Russian aggression - what to do?

[rendelharris]

"While I respect Hersch, that?s an article from RT, and thus pretty suspect. I might try and track down the original broadcast."

Here you go, I only quoted the RT as it saved me having to go back and listen again for the quotes!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b7d131

[Jenny1]

rendelharris Wrote:

----------------------------------------

>

> And yet somehow they managed to administer an

> airborne nerve agent in such a way as it only

> affected three people, in a crowded urban area,

> until three months later when it suddenly affects

> two more?

There were other people in the area who suffered mercifully minor ill effects after the assassination attempt on the Skripals. That the Skripals and the police officer who came to their aid were most seriously affected simply shows that whoever administered the stuff knew what they were doing. It wouldn't be the first time Novichok has been used in this way. As rahrahrah says there was a concerted effort to clean up the area afterwards and the public were warned of the risks. It's not hard to imagine that a trace remained somewhere and has led to further damage.

[malumbu]

A mate worked with the British Transport Police and used to go to England away matches to help with the policing. He was dreading the 2008 Champions League Final in Moscow. There had been serious bother the year before when England fans had been attacked around the international game.

He was beaming ear to ear after the Chels/Manu match - the authorities couldn't have been any nicer. He went in uniform and said it was hilarious as groups of English supporters would hang around him for protection. Only bother was in the pubs around the Kings Road after the JT penalty miss

[rendelharris]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> ----------------------------------------

> >

> > And yet somehow they managed to administer an

> > airborne nerve agent in such a way as it only

> > affected three people, in a crowded urban area,

> > until three months later when it suddenly

> affects

> > two more?

>

> There were other people in the area who suffered

> mercifully minor ill effects after the

> assassination attempt on the Skripals. That the

> Skripals and the police officer who came to their

> aid were most seriously affected simply shows that

> whoever administered the stuff knew what they were

> doing. It wouldn't be the first time Novichok has

> been used in this way. As rahrahrah says there was

> a concerted effort to clean up the area afterwards

> and the public were warned of the risks. It's not

> hard to imagine that a trace remained somewhere

> and has led to further damage.

According to the current police theory, it was smeared on the Skripal's front door. According to https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent it acts within thirty seconds to three minutes of contact. So the Skripals got it off their front door, then went out for lunch, not affecting anyone in the restaurant or any of the other areas they visited, then both collapsed at exactly the same time and whatever residue they had on their clothing etc instantly affected the police officer who came to their aid? Incidentally, a Russian scientest exposed to a trace residue in a lab suffered "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work. He never recovered and, after five years of deteriorating health, died in July 1992." And yet the Skripals, or at least the daughter, appear to have made a full recovery, something seemingly unheard of in the case of this nerve agent? Something dreadful happened, it may have been done by the Russian government or Russian criminals, but the official explanations thus far seem full of contradicitons and circumstances/coincidences that range from unlikely to close to impossible. It certainly does not appear "pretty straightforward" to me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So those who think that the attack didn't happen with the approval or sanction of the Russian state - who do you think was behind the use of this high grade chemical weapon?

[Jenny1]

Sorry Rendel. I don't see the inconsistencies you do here. I would imagine the Russian scientist exposed to trace elements was not treated as quickly or effectively as the Skripals.

[JohnL]

I still think Russia - but every time I see the map with Porton Down right up close, I wonder if there's a rogue employee or rogue group involved, it just seems so close (but maybe Russia planned it that way).

Maybe even Prince Charles was the target this time (I note his visit was a week before)

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think we should apply Occam's razor personally.

[rendelharris]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So those who think that the attack didn't happen

> with the approval or sanction of the Russian state

> - who do you think was behind the use of this high

> grade chemical weapon?

As noted above, many sources have alleged that since coming to the UK Skirpal has been involved in a highly murky world of Russian oligarchs and criminals (the two often being interchangeable); Russia is highly corrupt and many of its institutions are highly insecure, it's not beyond the bounds of imagination that a criminal entity could obtain nerve agent for its own purposes (and it has been synthesized in other countries, notably Czechoslovakia and Iran).

Return to first principles and ask why Russia did do it? Skirpal had been tried and convicted (correctly) of being a British double agent. He served a prison sentence for it, during which he could have been killed at any time without the world blinking an eyelid. Instead he was exchanged in a spy swap with the UK and lived in the UK, then the Russian state decided to murder him?

Putin/Russia are murderous bastards, they definitely do have people murdered - Litvinenko being a case in point - but there isn't, as far as I know, a single instance of a spy being convicted, serving a sentence in Russia, being released on a spy swap, then murdered. It's perfectly possible it was the Russian state, but it seems far more likely to me to be either rogue elements within Russian security services (even our own security services have not been averse to taking what they deem "necessary" action without official sanction) or criminal activity.

[rendelharris]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we should apply Occam's razor personally.

I can't think of any situation where that principle, "the simplest solution tends to be the correct one", is less applicable than the opaque and highly complex world of international espionage.

[malumbu]

My word - this is like the Communist Party of Great Britain being apologists for Stalin and then in denial about the purges in the 50s. Concentrate your efforts on who shot JFK and who was behind it. Or mine the deeper vein of rendition.

[rendelharris]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My word - this is like the Communist Party of

> Great Britain being apologists for Stalin and then

> in denial about the purges in the 50s.

> Concentrate your efforts on who shot JFK and who

> was behind it. Or mine the deeper vein of

> rendition.

I do apologise for not always taking UKGov's word as gospel and for at least considering alternative explanations. Is that what we're reduced to now, accept the official line or be labelled a conspiracy theorist?

