Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So things have now stepped up a notch, 182 military personnel are being deployed to the area. This includes chemical experts and marines along with all the gear needed.
A notice has been issued for the local population to not needlessly worry and let the services/ troops do their thing. Time will tell where this goes for sure, will be passing the area tomorrow and am wondering we will see a more military presence than usual on the roads.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

And are the drone strikes actually that much better, except for the fact they use only explosive ordinance instead of chemical weapons? The US seems perfectly OK with killing the target along with anyone in the house, no matter if they're terrorist supporters, hostages or his family who don't know he's a target. And there's often a second drone striking the same location after 5-15 minutes in case the target's terrorist buddies come to help him, or maybe the locals try to put out a fire... but feth them, they're foreigners.

Otherwise then yes, killing a retired spy who did his time was a waste of resources. Making an example of someone who was already officially punished and released.

 Steve steveson wrote:
21 people now effected. When spies, double agents and whatever are hurt that’s one thing. Random members of the public is something totally different. There is now no way the UK government can mumble something about sanctions, eject a few diplomats and forget about it.

Source?
[For the numbers effected]

Spetulhu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

Obviously it is!

The whole of the Cold (and Lukewarm) Wars of the 1950s to 1980s was based on that principle. The West and the Soviet Union competed militarily through proxies, and to some extent that reduced the probability of a direct confrontation.

This is the situation we are heading towards again now with Russia supporting Assad in Syria, the West supporting Saudi Arabia in the Yemen.

sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The FSB is an internal security agency. They are like special police. They are not going to be doing assassinations in other countries (unless it is terrorists, they do have authority to assassinate terrorists abroad). It was either the SVR, or less likely, the GRU, or even less likely the mafia (who might very well act on government orders). Also, a news guy saying something doesn't confirm anything. I mean, nobody is doubting who is behind this, but it is not proof.

The story is not about the FSB or the various jurisdictional vagaries of the Russian intelligence network. That's deflection, don't do it.

The story is about a newsreader on a government controlled channel making a clear case that Russia was behind the attack, and giving a motive for why Russia would do it, in order to put the word out to any possible future defectors. Who actually undertook the attack is irrelevant to that.

Now, you are right that the statement isn't proof. It wouldn't mean much in a court of law, but the legal requirements of courts are irrelevant here, even if the UK could identify who committed the act and who ordered it, they'd have no chance of getting them extradited from Russia. What is being debated here is policy response, what the UK should do if they become confident Russia was behind the attack. For those purposes, yeah this statement definitely helps confirm that it was Russia behind the attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a nice long list of US defectors who were died in mysterious circumstances while living in other countries. Maybe even just one name, one person. Because if you can't give even just one name, I might be forced to conclude this is yet another example of you defending Russia by saying its okay for Russia to do it because you accuse other countries of doing the same thing despite having absolutely no evidence of it.

WTH are you going on about? Deflection? Someone said that the statement basically confirmed that the FSB did it and all I did was point out that it likely was not the FSB but another organisation. How is trying to help someone by learning them something deflection?
And how much confirmation do you need? That Russia is behind this was already more crystal clear than a mountain stream.

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An act of war? Absolutely not. State terrorism? Maybe. But all great powers and some smaller ones do it nonetheless. It is not just Russia, China and the US are also quite active in assassinating people they do not like. As are countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea and other unpleasant regimes.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a nice long list of US defectors who were died in mysterious circumstances while living in other countries. Maybe even just one name, one person. Because if you can't give even just one name, I might be forced to conclude this is yet another example of you defending Russia by saying its okay for Russia to do it because you accuse other countries of doing the same thing despite having absolutely no evidence of it.

Anwar Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being an elderly man who called for people to fight against the US.
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, US citizen. Treason: Being 16 years old and being the son of abovementioned (The US government claims he was killed as 'collateral damage', but since there was no actually militarily significant target)
Samir Khan, US citizen, Treason: Was editor of a pro Al-Qaeda magazine.
All of these people are Americans who had ties to groups the US government doesn't like. None of them were militarily significant targets or were engaged in an armed struggle against the US. Their only crime was supporting a group that is antagonistic to the US. Which isn't really all that different from people like Skripal. I am not saying that there aren't any differences and that it is all the same, but I am saying that there is plenty of similarities.

