I'm on my phone so I won't quote your post but I agree with most of your points iron captain.

The thing that most obviously points to Russia for me is one of motive and historics (though I'm sure there are much more undeniable proofs that we'll never see in our lifetimes). The Russian state has acted this way before and they have the most to gain from killings Skirpal.

since [Russia] no longer make chemical weapons

I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

But why not kill Skirpal in prison when nobody would have gave a damn?

I discussed this with a friend a few months back, and he made the point that Skirpal was kept alive for a future spy swap, and once that had been done, then it's possible that Putin made an example of him.


It's a strong possiblity, logical, and although I disagree with it, it's possible.

None the less, let's say for arguments sake that Putin wanted Skirpal dead, but kept him alive for a spy swop first, then death comes later.

Why go to all this elaborate charade with chemical weapons? A silenced gun could have done the job and they are easy to smuggle in through the diplomatic bag due to their small size.

Or an untraceable common kitchen knife could have been purchased from any one of hundreds of shops in the UK that sell these things, and the knife would have been easy to dispose off...

It's all very strange, becuase I've read enough spy books in my time to know that chemical weapons hurting civilians goes against the 'rules' of the great game.

If Skirpal had been found dead in a park at 3am with a bread knife between the shoulder blades, there would not have been half the fuss there is...

Why do things the hard way when the easy solution was always there?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But why not kill Skirpal in prison when nobody would have gave a damn?

I discussed this with a friend a few months back, and he made the point that Skirpal was kept alive for a future spy swap, and once that had been done, then it's possible that Putin made an example of him.


It's a strong possiblity, logical, and although I disagree with it, it's possible.

None the less, let's say for arguments sake that Putin wanted Skirpal dead, but kept him alive for a spy swop first, then death comes later.

Why go to all this elaborate charade with chemical weapons? A silenced gun could have done the job and they are easy to smuggle in through the diplomatic bag due to their small size.

Or an untraceable common kitchen knife could have been purchased from any one of hundreds of shops in the UK that sell these things, and the knife would have been easy to dispose off...

It's all very strange, becuase I've read enough spy books in my time to know that chemical weapons hurting civilians goes against the 'rules' of the great game.

If Skirpal had been found dead in a park at 3am with a bread knife between the shoulder blades, there would not have been half the fuss there is...

Why do things the hard way when the easy solution was always there?

To flex your international diplomatic muscles? To show the rest of the World that you have the capabilities to produce a nerve agent such as Novichok? Perhaps just because you're an psychotic dictator who gives 0 fs?

I don't think Putin is a psychopath.

He's a sinister tyrant, and I'm under no illusions that he'd happily bump people off who cross him, and has undoubtedly done so before,

but having read one or two books about him, there's a logic and rational there going on there...

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

Syria, a key Russian ally needs help, Putin intervenes.

That is a rational I can get, even though I don't support it...

And Europe's taken an anti-Russian turn in response to those actions, so that requires some show of force to keep them thinking any serious reprehending isn't going to be healthy. A display that they've meddled in foreign affairs before, and can keep doing so if Russia continues to be "threatened".

If people on this thread seriously believe the British government is assassinating it's own citizens to distract from Brexit or whatever else, they should be getting the hell out of Britain.

 Da Boss wrote:
If people on this thread seriously believe the British government is assassinating it's own citizens to distract from Brexit or whatever else, they should be getting the hell out of Britain.

A rule of thumb should be if your argument on this or similar cases has at some time been proposed by Russia Today (which that Brexit one was, repeatedly), its bunk.

StopFake has an article out on this latest attack covering Russian news and government sources reporting of it. Its almost like they're all following a script with how by the numbers they're responses have been so far ("Everyone's stupid. We're so great. Quit blaming poor Russia! ").

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think Putin is a psychopath.

He's a sinister tyrant, and I'm under no illusions that he'd happily bump people off who cross him, and has undoubtedly done so before,

but having read one or two books about him, there's a logic and rational there going on there...

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

Syria, a key Russian ally needs help, Putin intervenes.

That is a rational I can get, even though I don't support it...

Putin needs to drum up nationalist sentiment in order to preserve his power. "Enemies" die.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
It could be a continued "feth you" on the behalf of the Russians to the British government, as a way of showing their capabilities and to muddy the waters over the value of the targets in the previous attack (i.e. they're all just random contamination/ attacks, not a targeted one against a former spy). Its World Cup season, which is typically when Russia's pulling stunts like this to drum up Nationalist support.

Oh really? You might want to produce some citations for this theory of yours that Russia typically starts attacking random people during World Cups. It certainly is one of the wackiest things I have heard this month.
If anything, Russia is less likely to do anything while the World Cup is going on. This is a brilliant chance to brush up their image. They are not going to pass up on that by attacking random drug addicts in the UK... Oh God, it sounds more silly every time I say it. Skripal was almost certainly Russia. But this is almost just as certainly not. At least not deliberately. Russia is still likely responsible for this, but it was almost certainly not intended.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Youknow, meanwhile in Ukraine Russia's just moved into the Azov Sea and is busy detaining Ukrainian shipping. ...Not that anyone's paying attention, or wanting to make a fuss while they're hosting the World Cup.

The world media stopped caring about the Ukrainian conflict years ago already.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

since [Russia] no longer make chemical weapons

I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

The OPCW has overseen the whole decommissioning. If they say there are no more chemical weapons in Russia then I believe them. There is virtually no country in the world that still makes chemical weapons. A lot of countries still have old stockpiles, but production has become very uncommon.

 Da Boss wrote:
If people on this thread seriously believe the British government is assassinating it's own citizens to distract from Brexit or whatever else, they should be getting the hell out of Britain.

I don't believe they have, but that doesn't mean they haven't done dodgy stuff in the recent past.

Jack Straw was up to his neck with British collusion to torture.

And you know as well as I do that all sorts of bad things happened in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s and the UK government was involved.


Now, let's not go there and derail the topic, but I make that point to illustrate that the UK government is not whiter than white.


After the Iraq debacle, it's just hard to give them the benefit of the doubt these days.

It does seem pretty strange to have an attack during the World Cup, and it also seems extremely bizarre that two random people would be the target. I think accidental death is more likely than anything intentional. But I suspect the accidental death is somehow linked to the original incident, and therefore the blame still lies with Russia.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think Putin is a psychopath.

He's a sinister tyrant, and I'm under no illusions that he'd happily bump people off who cross him, and has undoubtedly done so before,

but having read one or two books about him, there's a logic and rational there going on there...

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

Syria, a key Russian ally needs help, Putin intervenes.

That is a rational I can get, even though I don't support it...

Putin needs to drum up nationalist sentiment in order to preserve his power. "Enemies" die.

The World Cup has been a PR triumph for Putin and the Russians have obviously gotten behind their team.

At this moment in time, I don't think he needs to drum up anything.

If the Russians are going to invade someone else any time soon they'll need Nationalist support to back that. Or well, rather than invading a new country they could just flex their muscles in one they're already at war with.

