Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[Buce]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

If he was worried about damaging foreign relations he wouldn't have invaded Crimea tbf.

 

That's a different scenario, though.

 

He may have considered the gains to be worth it in that case, whereas I just don't see that sending a message to potential traitors is.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

That doesn't explain why Putin would consider it worth damaging Russia's foreign relations so badly to send such a message.

 

Putin is anything but stupid.

 

I take your point, particularly the last one - he's ruthless, brutal but far from stupid.

 

Part of the reason might be a rational calculation by Putin that it wouldn't do much damage to foreign relations. After all, he'd got away with having Litvinenko killed, invading Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, kidnapping an Estonian guard and engaging in military action in Syria.....all with only minor consequences, a few sanctions and rhetorical speeches, little more. He's clearly someone who pushes things as far as he can. Based on the muted response from the West to previous outrages, maybe his rational assessment was that a hit on Skripal would also just produce a few sanctions and tellings-off, well worth taking to warn his agents of the long arm of Russia?

[Beechey]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's my guess, too.

 

Doesn't make much sense otherwise. If they'd cared that much about killing Skripal, they could have done it while they had him imprisoned in Russia - and would surely have been capable of arranging a more efficient hit in Salisbury, if they'd suddenly thought that necessary?

 

Unless you get into the realms of conspiracy theories and imagine that the UK or US might have done it to incriminate Russia (why?!), then the only alternative seems to be some powerful non-state player in Russia.

But would they have been able to acquire the nerve agent, to take it to the UK and to use it? And if they had, couldn't Putin have got them to take the rap for it?

 

"Pour encourager les autres" (a subtle reminder to serving Russian agents of the long arm of the Russian state) seems a likely motive. 

There's no alternate explanation that makes sense. As a tool of assassination, there are many better options, but as a tool of fear, I'd argue that it's up there with Polonium now. If he'd died in prison under weird circumstances, it would basically be impossible to discredit government action, however since he's died here and we obviously can't say "this chemical 100% came from this lab in Russia" they have a very slim case of plausible deniability, which they are playing out repeatedly on their media, blaming other countries, the UK, US, saying he got food poisoning etc. If they really did nothing, they'd have no reason to attempt to discredit the UK's story about nerve agent poisoning so much.

 

The other thing is that the Foreign Office directly asked Russia if this could have been an attack from a part of the government not authorised to take such actions, and they refused to answer. No matter which of the reasons it took place, it doesn't shine well on Russia, simply because of the frustration and confusion they've been trying to cause around the world about the story.

 

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

That doesn't explain why Putin would consider it worth damaging Russia's foreign relations so badly to send such a message.

 

Putin is anything but stupid.

I'm not sure Putin cares about relations with the West. Otherwise why kill Litvinenko, why invade Georgia, why annex Crimea, why then invade Eastern Ukraine? Russian politics works on strong-arm leaders, he has to appear strong, and making it seem as though it's Russia vs the mighty West, he does that.

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your point, particularly the last one - he's ruthless, brutal but far from stupid.

 

Part of the reason might be a rational calculation by Putin that it wouldn't do much damage to foreign relations. After all, he'd got away with having Litvinenko killed, invading Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, kidnapping an Estonian guard and engaging in military action in Syria.....all with only minor consequences, a few sanctions and rhetorical speeches, little more. He's clearly someone who pushes things as far as he can. Based on the muted response from the West to previous outrages, maybe his rational assessment was that a hit on Skripal would also just produce a few sanctions and tellings-off, well worth taking to warn his agents of the long arm of Russia?

Thats it in a nutshell ....     always keep pushing the boundaries ..  test reactions ...   look for weakness.  Destabilise and get back what was lost when the USSR was split up.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

There's no alternate explanation that makes sense. As a tool of assassination, there are many better options, but as a tool of fear, I'd argue that it's up there with Polonium now. If he'd died in prison under weird circumstances, it would basically be impossible to discredit government action, however since he's died here and we obviously can't say "this chemical 100% came from this lab in Russia" they have a very slim case of plausible deniability, which they are playing out repeatedly on their media, blaming other countries, the UK, US, saying he got food poisoning etc. If they really did nothing, they'd have no reason to attempt to discredit the UK's story about nerve agent poisoning so much.

 

The other thing is that the Foreign Office directly asked Russia if this could have been an attack from a part of the government not authorised to take such actions, and they refused to answer. No matter which of the reasons it took place, it doesn't shine well on Russia, simply because of the frustration and confusion they've been trying to cause around the world about the story.