Kilkrazy wrote:To some extent it is true that the UK and USA carry out what might be called assassinations of people such as Jihadi John, and sometimes civilians get caught in the cross-fire. This is very regrettable.

There are two key differences between the Salisbury situation and the Jihadi John situation, though.

The first point is that the drone strikes in Iraq are against people who are engaged in armed combat against UK/US or allied forces. Skripal had done his time, been released and pardonned, and can't possibly still be involved in espionage activity all these years later. Thus the attack on him has no operational significance. It is purely vindictive.

I don't entirely agree, because the justification for US/UK assassinations is often highly questionable. First of all it is questionab;e whether all of those people assassinated really are engaged in armed combat against the US/UK and second because just being engaged in armed combat does not allow a country to assassinate someone. International law is pretty clear on when killing a combatant is allowed and when it is not, and especially the US often violates that. A lot of the assassinations the US carries out really have next to no military significance and are no less vindictive than Russia's assassinations But I don't want to drag this off topic and I do get the point you are making.
The motives and circumstances of this assassination are very different, right? But I am not sure I can agree to that. As to the full motives of this assassination, we can only guess. Surely there was an element of vengeance and spite in it, but that does not mean that those necessarily were the only motives. Another motive that seems likely for example is frightening other potential traitors back in line. Yet another motive may be that Skripal still did have information that he had not yet shared with Western agencies and that they wanted to keep out of enemy hands. Just because he was caught doesn't mean that he shared everything he knew. If one of these examples was the main motivation for the attack, then it did have operational significance. Then the only real differences between this assassination and the assassinations the US usually carries out is the nature of the target, a traitor rather than a political/ideological opponent (although since the US has also been assassinating US citizens, you could argue that even that difference is non-existent) and the way it is carried out, by poison rather than a drone strike.

Kilkrazy wrote:The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Salisbury is foreign soil from a Russian point of view. Why would an assassination in the centre of a Middle Eastern city be ok, but in a British city not? Maybe I am understanding you wrong here, but it seems like double standards.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second point is that the drone operation is carried out on foreign soil. It would be very different if a UK/US drone flew to Moscow and bombed someone there whom we didn't like, and shrapnelled a bus full of commuters at the same time. Yet this is exactly what the Russians have done -- if it was them -- in using nerve gas in the centre of a British city.

Huh? Is Russia somehow less "foreign soil" than Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and other places where drones kill people? I fail to see the difference, except ofc Russia (Or the UK in the Skripal case) actually has the military power to strike back, even with nukes, and royally screw us all over.

I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Former PM al-Maliki of Iraq
Current/Former/lolwhoknows? President Hadi of Yemen
President Mohamed of Somalia

Discussing the morality of a military dictator like President al-Sisi of Egypt asking a democracy like Israel to assassinate dissidents in the Sinai peninsula is a different topic entirely then a unilateral assassination attempt like Kim Jong Nam getting a face full of poison.

And are the drone strikes actually that much better, except for the fact they use only explosive ordinance instead of chemical weapons? The US seems perfectly OK with killing the target along with anyone in the house, no matter if they're terrorist supporters, hostages or his family who don't know he's a target. And there's often a second drone striking the same location after 5-15 minutes in case the target's terrorist buddies come to help him, or maybe the locals try to put out a fire... but feth them, they're foreigners.

You're absolutely right, we don't care about a bunch of foreigners that a great deal of Americans consider ignorant mud hut dwellers. The point of the drone program is it reduces the cost of American interventions in terms of treasure and blood. If you're trying to convince Americans to make the calculus that losing American soldiers to save some foreigner's life is worth it to uphold our schizophrenic national values or point out the hypocrisy that Westerners should be able to deploy autonomous assassins to roam the skies of less developed countries. You're talking to a stone wall, people don't want to confront the evils that their tax money pays for. I can think of several other more productive things to do.

Oh come on.. The US asking Iraq for permission to conduct drone strikes? You mean asking our sock puppet Iraqi leader?

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Oh come on.. The US asking Iraq for permission to conduct drone strikes? You mean asking our sock puppet Iraqi leader?

Yes. We asked. Whether or not the leader we asked is truly representative or even capable of saying no is irrelevant. It's the fact we asked the internationally recognized head of state and got a meek "yes" is what allows the US to create a fig leaf of legality.