There's been build up of troops in the DNR and LNR, an increase in artillery strikes in East Ukraine, as with the Russians moving to annex the Azov Sea in the past few days. Moldova's also been looking for allies (Russia having supported separatists in the East of the country). Probably separate from what's going on in Britain, but if we're talking about why Moscow would want to a rise in Nationalism a military push could be a reason.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
If the Russians are going to invade someone else any time soon they'll need Nationalist support to back that. Or well, rather than invading a new country they could just flex their muscles in one they're already at war with.

There's been build up of troops in the DNR and LNR, an increase in artillery strikes in East Ukraine, as with the Russians moving to annex the Azov Sea in the past few days. Moldova's also been looking for allies (Russia having supported separatists in the East of the country). Probably separate from what's going on in Britain, but if we're talking about why Moscow would want to a rise in Nationalism a military push could be a reason.

You are missing one essential element in your theory. Why?
Why would Russia want to invade a country? Russia has invaded countries in 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Ukraine), both with clear reasons, motives and an event that spurred them into action. All of that is lacking now. Russia doesn't invade countries just because it can. Russia does not want war. Russia only goes to war when its interests are directly threatened. Which is not happening right now. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are all frozen conflicts, which is exactly what Russia wants to see. There is no motive for Russia to do anything except sit back and watch.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think Putin is a psychopath.

He's a sinister tyrant, and I'm under no illusions that he'd happily bump people off who cross him, and has undoubtedly done so before,

but having read one or two books about him, there's a logic and rational there going on there...

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

Syria, a key Russian ally needs help, Putin intervenes.

That is a rational I can get, even though I don't support it...

You need to check your definitions of psychopaths, you are mixing up sociopaths I think. Psychopaths are cold, logical and rational. It is sociopaths that tend to act rashly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
If the Russians are going to invade someone else any time soon they'll need Nationalist support to back that. Or well, rather than invading a new country they could just flex their muscles in one they're already at war with.

There's been build up of troops in the DNR and LNR, an increase in artillery strikes in East Ukraine, as with the Russians moving to annex the Azov Sea in the past few days. Moldova's also been looking for allies (Russia having supported separatists in the East of the country). Probably separate from what's going on in Britain, but if we're talking about why Moscow would want to a rise in Nationalism a military push could be a reason.

You are missing one essential element in your theory. Why?
Why would Russia want to invade a country? Russia has invaded countries in 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Ukraine), both with clear reasons, motives and an event that spurred them into action. All of that is lacking now. Russia doesn't invade countries just because it can. Russia does not want war. Russia only goes to war when its interests are directly threatened. Which is not happening right now. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are all frozen conflicts, which is exactly what Russia wants to see. There is no motive for Russia to do anything except sit back and watch.

That's easy - military control. I would not be surprised if Russia has aspirations to control all of the north of the Black Sea if it can. That would give it a huge strategic advantage in terms of navy access and defensibility. Drop a huge naval base in the Azores sea and with the pinch points it's nigh impregnable except at great cost. Control/scare Georgia around to Moldova and it gets even worse. Support an increasingly dictatorial and anti western Turkish president and all of a sudden the Black Sea is a no go zone except the far western side which borders Eastern Europe. Do it small step at a time, with no action being great enough to cause an escalation. Whilst destabilising the western countries through political infighting like Wrexit and trump (who is likely compromised in some way)

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
If the Russians are going to invade someone else any time soon they'll need Nationalist support to back that. Or well, rather than invading a new country they could just flex their muscles in one they're already at war with.

There's been build up of troops in the DNR and LNR, an increase in artillery strikes in East Ukraine, as with the Russians moving to annex the Azov Sea in the past few days. Moldova's also been looking for allies (Russia having supported separatists in the East of the country). Probably separate from what's going on in Britain, but if we're talking about why Moscow would want to a rise in Nationalism a military push could be a reason.

You are missing one essential element in your theory. Why?
Why would Russia want to invade a country? Russia has invaded countries in 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Ukraine), both with clear reasons, motives and an event that spurred them into action. All of that is lacking now. Russia doesn't invade countries just because it can. Russia does not want war. Russia only goes to war when its interests are directly threatened. Which is not happening right now. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are all frozen conflicts, which is exactly what Russia wants to see. There is no motive for Russia to do anything except sit back and watch.

That's easy - military control. I would not be surprised if Russia has aspirations to control all of the north of the Black Sea if it can. That would give it a huge strategic advantage in terms of navy access and defensibility. Drop a huge naval base in the Azores sea and with the pinch points it's nigh impregnable except at great cost. Control/scare Georgia around to Moldova and it gets even worse. Support an increasingly dictatorial and anti western Turkish president and all of a sudden the Black Sea is a no go zone except the far western side which borders Eastern Europe. Do it small step at a time, with no action being great enough to cause an escalation. Whilst destabilising the western countries through political infighting like Wrexit and trump (who is likely compromised in some way)

Russia controls Crimea and its naval bases. The Crimea is a large peninsula that juts out into the Black Sea to almost the length of the sea. That means that Russia, from its bases on the Crimea, already controls the entire north of the Black Sea region. Seizing the rest of the coast has little additional strategic benefits. The Sea of Azov has no strategic value of all. They call it a sea, but it is really just a big, shallow puddle. Not deep enough for warships. Besides, now that Russia controls the Crimea, it already controls access into the Sea of Azov. To the west meanwhile, the coast curls upwards towards Odessa in a big gulf, while the Crimea has a big arm jutting out to the West as well. This means that access into that area can be controlled from the Crimea as well.

What you are proposing would involve a lot of costs and risks for virtually no strategic benefit. There is also no direct reason. Russia doesn't attack just because it wants to improve its strategic situation. It attacks in response to events that it considers threatening. The 2008 intervention in Georgia and the 2014 re-annexation of Crimea show that very well. Unless the situation in Ukraine changes, the area will stay quiet. Well, quiet except for the civil war in Ukraine thing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


It is worth pointing out that he did not build a working reactor. He never reached critical mass of radioactive material but he did manage to expose himself to high levels of radiation, to the point that he tried to dismantle it before getting caught.

University of Chicago students Justin Kasper and Fred Niell pulled it off as well, though they only produced trace amounts of plutonium, as part of the University's scavenger hunt one year.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Russia controls Crimea and its naval bases. The Crimea is a large peninsula that juts out into the Black Sea to almost the length of the sea. That means that Russia, from its bases on the Crimea, already controls the entire north of the Black Sea region. Seizing the rest of the coast has little additional strategic benefits. The Sea of Azov has no strategic value of all. They call it a sea, but it is really just a big, shallow puddle. Not deep enough for warships. Besides, now that Russia controls the Crimea, it already controls access into the Sea of Azov. To the west meanwhile, the coast curls upwards towards Odessa in a big gulf, while the Crimea has a big arm jutting out to the West as well. This means that access into that area can be controlled from the Crimea as well.