 

I'm not sure Putin cares about relations with the West. Otherwise why kill Litvinenko, why invade Georgia, why annex Crimea, why then invade Eastern Ukraine? Russian politics works on strong-arm leaders, he has to appear strong, and making it seem as though it's Russia vs the mighty West, he does that.

3

 

Same answer as I gave Carl - greater gains making it worthwhile.

 

And as for sending a message to would-be traitors - hadn't that message been sent already by assassinating Litvinenko?

 

[leicsmac]

Gonna get splinters from the fence I'm sitting on but again there's something in both arguments here.

 

The balance of probability is that Russia did attempt to assassinate this guy given the independent analysis of the agent and no compelling evidence to the contrary - Occam's Razor simply leads there. And it's hardly out of character for Russia to flex its muscles in this way, as Beechey said.

 

However, there are still a lot of questions regarding rationale. Assuming Putin knows what he is doing and is not simply getting up one morning and deciding to pick a guy to have offed from a list that he has pinned to his bedroom wall - why off this guy in particular and not some other traitor? Why do it now? Why do it at all when the Litvinenko example is still reasonably fresh in the mind? Why do it in such a fashion? What in particular is there to gain?

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions and as such no proper reason for the juice being worth the squeeze in this case, as Buce said.

 

TBH that says to me that there's something else at work here that the public doesn't really know about.

[Beechey]

Previously classified intelligence about poisoning of former Russian spy sent to Nato

 

Russia had tested whether door handles could be used to deliver nerve agents and had targeted the email accounts of Sergei and Yulia Skripal since at least 2013, according to previously classified intelligence over the Salisbury attack that has been made public.

 

The door handle and email claims were made in a letter from Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK’s national security adviser, to the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg. It is extremely rare for the UK to make such intelligence public.

 

In the letter, Sedwill, who has an overview of the work of all British spy services, filled in some of the intelligence that Theresa May referred to when she made a House of Commons statement saying Russia was highly likely to have been behind the attack.

 

He said the nerve agent novichok had been developed at the Russian research facility in Shikhany as part of an offensive chemical weapons programme with the codename Foliant.

 

Sedwill said Russia regarded at least some of its defectors as “legitimate targets for assassination”, with the suggestion that they could include Skripal, a former member of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, who was convicted by Russia of espionage in 2004 after working for MI6.

 

“We have information indicating Russian intelligence service interest in the Skripals, dating back at least as far as 2013, when email accounts belonging to Yulia Skripal were targeted by GRU cyber specialists,” Sedwill wrote.

 

He also said: “During the 2000s, Russia commenced a programme to test means of delivering chemical warfare agents and to train personnel from special units in the use of these weapons. This programme subsequently included investigation of ways of delivering nerve agents, including by application to door handles. Within the last decade, Russia has produced and stockpiled small quantities of novichoks under the same programme.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/13/russia-tested-nerve-agent-on-door-handles-before-skripal-attack-uk-dossier-claims

[breadandcheese]

If Russia didn't have a hand in this, why are they acting so shady? Every press conference and statement is about muddying the waters, rather than showing innocence.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

If Russia didn't have a hand in this, why are they acting so shady? Every press conference and statement is about muddying the waters, rather than showing innocence.

As per above, it's likely they did but there's still a whole bevy of questions as to exactly why him and why now.

 

So what's going on?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Even if it was Russia, there’s questions to be asked of the UK government and security services - such as how has it allowed an agent to infiltrate and attack agents (albeit retired ones) on home soil?

 

They may not be primary assets in terms of protection, but how has an outside source managed to get a nerve agent into the country undetected and go about executing this attack, given I would assume these retired agents whereabouts would have been concealed to a degree? 

 

In terms of the Crimea annexation, my understanding it’s warm sea port is of major geographical strategic importance to Russia (other ports are cold sea / frozen over at points in the year).

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Even if it was Russia, there’s questions to be asked of the UK government and security services - such as how has it allowed an agent to infiltrate and attack agents (albeit retired ones) on home soil?

 

They may not be primary assets in terms of protection, but how has an outside source managed to get a nerve agent into the country undetected and go about executing this attack, given I would assume these retired agents whereabouts would have been concealed to a degree? 

 

In terms of the Crimea annexation, my understanding it’s warm sea port is of major geographical strategic importance to Russia (other ports are cold sea / frozen over at points in the year).