And if you paid attention to PM al-Abadi, successor of PM al-Maliki. Asking for American or Iranian air strikes against ISIS was a political hot potato due to the actions of his predecessor and necessity of including Iranian aligned elements in the government/military during the ISIS crisis. Creating the conundrum of which foreign power should be bombing his country.

This isn’t about what the US may or may not have done. At most it is possible to comment on what the UK may or may not have done. But ultimately this is about the Russian government using a nerve agent on UK soil which has possibly killed two people in injured many more. US drone strikes are as relevant to this as a justification or finger pointing as the death of Kim Youg Nam.

Deploying a chemical/biological weapon in another country that injuring their people *is* an act of war.

It’s nothing like the US carrying out drone strikes in Iraq which is at least done with the agreement and knowledge of their government. You can argue that they politically don’t have a lot of choice in the matter but it is an ongoing armed conflict.

That’s still not the same as undertaking a covert operation in a country that you are in no armed conflict with and without any knowledge of their government. Iron Captain tries to handwave this not a act of war but ‘state terrorism’ as if that’s makes it a bit more acceptable but it is what it is. But if it was ordered by the Russian government, a biological weapon attack on citizens of a country currently not on a war footing is an act of war just as if we lobbed a missile into Moscow to kill someone we didn’t like and injured dozens of bystanders.

You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

Do the Russians really commit that much to the Turkish tourism industry? I would have thought that the major factors in any losses would rather be the general state of security, and the country rapidly becoming an authoritatian hellhole.

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

Spetulhu wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

Um, unless the point was to be imprecise? "We won't just kill you, but everyone around you to show how negative your influence is". Which would potentially draw concern from any governments hosting these agents, as future assassination attempts won't just cost them one spy, but also bystanders.

The Russian state media said that Britain's not a good host country for defectors (well, wanting and actually being are different things). Alienating the government from the process may be a step towards it. ...Or rather, depending on the state's backbone, just mean a couple of Russian spies wind up being found dead elsewhere...

Its hardly like publicly executing spies (with collateral damage) isn't common these days. China's purge of American spies a few years ago was apparently pretty bloody (as in having soldiers fire indiscriminately into an office filled with their own civilians just to kill one guy awful. Though they're fine with their people fearing the government, so them killing them, rather than the Americans was fine I guess).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Deploying a chemical/biological weapon in another country that injuring their people *is* an act of war.

It’s nothing like the US carrying out drone strikes in Iraq which is at least done with the agreement and knowledge of their government. You can argue that they politically don’t have a lot of choice in the matter but it is an ongoing armed conflict.

That’s still not the same as undertaking a covert operation in a country that you are in no armed conflict with and without any knowledge of their government. Iron Captain tries to handwave this not a act of war but ‘state terrorism’ as if that’s makes it a bit more acceptable but it is what it is. But if it was ordered by the Russian government, a biological weapon attack on citizens of a country currently not on a war footing is an act of war just as if we lobbed a missile into Moscow to kill someone we didn’t like and injured dozens of bystanders.

The US also carries out drone strikes in countries without agreement and knowledge of the government. Like Pakistan, for example.

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

Spetulhu wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
I'd like to point out that often the US has permission from the powers that be to conduct its drone strike program. That's kind of a key distinction.

Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind. But let's drop that and get back to nerve gas. ;-)

The attack on Skripal was irresponsibly clumsy, dangerous and imprecise. Hell, if North Korean agents can assassinate a lone man without anyone else getting hurt one would expect real Russian agents could do so too. The criminal angle might not be so far-fetched - Russian crime bosses used to like getting elected because of immunity while holding political office and scoring some points with Putin or his cronies surely helps your chances to get votes.

It may have been executed by criminal elements, but the order to do so came from Moscow, no doubt about it. No Russian crime boss would do such a thing without securing approval first.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

You guys do remember you started it right, when you murdered Nicolas II, a relative of our then Queen, not to mention uncounted numbers of your own countrymen?
It's going to go that far back if you start with the, 'Well you started sheltering enemies of the state and spying on us' crap, to justify dropping nerve gas in public places.

"Well they started it!" Is a child's defence from a playground. You get the moral high ground from stopping it. Not upping it to WMDs.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know a few years back Turkey shot down a Russian jet in their territory. Unlike when the Russians shot down a foreign jet this was a military jet and it was undeniably in another country's territory.

To my knowledge, ol' pooty ended up doing exactly zip about it.