What you are proposing would involve a lot of costs and risks for virtually no strategic benefit. There is also no direct reason. Russia doesn't attack just because it wants to improve its strategic situation. It attacks in response to events that it considers threatening. The 2008 intervention in Georgia and the 2014 re-annexation of Crimea show that very well. Unless the situation in Ukraine changes, the area will stay quiet. Well, quiet except for the civil war in Ukraine thing.

It doesn't control the sections where it can be watched from the ground what it is doing. There's no doubt there are risks, but the west have already shown that they don't want a confrontation over small areas of land and Russia knows this. Therefore a slow creep overtime benefits them.

Using the image you provided...



Russia nominally controls the area highlighted in black (lets not imagine for one moment that the east Ukrainian rebels aren't russian supported). So they share control of the sea with a number of states. Controlling the north of the black sea allows the creation of a miltiary base (even if it is up to Frigate level ships), but as well as subs/minelayers etc. Controlling or being allied (more likely) to Turkey provides uncontested access the Mediterranean. At that point you have relatively easy access to the east of europe from the sea that would be relatively uncontested because their allies would not have that same free access. That I would have thought would have been a huge strategic advantage in the increasing possibility that nations come to blows.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But why not kill Skirpal in prison when nobody would have gave a damn?

I discussed this with a friend a few months back, and he made the point that Skirpal was kept alive for a future spy swap, and once that had been done, then it's possible that Putin made an example of him.


It's a strong possiblity, logical, and although I disagree with it, it's possible.

None the less, let's say for arguments sake that Putin wanted Skirpal dead, but kept him alive for a spy swop first, then death comes later.

Why go to all this elaborate charade with chemical weapons?

There are few better ways to get the point across that there is no safe place for you if you betray Russia. Wait for him to be settled into a new life, and kill him in a dramatic fashion in the heart of his sanctuary. That's a hell of a message to send to the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it had actually killed him, that is.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44760875

Well, Dawn Sturgess has died, so it's now a murder investigation.

Preliminary lab work suggests that Mrs Sturgess picked up something that was contaminated with Novichok.

Also News: Source of Novichok agent in Sturgess killing found!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44827666

How on earth did this bottle get into their house? Did they find it somewhere? Could there be other contaminated bottles lying around?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How on earth did this bottle get into their house? Did they find it somewhere? Could there be other contaminated bottles lying around?

Maybe... They were the assassins! They are GRU sleeper agents! Or maybe just local drug addicts pressured into service by the GRU.
I mean, it could be. I am totally jumping to pretty wild conclusions here and there is no shred of evidence, but it could be an explanation. The GRU (and SVR) have always made heavy use of local and sleeper agents, so it wouldn't be that surprising.
Alternatively, maybe they found the bottle somewhere and thought it contained drugs and brought it home. But that seems kinda weird. I mean, you don't just pick up bottles with unknown drugs in them right? That is a surefire way to get killed.

Iron Captain, a woman is dead. That is pretty distasteful.

 Da Boss wrote:
Iron Captain, a woman is dead. That is pretty distasteful.

How so? I don't find speculating over how someone died distasteful. And you have to admit it is rather unusual to have a bottle of nerve agent in your house. I am just trying to think of reasons why that bottle could have ended up in their house. "Someone gave it to them" seems plausible enough to warrant being mentioned.

If I need to explain it to you, then you probably will not accept that it is inappropriate. Carry on.

Well I wonder if the UK will show some balls this time and do more than just kick out some diplomats.

I am guessing that's beyond their capabilities at the moment. Prob not much more in the tank after throwing out that Prince-William-Wont-Be-Attending-The-World-Cup card.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44947162

So what happened is that he found the Novichok inside a glass bottle in branded packaging with an attachable plastic spray dispenser, took it home for his partner, then forgot about it for a few days. He then attached the spray mechanism, (getting a little on his hands in doing so), and surprised her with it. She recognised the brand on the label, sprayed some on her wrists to see what it smelt like, and collapsed in about 20 minutes.

A very human, and very tragic tale. No drugs involved, no dodgy looking vials. Just a bloke seeing what looked like an untouched branded perfume lying around one day, and taking it home to his partner as a surprise present. He survived because he only got a drop or two on himself; she did a full spray on each of her wrists and died.

Very, very sad. I can't imagine his mental state right now.

That is so weird. Is it leftover from the original attack or something else?

How irresponsible would the original assassins have to be to leave it lying around somewhere?

They're assassins. I don't think responsible is part of their vocabulary. It was probably a case of dump the evidence once the deed was done.

Well, now we know how it was smuggled in.

And that whoever the killers were, they had very poor taste in delivery systems.

eau d'Tyrant?

 Da Boss wrote:
That is so weird. Is it leftover from the original attack or something else?

How irresponsible would the original assassins have to be to leave it lying around somewhere?

As I hypothesised earlier, backup supply. For use if the initial attack failed and it was possible to try a second attempt (such as it raining between applying the poison to the door handle and the target using the handle). It being sealed prevents degradation so it remains viable if you have to wait for your next attempt, whilst the previously opened and used agent might have lost some lethality.

As for why leave it lying around? Because being caught with it whilst trying to leave the country is too risky. From the point of view of the assassins and their handlers, it is safer to just dump it. They're already using a weapon which will obviously be traced back to Russia (like when they used Polonium, that was the point), so leaving it behind and it being identified and traced is not a downside.

We're not told how he found it in the park. He could have been dumpster diving, or someone else had taken it from a bin before him, thought twice, and then discarded it in the open. Or it might have been a backup supply concealed somewhere that he just stumbled across.I doubt it was intentionally just left sitting in the open; if it was, somebody else would have picked it up before him.

The fact that the spray mechanism was not already screwed into the glass bottle would indicate that it was a backup, rather than the one used to get the Skripals with though.

Deploying the weapon in a branded perfume case and bottle is a good way of disguising it. If you did the bottle of a certain size, you could slip it through the airport as being duty free or somesuch. And if it's branded, nobody will bat an eyelid when they see you get it out in public; even if you do a quick spray on a door handle. It's very much an assassination weapon, both in delivery and in execution method. Much more subtle than the Kim Jong Nam incident.

That poor, poor man though. My heart really goes out to him.

 Ketara wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44947162

So what happened is that he found the Novichok inside a glass bottle in branded packaging with an attachable plastic spray dispenser, took it home for his partner, then forgot about it for a few days. He then attached the spray mechanism, (getting a little on his hands in doing so), and surprised her with it. She recognised the brand on the label, sprayed some on her wrists to see what it smelt like, and collapsed in about 20 minutes.

A very human, and very tragic tale. No drugs involved, no dodgy looking vials. Just a bloke seeing what looked like an untouched branded perfume lying around one day, and taking it home to his partner as a surprise present. He survived because he only got a drop or two on himself; she did a full spray on each of her wrists and died.

Very, very sad. I can't imagine his mental state right now.