Sevastopol is why Crimea was annexed, yes. Ukraine was turning away from Russia and so their lease on the port was at risk.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Even if it was Russia, there’s questions to be asked of the UK government and security services - such as how has it allowed an agent to infiltrate and attack agents (albeit retired ones) on home soil?

 

They may not be primary assets in terms of protection, but how has an outside source managed to get a nerve agent into the country undetected and go about executing this attack, given I would assume these retired agents whereabouts would have been concealed to a degree? 

 

In terms of the Crimea annexation, my understanding it’s warm sea port is of major geographical strategic importance to Russia (other ports are cold sea / frozen over at points in the year).

It was probably brought in a diplomatic package, meaning it couldn't be checked. It makes it even more likely it was done by a state.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It was probably brought in a diplomatic package, meaning it couldn't be checked. It makes it even more likely it was done by a state.

You'd have thought there would be some kind of rules regarding diplomatic packages tbh other than countries trusting each other not to ferry dangerous stuff in them.

 

I mean, yeah, I get it - diplomatic immunity is a key part of international relations and so communications between a country and its diplomatic staff in another country have to be as sacrosanct as possible but isn't there a pretty big loophole here?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

You'd have thought there would be some kind of rules regarding diplomatic packages tbh other than countries trusting each other not to ferry dangerous stuff in them.

 

I mean, yeah, I get it - diplomatic immunity is a key part of international relations and so communications between a country and its diplomatic staff in another country have to be as sacrosanct as possible but isn't there a pretty big loophole here?

I'm sure there are rules but it was to be done on trust. We don't want foreign govts studying our secret diplomatic communications with our embassies. It's a necessary rule.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You'd have thought there would be some kind of rules regarding diplomatic packages tbh other than countries trusting each other not to ferry dangerous stuff in them.

 

I mean, yeah, I get it - diplomatic immunity is a key part of international relations and so communications between a country and its diplomatic staff in another country have to be as sacrosanct as possible but isn't there a pretty big loophole here?

 

There are many tons of illegal drugs entering the country every year by a variety of means - getting a few grams of something through would be child's play.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sure there are rules but it was to be done on trust. We don't want foreign govts studying our secret diplomatic communications with our embassies. It's a necessary rule.

Yeah, on the balance of it, of course, having such diplomatic regs is essential - but as long as that exists you're going to have the risk that some countries aren't going to play ball. But that goes with the territory.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

There are many tons of illegal drugs entering the country every year by a variety of means - getting a few grams of something through would be child's play.

Actually remember listening to an episode of This American Life a while back concerning smuggling, and you're right - there's not nearly enough staff or resources to cover everything that comes in or out of a nation like the US, and I can imagine that's the same everywhere.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Actually remember listening to an episode of This American Life a while back concerning smuggling, and you're right - there's not nearly enough staff or resources to cover everything that comes in or out of a nation like the US, and I can imagine that's the same everywhere.

 

I know someone who drives a transit van full of illicit tobacco (and other smokables ) through UK customs every fortnight. It's as simple as that.

[Beechey]

24 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I know someone who drives a transit van full of illicit tobacco (and other smokables ) through UK customs every fortnight. It's as simple as that.

Yeah I've heard the same, it's just not feasible to search every incoming vehicle, ship or aircraft.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Yeah I've heard the same, it's just not feasible to search every incoming vehicle, ship or aircraft.

 

To be honest, it's farcical.

 

I caught a ferry back from Spain last year and there was literally nobody manning UK customs at all.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Have Russia just claimed Britain did it... after initially suggesting no such attack happened? 

 

Someone’s dropped the ball there! 

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Have Russia just claimed Britain did it... after initially suggesting no such attack happened? 

 

Someone’s dropped the ball there! 

Sure did. But nobody in Russia will be told about it...

[Beechey]

 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Have Russia just claimed Britain did it... after initially suggesting no such attack happened? 

 

Someone’s dropped the ball there! 

 

 

Similar to the chemical attack in Syria... First it didn't happen and now a 'certain country'  set it all up....

 

 

 

The reality is that not all the information government agencies have on an  attack like this will be released to the public... that will help people to be suspicious as to Russian involvement...

[MPH]

I will add though.... im not saying we would stoop to the same level.... but people should not be surprised that there are covert operations happening on British soil.... You can't honestly think we don't have intel staff 'up to no good'  in probably every nuclear power on the planet, can you?

 

 

 

In fact, wasn't it Russia that some British spies were found to be transmitting information through a fake rock a few years back?