(If half the things I've heard about Turks is true I can see why. )

If big bad Vlad hasn't got the ice cubes to go after Turkey I don't think he'd do much if England took measured retaliatory action against Russia if this was proven.

He didn't eaxactly do zip. With sanctions in place and Turkey being part of NATO, Putin didn't have many options to avoid self harm. But he did harm Turkey, he prevented (well sort of) Russians from going on vacation to Turkey. This was also in the days of the IS attacks. So with Russian tourists now also staying away the Turkish tourism industry started to collapse. Erdogan had to go to Putin to fix it.

Do the Russians really commit that much to the Turkish tourism industry? I would have thought that the major factors in any losses would rather be the general state of security, and the country rapidly becoming an authoritatian hellhole.

Well its a bit of both, the IS attacks and Erdogan caused the Western tourists to stay away, Germans being the largest tourist group to Turkey before that. But Russian tourists cared a lot less about the political state and they already made up the second largest tourist group after Germans. So when Western tourists stopped going it was even more devastating when almost all the Russians collectively stopped going to.

https://www.ft.com/content/340b5762-5c0d-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36676516

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

If the US wanted to assassinate Snowden, they'd probably not use a drone. But if he were assassinated I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

Only at this point? The Russian state has been very active in using terror as a weapon ever since the days of Ivan the Terrible. I thought it was a widely known fact that Russia often uses very brutal methods to get to its goals.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But really, if the UK doesn't want to have a part in this, then maybe MI6 should stop with its blatantly hostile actions against Russia? As long as the UK keeps spying on Russia, trying to undermine the Russian government and sheltering Russian traitors, Russia will retaliate by spying on the UK, undermining the UK government and assassinating said traitors. If the UK doesn't want to be the target of hostile Russian actions it should not commit hostile actions against Russia. It is that simple. Russia and the UK may not be at war, but they are enemies nonetheless. And that is something the UK brought on itself. It is not an act of war if you provoked it. If you want to play the spy game you have to face the consequences.

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack. If the UK government assassinated a British defector on the streets of Moscow, then Russia would at most impose some sanctions on Britain. If the UK lobbed a missile into Moscow, then a few minutes later we would all be able to play Fallout in real life. There is a massive difference between the one and the other.

21 innocent British people were caught up in this. You have said some ridiculous and biased things in defence of the Russian government before, but this is to far. Governments spy on each other. They protect spy’s traitors and double agents. That’s what they do. But that does not make using a nerve agent on UK soil to kill anyone acceptable. Who would you react if the US sent a drone to kill Edward Snowden? To blame the UK for this is insane and frankly insulting. The UK did nothing to provoke Russia. I don’t know the legal definition of an act of war, but this is behaviour totally beyond the pail by the Russian state.

If the US wanted to assassinate Snowden, they'd probably not use a drone. But if he were assassinated I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Also, assassinating someone with poison is very different from shooting a missile into another country's capital. I hope you can see the difference between an assassination and an open military attack.

It’s like using a bomb to assassinate someone and injuring dozens of people with shrapnel. Whatever happened to just shooting someone in the head? Russia does seem to find it necessary to go for dramatic killings using exotic neurotoxins and radioactive materials that contaminate innocents.

Indeed. Russia is a terrorist state at this point.

Only at this point? The Russian state has been very active in using terror as a weapon ever since the days of Ivan the Terrible. I thought it was a widely known fact that Russia often uses very brutal methods to get to its goals.

"I don't want to blame the UK, but here's how it's the British government's fault and you shouldn't be outraged about it. If you don't want people getting hurt in assassination attempts, then you shouldn't have been dressed like that."

It is a bit ridiculous to accuse the UK of spying on Russia and sheltering traitors so that the UK should expect them to be assassinated in turn.

All countries spy on each other. The Russians spy on the UK and also have sheltered traitors such as Philby and Burgess.