I see.
Whoever put a nerve agent container in a perfume box is a total bastard. Seriously, that is low. That poor guy .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
We're not told how he found it in the park. He could have been dumpster diving, or someone else had taken it from a bin before him, thought twice, and then discarded it in the open. Or it might have been a backup supply concealed somewhere that he just stumbled across.I doubt it was intentionally just left sitting in the open; if it was, somebody else would have picked it up before him.

The fact that the spray mechanism was not already screwed into the glass bottle would indicate that it was a backup, rather than the one used to get the Skripals with though.

Deploying the weapon in a branded perfume case and bottle is a good way of disguising it. If you did the bottle of a certain size, you could slip it through the airport as being duty free or somesuch. And if it's branded, nobody will bat an eyelid when they see you get it out in public; even if you do a quick spray on a door handle. It's very much an assassination weapon, both in delivery and in execution method. Much more subtle than the Kim Jong Nam incident.

That poor, poor man though. My heart really goes out to him.

Yeah, the one used in the Skripal attack also wouldn't be lethal anymore. It must have been their reserve supply.

 Da Boss wrote:
That is so weird. Is it leftover from the original attack or something else?

How irresponsible would the original assassins have to be to leave it lying around somewhere?

Probably leftover? An expensive perfume case seems like a pretty good cover to smuggle it in.

As for leaving it lying around, no more irresponsible than the guys leaking polonium all over London last time they did something like this. It seems like Russia tends to employ the semi professionals abroad, Turkey especially has issues with barely disguised Russian hit squads going around and gunning down Caucasian separatists.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That is so weird. Is it leftover from the original attack or something else?

How irresponsible would the original assassins have to be to leave it lying around somewhere?

Probably leftover? An expensive perfume case seems like a pretty good cover to smuggle it in.

As for leaving it lying around, no more irresponsible than the guys leaking polonium all over London last time they did something like this. It seems like Russia tends to employ the semi professionals abroad, Turkey especially has issues with barely disguised Russian hit squads going around and gunning down Caucasian separatists.

The Russian security services often make use of criminals and other "disposable assets". The Russian security services are very closely connected with organised crime syndicates across the world, so they never lack thugs to do their bidding.
In addition, they usually simply do not care if someone figures out they were behind an attack. Quite the contrary, they want people to figure out. They want people to fear them. And in order for people to fear them they need it to become known when they have killed someone and when they are hunting someone. Fear opens up all sorts of ways to control people. And controlling people, that is the business of the Russian security services.
In addition, the Russian security services are so powerful, they have nothing to fear themselves. This means they can just gun down people in broad daylight in other countries and laugh about any possible repercussions, because no repercussions will ever be able to hurt them. The Russian security services are quite unique in that regard, in that unlike the services of other countries they do not have to answer to a government, because they are the government.

Well that is a great assumption that some russian secret service would use nerve agents that almost don't kills and is traceable just to cause random fear?

Because evil KGB is evil, right?

All that you say is basicly terrorism.
And the whole evidence is based on "because russians could do that" and the motive form that act is "because they are russians'.

The more news comes about this theme the more "Burn after reading" feel i get from this whole situation.

And what is that a ridiculous kind of fear I should get when supposed to be assassins is some kind of sloppy thugs using dated and traceable chemicals?

Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals.
Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

You mean like the totally not obvious invasion of Crimea? Nobody said Russia was competent.

 Omega-soul wrote:
Well that is a great assumption that some russian secret service would use nerve agents that almost don't kills and is traceable just to cause random fear?

Because evil KGB is evil, right?

All that you say is basicly terrorism.
And the whole evidence is based on "because russians could do that" and the motive form that act is "because they are russians'.

The more news comes about this theme the more "Burn after reading" feel i get from this whole situation.

And what is that a ridiculous kind of fear I should get when supposed to be assassins is some kind of sloppy thugs using dated and traceable chemicals?

Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals.
Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

Whoever said the Russian secret service was evil, mighty, or even particularly good? Morally bankrupt and well connected to the levers of power in the Russian Government, yes. But they're no better than any other secret service in the world. Even Mossad or MI6 do dumb stuff from time to time, and they're more professional than the leftover dregs of the KGB/GRU these days. Most contemporary Russian intelligence activity beyond spying is rooted in cruising around doing sloppy assassinations in various countries, or whisking domestic citizens off to have their testicles electrocuted. The latter is achieved by any autocratic third world intelligence service, and the former isn't particularly neat or impressive.

But then again, it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to send a message, namely 'Don't hack off the Russian government too much'. If nobody knew about it, it wouldn't be much of a deterrent. It doesn't matter how sloppy the execution is when the goal is to highlight that it happened and the Russian Government is behind it; whilst still retaining deniability.


If you personally don't find the idea of a hit squad (from any secret service) coming after you with things like Novichok to be mildly concerning or fear-inducing; you're either an idiot, an internet tough guy (aka, liar), or a paid shill (aka, professional liar). None of those makes your opinion particularly valid.

Omega-soul wrote:Well that is a great assumption that some russian secret service would use nerve agents that almost don't kills and is traceable just to cause random fear?

Because evil KGB is evil, right?

All that you say is basicly terrorism.
And the whole evidence is based on "because russians could do that" and the motive form that act is "because they are russians'.

The more news comes about this theme the more "Burn after reading" feel i get from this whole situation.

And what is that a ridiculous kind of fear I should get when supposed to be assassins is some kind of sloppy thugs using dated and traceable chemicals?

Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals.
Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

They don't want to cause random fear. You don't have to feel fear. The people the GRU is hunting have to feel fear. If an assassination goes perfect, and nobody finds out you did it, then it won't cause fear. But if it becomes clear that the GRU is behind the assassination, then the people who have crossed the GRU will know that they are being hunted, and they will feel fear knowing that next week somebody could have smeared a nerve agent on their door. The secret service wants to be found out, that is why they use those traceable chemicals.
Of course, I admit this is speculation on my part. I haven't actually asked my local GRU agent about it or anything (not that he would say much if I did)
I also find this whole theme to be confusing and feel like the media are jumping to conclusions way too fast considering we have seen absolutely zero actual evidence. They just say "we know it was Russia" without actually saying how they know it was Russia. But Russia doesn't seem to have a real motive. At least not a motive that is important enough to cause such a diplomatic stir about.

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:You mean like the totally not obvious invasion of Crimea? Nobody said Russia was competent.

They are.

I also find this whole theme to be confusing and feel like the media are jumping to conclusions way too fast considering we have seen absolutely zero actual evidence. They just say "we know it was Russia" without actually saying how they know it was Russia. But Russia doesn't seem to have a real motive. At least not a motive that is important enough to cause such a diplomatic stir about.

That's the thing; we've been seeing recently in Britain how certain people looked unkindly upon in Russia have been having 'accidents' en masse here. I'd speculate that what likely happened is that this was supposed to be more of the same; but it was sanctioned by some mid-level wonk in Russian intelligence who didn't think about how the deployment of Novichok (instead of a gun, knife, window, poison, etc) would look, and assumed it would just be ignored like most of the others. You'll note after all, how none of the more recent attacks have used polonium after the whole Litvinenko thing. Russia isn't looking to stir up additional economic sanctions; their economy is struggling enough as it is. Putin's got a lot to chew at the moment and was planning how he was going to show off for the world cup.

