin's re election, sorry open and fair elections in Russia, whose outcome we can't possibly predict, that's all wrong and it's all staged to justify the UK getting tough on Syria.

I can't stand Theresa May, or the Tories, but Putin's Russia is diabolical, has a history of this stuff and as May said, is almost certainly behind this.

 

[mikeyp102]

Anyone watch the Panorama episode tonight about Russia and their politics. Very scary stuff how they were followed about and even arrrested for stuff they had clear evidence they didn’t do.

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

if he'd been denied access to the evidence.

How would he or anyine else know if he had been denied access?  No doubt he had a briefing.  What possible basis could he have for knowing if they had disclosed everything or withheld  crucial infornation?  Possibly a high-ranking whistleblower might have known if he had been duped and might have told him in the interests of truth and justice, but that's pretty unlikely, I think. 

When choosing to brief a member of an opposition party (and your own members), you choose what to brief and how far it goes.  As is commonly remarked, Mrs May is notoriously averse to letting anyone know anything, including her own MPs, her party members, and her Cabinet, so I hold out little hope that she's been open and inclusive with the dangerous commie Czech spy in this.

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

to take the Donald Trump route "Don't believe the FBI/ DSTL as they're rubbish/biased" is ridiculous.

Yes.  But to take the position that they have been demonstrated to have lied to us on matters which caused a million deaths, and therefore we should not simply take on trust their future pronouncements, is not at all ridiculous.

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

there are doubts Novichok exists because it hasn't been independently verified. T

I'll post a separate article on this to avoid confusing what is already a long exchange.

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

The "Russia lost control over its Chemical weapons is the second explanation of the two. "No it wasn't us, but the big boys stole our nerve gas and ran off".

The small boys also stole stuff.  There was a breakdown of control of all sorts of military equipment (it was so well recognised that it was even the theme of a Bond film whose name I forget).  That happened.  And of course others made all sorts of stuff.  We know Israel does, we are told Syria does, we found out Iraq did (and we helped them; as the old joke goes, we  have the receipts).  And lots more.  To suggest that there is a compound which is made from agricultural supplies and yet is so unique in either its components or its process stretches the imagination beyond reason - unless experts can demonstrate, not just assert, a case to the contrary.

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

If you want to say the the west destabilised Russia and that's the reason for all this, well, that's up to you

We and they tried and continue to try to destabilise each other.  Surely that is beyond dispute?

When we achieved a temporary advantage in this, there was a severe disruption to all sorts of things in Russia, affecting lifespan, income distribution, disease, nuclear safety, the balance of power in English football, and all sorts of things.  It has been claimed that control of very dangerous substances was also affected, and that seems plausible to me.

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

. I didn't see that her comment was time based

I think it was very clearly implied, and her comments wouldn't make sense if you thought she was talking about 30 years ago.  Do you not think so?

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

I can't stand Theresa May, or the Tories, but Putin's Russia is diabolical, has a history of this stuff and as May said, is almost certainly behind this.

I feel your argument reverts to "He's a bad 'un, so he done it".  Yes, he is a bad 'un, but he's not exactly unique in the international community in this regard,  and he may or may not have done it.  Let's have a bit more searching inquiry, supported by publicly available evidence.

[peterms]

I found this interesting

Quote

The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam

As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.

    In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry

Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.

The world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:

    [The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)

OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013

Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks” but doubts he succeeded.

Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of “Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.

Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.

Why?

A second part of May’s accusation is that “Novichoks” could only be made in certain military installations. But that is also demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were allegedly designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial chemical facility – that was a major point of them. The only real evidence for the existence of Novichoks was the testimony of the ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually wrote.

    One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.

Vil S. Mirzayanov, “Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider’s View,” in Amy E. Smithson, Dr. Vil S. Mirzayanov, Gen Roland Lajoie, and Michael Krepon, Chemical Weapons Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects, Stimson Report No. 17, October 1995, p. 21.

It is a scientific impossibility for Porton Down to have been able to test for Russian novichoks if they have never possessed a Russian sample to compare them to. They can analyse a sample as conforming to a Mirzayanov formula, but as he published those to the world twenty years ago, that is no proof of Russian origin. If Porton Down can synthesise it, so can many others, not just the Russians.

And finally – Mirzayanov is an Uzbek name and the novichok programme, assuming it existed, was in the Soviet Union but far away from modern Russia, at Nukus in modern Uzbekistan. I have visited the Nukus chemical weapons site myself. It was dismantled and made safe and all the stocks destroyed and the equipment removed by the American government, as I recall finishing while I was Ambassador there. There has in fact never been any evidence that any “novichok” ever existed in Russia itself.

To summarise:

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
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.

With a great many thanks to sources who cannot be named at this moment.