The key difference is that the UK does not assassinate such people, especially not after they have served time in prison for their crime, been released and exchanged, and double especially not with nerve gas in the middle of an important city.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not care overly much. It is the risk of the job, isn't it?
I don't want to blame the UK (the ultimate blame of course lies with the person sending the assassins, and the assassins themselves), I just find the sudden outrage strange when Russia has been engaging in this behaviour for over a century already. It is a publicly known fact that Russia is very active in hunting down 'traitors', so when you as a government decide to grant asylum to such people, you know that they are going to be attracting assassins. That innocent people get harmed in these assassinations is regrettable and inexcusable, but unfortunately such things happen. The people that got hurt in this attack are far from the world's first innocent bystanders harmed in an assassination attempt, and it is known that the Russian secret services have no qualms about making innocent victims. If the British government doesn't want its people to get hurt in Russian assassination attacks it should not shelter Russian traitors. That is the only thing they can really do, because Russia is never going to stop with attacks like this and the UK does not have the power to make them stop.

Even if they took out several random bystanders? I would bet you would be outraged, but it’s never going to happen because the US dispute it’s falins would never stoop to the levels of a petty dictatorship.

Seriously? It’s all fine because Russia have been doing it for years? Don’t mess with Russia because we have bombs? Right now Russia is one step above North Korea, and heading down. If you are any representation of the wider attitudes in Russia I hope the governments of the world finally stop the behaviour. The Russian state and Putin are just petty bullies. I hope we do deal with this in the strongest terms and stop worrying about a bit of gas. Freeze assets, throw out “diplomats” and any friends of the Russian government. See how Putin likes it when his mates can’t get to their Kensington homes or access their money stored in UK assets.

Unfortunately the perpetrators have probably got away, and once back in Russia there won’t be any cooperation.

Russia are hardly going to co-operate with the UK police if it's their guys who did it. And if it isn't, how van they offer any help.

Plus, Russia prohibits extradition of Russian citizens anyway.

The new thing is "implausible deniability", meaning that Russia does stuff that obviously is them but can't be proved in a court of law because there isn't enough evidence, thus allowing them to go "Nah, nah, nah nah, nah!"

 Steve steveson wrote:
If you are any representation of the wider attitudes in Russia I hope the governments of the world finally stop the behaviour.

I am not representative of wider attitudes in Russia. I think these attacks are horrible and that Russia should stop doing it. Most Russians on the other hand cheer these attacks. They want traitors to receive their punishment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a bit ridiculous to accuse the UK of spying on Russia and sheltering traitors so that the UK should expect them to be assassinated in turn.

All countries spy on each other. The Russians spy on the UK and also have sheltered traitors such as Philby and Burgess.

The key difference is that the UK does not assassinate such people, especially not after they have served time in prison for their crime, been released and exchanged, and double especially not with nerve gas in the middle of an important city.

No, but the UK is a much nicer country than Russia is. The UK doesn't hunt down traitors. Russia does. It is the way it is, and this is going to happen again. All of the outrage and sanctions in the world aren't going to change that. Like it or not, but the only way to prevent these attacks is to stop sheltering traitors. You can kick out diplomats, and Russia will just kick out British diplomats. You can seize Russian properties and Russia will just seize British properties. Seize the houses of Putin's billionaire friends and they will just buy a house and spend their money in another country (not to mention this would be hard since many of them are British citizens that have committed no crimes (at least in Britain). Would make the ordinary Russian people quite happy though.). You can slap economic sanctions on Russia and Russia will barely notice. Russia is too powerful, too isolated and it doesn't care about having a bad reputation. There is unfortunately nothing I can think of that the UK can do to hurt Russia and make the Kremlin stop.

If this was the Russian state and they have quite deliberately unleashed a chemical weapon which has injured/killed British citizens on British soil; that is sufficient grounds for a declaration of war. Nations have opened hostilities over far less in the past. At the very least, it is easily sufficient grounds for putting the 'Cold War' back on, complete cessation of any and all economic activity with Russian citizens, withdrawal of visas from said citizens, and from any and all forms of international collaboration.

Frankly, if the Russian Government feels confident enough to undertake such behaviour; I'd personally demand the latter course of action. The Government withdraws our taxes in the name of national defence from other countries. If other nation states can unleash such weaponry at will on myself and my countrymen at any time whilst suffering no retaliation? My Government loses its primary raison d'etre. This isn't a case of an ex-Russian spy getting knifed in the dark, this is the equivalent of a missile into a British town. It's a military grade weapon designed to cause mass casualties.

But, as the Economist put it. Russian government is a weird conglomeration and interweaving of crime, facism,and business. It's a startling and concerning thought if Putin ordered this. But it will be more concerning still if he didn't.

Well again, at the very least we should be boycotting the World Cup, but I’d be in favour of your suggestions too.