No, I actually genuinely doubt that the specific deployment of nerve agents was decided upon at the top level.There simply wasn't sufficient gain for it to be a deliberate policy decision in terms of method. I reckon it was some mid-level decision where the chap in the office had the assassination already ordered & signed off by the top brass; before proceeding to watch a few James Bond films and get creative in his work to score some points. You know how it is, he's got a new deployment mechanism that needs field testing in one hand, an assassination order in the other; why not combine the two?

Then next thing you know, Novichok's been unleashed in the UK, Putin's taking an international kicking, and there's a verrrrry awkward phone call downstairs telling the gentleman in question to stay at his desk and wait for security to collect him. Putin can't exactly admit the context (namely that he agreed to have someone bumped off and the decision over form was taken by someone else) for obvious reasons. So the strategy is to obfuscate, keep their heads down, muddy the waters as much as possible, and hope the whole thing blows over.

Then next thing you know, some bloke finds the backup supply abandoned under a skip in a park and uses it, the whole thing is raked back up again, and a very uncomfortable conversation needs to be had with the field agent who swore he concealed it where no-one would find it.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You mean like the totally not obvious invasion of Crimea? Nobody said Russia was competent.

But that actually was professionaly executed whatever you call it.

Whoever said the Russian secret service was evil, mighty, or even particularly good?

>

Russian security services are so powerful

"Morally bankrup","connected to the levers of power" , "leftover dregs of the KGB", "rooted in cruising around doing sloppy assassinations", "whisking domestic citizens off", "autocratic third world intelligence service"

If you are trying to proof that they are not evil, but also unprofessional - you're doing it deliberately bad, because all that you said is essentialy what evil is: "Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.[2] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving anger, revenge, fear, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect."

the idea of a hit squad

Do you find the idea of a clown with gun hunting you in the night fear-inducing? And if that said clown will shoot himself in a leg and run away with Yakety Sax song - would that be fear-inducing?
Because that is how I see you trying to portray this incident - sloppy yet somehow fear-inducing.

It's supposed to send a message / If nobody knew about it, it wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

So let's imagine a news "Former russian spy found dead with cut tongue" - what would you think of it? Regular tuesday in Salisbury?
There is no option "If nobody knew about it" - you will know about this just by the fact that victim is former russian agent - not the method of execution.
Although - it could be fear-inducing if it was lethal enough - but the fact that you should spray yourself like a cologne and wait some time - makes it a gakky weapon of mass destruction - you got a better chances to be bombed by islamic radicals or just stabbed - That is what fear-inducing.

And I don't feel any signs of fear in your words - only despise - because that's what the most feels about this whole incident.

Of course there is always can be a misfortune or bad luck during special operation (if it is) so it looks like a professionals act like a sloppy thugs but then you have to actually prove it, because in that case we can balme anyone with the same amount of reasons.

Because Like:
it's so convenient that it happened just a few weeks before joint strike on Syria - because of chemical attack in Douma - so that would sound like a legit plan - Russia involved with chemical buisness so we can safely bomb a soverign state.
it's so convenient that it helps to distract from inner UK problems and helps to unite people before the international act of agression,
it's also convenient that you don't have to participate in upcoming World Cup,
it's also convenient to make that kind of special operations just a two weeks before presidential elections so you can investigate it so fast that only just a week after incident (and few days before elections) you can already blame Russia - if only Brits could solve all the crimes that fast right?

So apart from that - the only explanation is of course russian sloppy thuggs from GRU that try to induce fear.
I like how everything is so simple and convenient in your world.

 Omega-soul wrote:

If you are trying to proof that they are not evil, but also unprofessional - you're doing it deliberately bad, because all that you said is essentialy what evil is: "Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.[2] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving anger, revenge, fear, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect."

Trying to argue semantic definitions over the application of a subjective idea merely implies you understand of neither concept.

And I don't feel any signs of fear in your words - only despise - because that's what the most feels about this whole incident.

It was your word, not mine.

Of course there is always can be a misfortune or bad luck during special operation (if it is) so it looks like a professionals act like a sloppy thugs but then you have to actually prove it, because in that case we can balme anyone with the same amount of reasons.

Because Like:
it's so convenient that it happened just a few weeks before joint strike on Syria - because of chemical attack in Douma - so that would sound like a legit plan - Russia involved with chemical buisness so we can safely bomb a soverign state.
it's so convenient that it helps to distract from inner UK problems and helps to unite people before the international act of agression,
it's also convenient that you don't have to participate in upcoming World Cup,
it's also convenient to make that kind of special operations just a two weeks before presidential elections so you can investigate it so fast that only just a week after incident (and few days before elections) you can already blame Russia - if only Brits could solve all the crimes that fast right?

So apart from that - the only explanation is of course russian sloppy thuggs from GRU that try to induce fear.

You could have just written, 'yeah, but where's the proof?'. To which the corresponding answer is 'In the origin of the weapon, the choice of target, the past history of assassinations in Britain involving 'accidents', and the lack of motivation for absolutely any other party in existence.'

When some crackpot conspiracy theory involving the British state secretly developing forbidden chemical weapons programs to attack random people and grab a few days of headlines is the best alternative theory? Well. I could theorise that the British government is actually a puppet government run from Moscow by hidden communists since 1940, and therefore still blame Russia. After all, how else would they have gotten hold of novichok? Heck, I could draw a whole timeline going back to the Cambridge Five and suchlike. But y'know, that would be just as silly as the original theory, and I'd be embarassed to voice either. Because they're identically likely at this stage.

Anyone who would believe it was anyone but Russia by now is (a) mentally unhinged and in need of psychological intervention, (b) a life-long conspiracy nut desperately grasping to link it to 9/11/Jews/the Secret Elite somehow, or (c) a paid Russian disinformation campaigner (who are literally paid to spread ridiculous rumours like that).

I like how everything is so simple and convenient in your world.

It comes from living in a civilised democracy. Whilst my government sucks and keeps embarassing things on the quiet, and occasionally does something unethical; I get to know that they're not abducting/assassinating loads of people they don't like and then pretending they didn't do it.

Russia should try it sometime. Just to see what it's like if for no other reason.

 Omega-soul wrote:

And what is that a ridiculous kind of fear I should get when supposed to be assassins is some kind of sloppy thugs using dated and traceable chemicals?

Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals.
Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

I think it wasn't so much a plan as a plan going sideways and people trying to complete the mission event though it was botched.

The original plan was probably to kill the target and as many of his family as they could, both publicly and painfully. They adulterated novichok with perfume to smuggle it in, apparently not having a clear idea of what the effects would be, only that they were concerned they might be searched and it would have to fool the customs agent.

Get in, poison the target, get out, toss the evidence on the way.