[JohnL]

Even if it is Putin the whole story will probably be under wraps for 100 years.

[diable rouge]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Return to first principles and ask why Russia did

> do it? Skirpal had been tried and convicted

> (correctly) of being a British double agent. He

> served a prison sentence for it, during which he

> could have been killed at any time without the

> world blinking an eyelid. Instead he was

> exchanged in a spy swap with the UK and lived in

> the UK, then the Russian state decided to murder

> him?

You've answered your own question. He was more valuable to the Russians alive than dead i.e. a future spy swap. Had they killed him earlier they would've gained nothing, but by keeping him alive they at least get some of their spies back. This is long-term standard espionage trading-off, swap a 'traitor' for a 'hero'. Once exchanged, then he can be bumped off, a warning to others not to consider becoming double agents...

[rendelharris]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Return to first principles and ask why Russia

> did

> > do it? Skirpal had been tried and convicted

> > (correctly) of being a British double agent.

> He

> > served a prison sentence for it, during which

> he

> > could have been killed at any time without the

> > world blinking an eyelid. Instead he was

> > exchanged in a spy swap with the UK and lived

> in

> > the UK, then the Russian state decided to

> murder

> > him?

>

> You've answered your own question. He was more

> valuable to the Russians alive than dead i.e. a

> future spy swap. Had they killed him earlier they

> would've gained nothing, but by keeping him alive

> they at least get some of their spies back. This

> is long-term standard espionage trading-off, swap

> a 'traitor' for a 'hero'. Once exchanged, then he

> can be bumped off, a warning to others not to

> consider becoming double agents...

Never been done before, as far as I know, and I recall former Russian agents at the time were saying it's just not the way it's done, Putin only goes after those who've not been legally punished in Russia. Apart from anything else, it surely ruins the possibility of future swaps - Britain would be damned fools to agree to any more if this is what's going to happen, wouldn't they?

[diable rouge]

Well you wouldn't know would you, it would sort of go against the whole ethos of espionage if the public knew everything. There are a number of unexplained deaths of Russians in the UK, who might or might not have been spies. We'll probably never know.

Maybe you should apply your own 'return to first principles' and ask yourself why would a Russian mafia type go to such extraordinary lengths to use an expensive and deadly nerve agent, with all the expertise needed in procuring it, transporting it, and finally administering it, all at great risk to their own lives, when a simple bullet to the head in typical mafia stylee would suffice?...

[rendelharris]

So it might have happened but we don't know but let's assume it has as it fits a simple blame narrative. Look, we're all going round and round in circles, none of us has access to information that proves things one way or the other, so it's a bit pointless. All I will say is that nations have gone to war on flimsier pretexts than this, it doesn't do any harm to question the official line, be it from our own government, the Russians, the USA or anyone else.

[flocker spotter]

there are plenty of ways to remove someone from the scene. This was not espionage. Things have changed in that field beyond all recognition in the past 2 decades. Smiley is dead and buried.

This was theatre with a global audience. Mao may have been 80/20 but was 100 on this one.

think.

[Alan Medic]

Just curious if anyone has read this book or follows JJ Patrick on twitter?

http://greyharemedia.com/alternative-war-j-j-patrick-review/

[Earl Aelfheah]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think we should apply Occam's razor

> personally.

>

> I can't think of any situation where that

> principle, "the simplest solution tends to be the

> correct one", is less applicable than the opaque

> and highly complex world of international

> espionage.

That's not the principle though. It's more "the scenario, supported by the available information, with the least moving parts", or rather "one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions". In this case, the available evidence (limited as it is), suggests the likely involvement of the Russian government. All other scenarios require additional, unsupported assumptions (making them increasingly speculative).

[diable rouge]

"The greatest threat to humanity is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking...

[rendelharris]

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Albert Einstein

[diable rouge]

True, nothing wrong with doubting authority etc, it's to be encouraged, but supplanting it with conspiratorial whataboutery kinda undermines it...

[malumbu]

Not read the theories on why it wasn't the ruskies in detail. Basing my views on a reasonable understanding of the evidence and reports of the OPCW. Perhaps better having a look at the game the Russian authorities are playing. Not exactly a blinder, and main tactic is to ridicule the West and confuse the issue.

We are in a half reasonable (well probably a pretty good) democracy with the institutions and processes to challenge our own domestic and international affairs. So why would the UK mislead for political gain? Now it took many years to uncover the truth on rendition and whilst torture is evil you can argue that we were a US lap dog and/or had our own 'operatives' to protect. Not in my view valid, but others could argue the case.

I don't see any sign of closeness to American foreign policy as this is no longer evidence based and changes with the whim of the president. So that doesn't appear to be the reason for any sort of cover up/conspiracy in Salisbury.

Five people have been seriously ill. A chemical attack on a sovereign state. Compare that with 100s more dying and suffering from chemical attacks in Syria, for their own regime propped up by the might of Russia. And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44723087

[flocker spotter]

It was the russians, this is not really moot, despite the dots being joined by conspiracists.Its a message, delivered by the means of grim performance art. it isnt a messsage directly however to the UKG, this is a secondary issue- it is also message for the home audience about betrayal and reach. It is directly aimed to the Russian expat community here- those that still have favour and hold Vlad the poisoners assets. His wealth is loosely estimated to be hundred of billions, none of it in his own name.

Its a crass slavic re-enactment of the horse head in the bed scene if would wanted to express it in digestable popular culture terms. things are are rarely as complex as they may look.