Pretty straight forward, actually.

 Omega-soul wrote:

the idea of a hit squad

Do you find the idea of a clown with gun hunting you in the night fear-inducing? And if that said clown will shoot himself in a leg and run away with Yakety Sax song - would that be fear-inducing?
Because that is how I see you trying to portray this incident - sloppy yet somehow fear-inducing.

They would not be clowns. Countless murders can be traced back to Russian security services. Just because they botched one job doesn't mean they will always fail. The vast majority of their assassinations succeed. Unless you are the CIA trying to kill Fidel Castro but failing 638 times.

 Omega-soul wrote:

It's supposed to send a message / If nobody knew about it, it wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

So let's imagine a news "Former russian spy found dead with cut tongue" - what would you think of it? Regular tuesday in Salisbury?
There is no option "If nobody knew about it" - you will know about this just by the fact that victim is former russian agent - not the method of execution.

Murders happen every so often, even in Salisbury. It would not have made international news. Just like all those other former Russian agents or other people linked to Russia who died in Britain did not make the news. To make news, to make sure you reach everyone you want to reach, you need need to do something more sensational. Perhaps that is why someone thought using an old nerve agent would a good idea.

 Omega-soul wrote:
Although - it could be fear-inducing if it was lethal enough - but the fact that you should spray yourself like a cologne and wait some time - makes it a gakky weapon of mass destruction - you got a better chances to be bombed by islamic radicals or just stabbed - That is what fear-inducing.

Nerve agents are some of the most lethal substances known to man. They used a degraded Soviet nerve agent because Russia hasn't been making new nerve agent for decades now. And that is why they botched their job. Had the agent been fully effective, we would have seen a lot more casualties. It is a strange method of assassination, but secret services regularly use strange assassination methods. Like the CIA with their explosive cigars or the Bulgarians with their poison-shooting umbrella. And if you are a spy, or a traitor, your chanced of dying at the hand of a security service's 'creative' assassins is a lot higher than dying in a terrorist attack. You'd be stupid to fear terrorists more than assassins if you are a spy who betrayed his country and colleagues, like Skripal is.

 Omega-soul wrote:
And I don't feel any signs of fear in your words - only despise - because that's what the most feels about this whole incident.

I don't need to fear the secret services. I am no traitor. And I am wise enough not to despise them either.

To which the corresponding answer is 'In the origin of the weapon, the choice of target, the past history of assassinations in Britain involving 'accidents', and the lack of motivation for absolutely any other party in existence.'

That's a gak of a solid proofs.

So novichock is obviously produced only from the glands of Putin and can never be produced or obtained by 3rd parties https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-chemicalweapons-german/wests-knowledge-of-novichok-came-from-sample-secured-in-1990s-report-idUSKCN1IH2HC
Then - double agent - obviously harmless man that could do nothing wrong or be involved in anything illegal in England.
Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.
"and the lack of motivation for absolutely any other party in existence" - so that is the level of arguments in British courts now?

With that solid, objective and totally unbiased arguments - I wonder why this crime haven't been solved on the very next day - good work Sherlock!

And cutoff that civilised moral-high ground gak, pretending that your opinion is the only one that should exist.

you're either an idiot, an internet tough guy (aka, liar), or a paid shill (aka, professional liar)

Anyone who would believe it was anyone but Russia by now is (a) mentally unhinged and in need of psychological intervention, (b) a life-long conspiracy nut or (c) a paid Russian disinformation campaigner

As citizen of uncivilized democracy I won't call you a names in return and let you be ignorant as your civilized democracy allows, but for your information - if you have no arguments for actual questions, you don't have to insult opponents. Try it sometime. Just to see what it's like if for no other reason.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Get in, poison the target, get out, toss the evidence on the way.

Pretty straight forward, actually.

I have no questions about how it was executed - my questions is "How do you know that is a Russian government?" because initially - Novichok is a VERY lethal and deadly nerve agent designed to kill people instantly on a battlefield. In 1993 Russian government shut down the programm and then get rid of it.
Then scientists that worked on this programm migrated to West, and that particular nerve agents was synthesised in various centers outside of Russia for research purposes. Then - there could be left stockpiles of said nerve agents. And considering what a mess was a Russia after USSR dissolvement so I wouldn't be surpised if it's gone to a 3rd parties.

But if we assume it was Russian government - then there is even more questions - Why killing with poison, why this poison is so weak, why Russian government kills former agent that already had served a prison sentence and also has a family in Russia - daughter and mother.
If he is not an intentional target of a crime - then who it is, why it is, and what it had to do with Skripal.
Then there is an executioners - a group of people - who are they, how do you know they are russian, how do you know they are related to a Russian security agencies, and if they do how do you know it was the Agency order to execute that order.

All this brief questions allows you to make a whole picture of what actually happened and who is actually responcible for this.
Finally it all can be fit in a simple "CUI BONO?" - Why it is russian government and why it could be beneficial for them. Or there is someone else who benefits from this situation.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Omega-soul wrote:
And I don't feel any signs of fear in your words - only despise - because that's what the most feels about this whole incident.

I don't need to fear the secret services. I am no traitor. And I am wise enough not to despise them either.

That was adressed to Ketara

 Omega-soul wrote:

Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.

Tell that to Litvinenko. Oh wait, that's right, he's dead, so you can't. Or did someone just randomly kill him with a radioactive isotope? Or Markov, who randomly got poisoned by ricin?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Omega-soul wrote:

Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.

Tell that to Litvinenko. Oh wait, that's right, he's dead, so you can't. Or did someone just randomly kill him with a radioactive isotope? Or Markov, who randomly got poisoned by ricin?

Because previous crimes proves new one right?
So maybe it's Britain invaded Crimea? They already done that before.
Brilliant logic.

 Omega-soul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Omega-soul wrote:

Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.

Tell that to Litvinenko. Oh wait, that's right, he's dead, so you can't. Or did someone just randomly kill him with a radioactive isotope? Or Markov, who randomly got poisoned by ricin?

Because previous crimes proofs new one right?
So maybe it's Britain invaded Crimea? They already done that before.
Brilliant logic.

Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts moving.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts moving.

goalpost stays the same - even if there was a 99 proven poisoning by russians - you have to actually prove even the 100th poisoning, before you found someone guilty, even if it's a usual suspect.
Unlike notorious practice that involved jews, who found guilty just because they are jews.

Premise 1:

 Omega-soul wrote:

Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.

Russia's history of assassinations in Britain is compared to Nazi conspiracies against Jews, with a healthy dose of racism accusations thrown in to boot.

I respond by pointing out that both Litvinenko and Markov were assassinated, in Britain, by Russia and the Soviet Union, respectively.

You change the premise:

Premise 2:

 Omega-soul wrote:


Because previous crimes proves new one right?
So maybe it's Britain invaded Crimea? They already done that before.
Brilliant logic.

You are now questioning what the point of bringing Litvinenko and Markov up is to the discussion. You've gone from calling Russian assassinations in Britain a conspiracy on the same level as Nazi propaganda to accepting that it happened but that it doesn't matter in one post. That's a monumental shifting of goal posts. I wasn't ever arguing one way or another about whether Russia's behind Skripal's poisoning or not, I was calling out your dishonest, miserable excuse of a post for the bullgak that it is.

Come back when you can argue in good faith.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Premise 1:

 Omega-soul wrote:

Then - best part - history of assassinations in Britain - is legit as Jew conspiracy against Germany in past century. Thanks god russian are white-colored so no one would suspect you of being racist.

Russia's history of assassinations in Britain is compared to Nazi conspiracies against Jews, with a healthy dose of racism accusations thrown in to boot.

I respond by pointing out that both Litvinenko and Markov were assassinated, in Britain, by Russia and the Soviet Union, respectively.

That is my comparison, yes - jews also commited some crimes, but other cases which involved jews treated in a way that you portray - Herschel Grynszpan assassinated Ernst vom Rath - so all the other crimes after deemed as a jew conspirasy, so you don't need to actually prove something.
And now - you pointing that - well Russia assassinated Litvinenko and Markov (He actually was assassinated by Bulgarians which are not even USSR) - so what does it actually points in this case? On suspects? Well, it's quite obvious that primary suspect in Russia.
But does your pointing to Litvinenko proves that Russia also guilty in Skripal case?
The answer is - no it proves nothing, just as the other jew don't have to answer for Grynszpan crime.

Premise 2:

 Omega-soul wrote:


Because previous crimes proves new one right?
So maybe it's Britain invaded Crimea? They already done that before.
Brilliant logic.

You are now questioning what the point of bringing Litvinenko and Markov up is to the discussion. You've gone from calling Russian assassinations in Britain a conspiracy on the same level as Nazi propaganda to accepting that it happened but that it doesn't matter in one post. That's a monumental shifting of goal posts. I wasn't ever arguing one way or another about whether Russia's behind Skripal's poisoning or not, I was calling out your dishonest, miserable excuse of a post for the bullgak that it is.

Come back when you can argue in good faith.

First of all - I didn't call it conspiray - I assumed a possible event to counter-argument Ketara "lack of motivation for absolutely any other party in existence" just as example.

And my questions is pretty straight-forward - I don't belive in argument "Russia poisoned Skripal because it was the same as with Litvinenko".
That is not the answer - that is assumption. Litvinenko is another case - with it's own methods and reasons for conflict.
So that was my answer to you - past crimes is past crimes - they don't prove anything - they can be used as part of evidence, but not a proof.

So that is the problem with whole discussion - it is just assumed "Former russian agent poisoned by Russia - because russians already did that before".
That is the whole motivation I get. But why do Russia want to poison Skripal? - To spread fear and leave a message. But why? That "Leave a message" is also just assumption. Why Russia wants to leave that message? Because russians, obviously. Whay Russia wants to fear someone? it's Russia they can do that.
And there is actually a lot of arguments questioning Russia involvement, that has no answers yet.

But instead, I got insults from Ketara, and assumption that would be inappropriate in similar cases but with another races - and yet you call me - dishonest and miserable esxuses user.

I am arguing with all the respects to ones that don't insult me, just because of having a different opinion.

 Omega-soul wrote:
[
I have no questions about how it was executed - my questions is "How do you know that is a Russian government?" because initially - Novichok is a VERY lethal and deadly nerve agent designed to kill people instantly on a battlefield. In 1993 Russian government shut down the programm and then get rid of it.
Then scientists that worked on this programm migrated to West, and that particular nerve agents was synthesised in various centers outside of Russia for research purposes. Then - there could be left stockpiles of said nerve agents. And considering what a mess was a Russia after USSR dissolvement so I wouldn't be surpised if it's gone to a 3rd parties.

I think the fact that I examined why it was not, as you point out, as lethal as it should have been, and you then ignored that suggests that you don't want an answer.

Process of elimination:

Who has the motive, and further, the means, to carry out such an attack? In this case it's a very short list.

Russian Intelligence Services (Means and motive)

CIA (Means but no motive)

Mossad (Means, but no motive)

British Military Intelligence (Means, but no motive. Point of fact, their motive would be quote the opposite.)

Organized Crime (possible motive, but the means are unlikely)


So, most likely suspect: Russian Intelligence.

 Omega-soul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts moving.

goalpost stays the same - even if there was a 99 proven poisoning by russians - you have to actually prove even the 100th poisoning, before you found someone guilty, even if it's a usual suspect.
...

As has been pointed out many times before in this thread, in international diplomacy you don't have to actually prove it, because countries don't take each other to criminal courts. You only need a reasonable level of suspicion.

To keep banging on the same unstrung drum is more or less spamming the forum.

 Ketara wrote:

It comes from living in a civilised democracy. Whilst my government sucks and keeps embarassing things on the quiet, and occasionally does something unethical; I get to know that they're not abducting/assassinating loads of people they don't like and then pretending they didn't do it.

Russia should try it sometime. Just to see what it's like if for no other reason.

I broadly agree with your points, but I would just point out that there were plenty of UK government abductions and killings in Northern Ireland.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

It comes from living in a civilised democracy. Whilst my government sucks and keeps embarassing things on the quiet, and occasionally does something unethical; I get to know that they're not abducting/assassinating loads of people they don't like and then pretending they didn't do it.

Russia should try it sometime. Just to see what it's like if for no other reason.

I broadly agree with your points, but I would just point out that there were plenty of UK government abductions and killings in Northern Ireland.

Yeah, and the US government has a long list of abductions and targeted killings that rivals those of some autocratic governments. A "civilised" democracy doesn't automatically mean that a government won't engage in shady, nasty stuff.
That said, I would love nothing more for Russia to become more democratic (preferably a direct democracy, since that is the only real kind of democracy). Sadly, I am afraid that the 90's kinda turned most Russian people off on democracy and other Western values.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

It comes from living in a civilised democracy. Whilst my government sucks and keeps embarassing things on the quiet, and occasionally does something unethical; I get to know that they're not abducting/assassinating loads of people they don't like and then pretending they didn't do it.

Russia should try it sometime. Just to see what it's like if for no other reason.

I broadly agree with your points, but I would just point out that there were plenty of UK government abductions and killings in Northern Ireland.

Yeah, and the vast majority of them had paper trails, official orders, and various other implements of the democratic accountable system. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but far as I'm aware, there weren't people spirited off by mysterious unidentified men in the night to have the crap kicked out of them and be warned not to oppose the state. Arrests are different to abductions. The diciest operation I ever heard of was Operation Flavius, and it's not quite the same thing again.

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but far as I'm aware, the British State didn't make a habit of assassinations in Northern Ireland.

The blurry line between collusion with unionist terrorist groups, giving them arms or failing to arrest them for known crimes, and ordering soldiers to carry out said crimes is the issue.

Many of said Unionist terrorists were soldiers or policemen during the day as well, unfortunately. Little enough democratic accountability there.

But like I said, I broadly agree with your points. The Russian state is far worse than the UK in this regard.

 Omega-soul wrote:
Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals. Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

Russia would like to still consider itself the mighty USSR, the powerhouse no one dared mess with. Most terrorist groups back in the day didn't see the point in attacking the soviets because the response was brutal, and taking hostages sucked when the target respected their life less than the hostage-takers. But as far back as the fifties the USSR already started using "outside" agents for the really heavy-handed operations - for example Bulgarian agents to kill soviet defectors in Europe. They built it up as an at least somewhat beliavable ruse, and could say with a straight face that "no soviet agent was involved" even if everyone knew they could lean on the lesser satellite states to have them do something.

But budget cuts and diminished influence in Eastern Europe has taken a toll on the tools available to Russian intelligence services. Now they often have to rely on criminals who aren't really trained for secret agent stuff. Some of the murders will be sloppy operations, but the upside is that they are cheap and at least sort of deniable. And Russian nationals are by law protected from extradition, so as long as they get back home they're safe. It doesn't help how many names, say, the UK lists and asks to turn up for hearings and possible charges - they just don't leave Russia again. Another upside is that Putin doesn't have to order (many of) these operations himself. He can sit on TV and state that traitors shouldn't feel safe "wink wink", and anyone wanting more influence with the great leader can have a go at it, with whatever means he has available.

So another reason these operations aren't always very smooth is probably a result of it being several different factions carrying them out with varying degrees of sophistication.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Omega-soul wrote:
Behold the mighty russian secret service using our best dumb-sloppy thugs that equiped with our best outdated chemicals. And Fear us - or we send even dumber thugs with even more dated chemicals. Sound like excellent plan - what ever can go wrong with this right?

Russia would like to still consider itself the mighty USSR, the powerhouse no one dared mess with. Most terrorist groups back in the day didn't see the point in attacking the soviets because the response was brutal, and taking hostages sucked when the target respected their life less than the hostage-takers. But as far back as the fifties the USSR already started using "outside" agents for the really heavy-handed operations - for example Bulgarian agents to kill soviet defectors in Europe. They built it up as an at least somewhat beliavable ruse, and could say with a straight face that "no soviet agent was involved" even if everyone knew they could lean on the lesser satellite states to have them do something.

But budget cuts and diminished influence in Eastern Europe has taken a toll on the tools available to Russian intelligence services. Now they often have to rely on criminals who aren't really trained for secret agent stuff. Some of the murders will be sloppy operations, but the upside is that they are cheap and at least sort of deniable. And Russian nationals are by law protected from extradition, so as long as they get back home they're safe. It doesn't help how many names, say, the UK lists and asks to turn up for hearings and possible charges - they just don't leave Russia again. Another upside is that Putin doesn't have to order (many of) these operations himself. He can sit on TV and state that traitors shouldn't feel safe "wink wink", and anyone wanting more influence with the great leader can have a go at it, with whatever means he has available.

So another reason these operations aren't always very smooth is probably a result of it being several different factions carrying them out with varying degrees of sophistication.

I don't think it is the case here, but another factor that sometimes frustrates Russian secret service operations are other Russian secret services. The FSB, SVR and GRU all have a burning hatred for one another that stems from who gets to control which parts of government. It is a rivalry that has exploded into violence in the past, and it is not that uncommon that one agency does something to frustrate the operation of another agency in order to embarrass them and undermine their influence in the government. It would definitely not be the first time that byzantine Kremlin clan politics spill out on the streets, though Putin has mostly been pretty successful in keeping the infighting contained and out of sight.

An update on the ongoing investigation into the Skripals novichok poisoning for this interested.

The UK has issued an arrest warrant for two russian nationals Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. A European arrest warrant has also been issued.

More information on the investigation can be found here:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/salisbury-poisonings-police-name-and-charge-two-suspects

If they are indeed GRU agents, I doubt those are their real names. They probably traveled into the UK on passports provided by the GRU.

Yet another outbreak of this whole "naughty Russian agents" saga...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-45754606

It's given inspiration to several classic British newspaper headlines:

Carry On Spying

Novichokle Brothers

The Spies Who Muffed It

Great stuff!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet another outbreak of this whole "naughty Russian agents" saga...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-45754606

It's given inspiration to several classic British newspaper headlines:

Carry On Spying

Novichokle Brothers

The Spies Who Muffed It

Great stuff!

At this point its a case of the UK and US throwing our clout around to embarrass the Russian leadership for their poor handling of the poisoning incident.

Great headlines though.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If they are indeed GRU agents, I doubt those are their real names. They probably traveled into the UK on passports provided by the GRU.

Bellingcat has an article on the subject. At this stage its suspected that with the amount of information Bellingcat is releasing, its being fed by British Intelligence to obfuscate the source of the information.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If they are indeed GRU agents, I doubt those are their real names. They probably traveled into the UK on passports provided by the GRU.

Bellingcat has an article on the subject. At this stage its suspected that with the amount of information Bellingcat is releasing, its being fed by British Intelligence to obfuscate the source of the information.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/

I don't know. Reading through their reports and tracing their steps, everything they do is something you can just do with a basic (okay, more than basic) knowledge of the internet and the Russian language. Which also means that they lack hard evidence. Their conclusions are just assumptions. Well-founded and thoroughly investigated assumptions, but not the kind of conclusively proven facts the scientist in me is always looking for. Then again, Russian intelligence services are really good at covering their tracks which means that hard evidence may very well be impossible to obtain and these scraps are all we will ever have to try and piece the truth together. I don't know how competent British intelligence is and whether they know more or not, but if they were feeding information to Bellincat I would have expected something more than just scraps of information obtained with Yandex, database and phonebook searches. Which does not in any way mean that Bellingcat isn't doing impressive work. A testament to the power of citizen journalism. Quite amazing what us nerds can do if you get enough of them together with a purpose

Funny by the way that this "Boshirov" guy appears to be from the village Nikolaevka, close to Khabarovsk. One of my best friends is from there. I will have to ask him if he knows "Boshirov" now

Also, nobody mentioned this yet, but earlier this year a bunch of Russian spies got caught red-handed trying to hack into the OPCW headquarters (the OPCW is the international institution that keeps tabs on chemical weapons). They were so obvious about it it was almost like they wanted to get caught... Typical GRU meatheads. No subtlety, just 100% brutal, nasty force. I do wonder what they were after though, considering the fact that even if their hack had succeeded it is incredibly unlikely they would get anything worthwhile out of it. It is not like the OPCW is storing state secrets or anything, or like Russia doesn't have access to OPCW data already, it being an international organisation funded in part by Russia itself.

The same point had occurred to me. Could these slack operations be a deliberate tactic of some kind?

However it's hard to say what benefit Putin derives from certain elements of his security aparatus being seen to be somewhat incompetent.

Is the idea to generate more international indignation against Russia in order to consolidate domestic support on the basis that you see now they actually are all against us?