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.

 Ketara wrote:
Johnson didn't make the statement either.

Apart from this of course in a recorded interview...

https://news.sky.com/story/nerve-agent-attack-johnson-faces-questions-over-porton-down-claim-11315840

Though apparently he is claiming he was referring to the chemical itself, despite not being the question ("The source of this agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did we find out about this so quickly? Does Britain possess samples?) spending 5 minutes blathering on how he loves Russia etc. and apparently randomly without reference then talks about the knowing that this was the chemical, rather than referring to the question?

I don't need to listen to Russian propoganda to know he dug himself a huge hole and is again trying to dig himself out of it.

 Ketara wrote:


Our foreign secretary is enough of a joke without having to pull crap out of context to nail him with. There's too much stuff he's actually said to waste time inventing more.

So to be clear....saying as you have quoted

DW: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?

Boris Johnson:- Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory…

That being asked a direct question about where the evidence came from to implicate Russia, that he then references Porton Down, isn't actually stating misleading information on the evidence

My suspicion is that he was exagerating the information he had for maximum effect as he has a tendency to do. However he has been found out about (again) because he is in a high profile role where in the past columns he might have got away with it because of the type of papers they were. That has resulted in withdrawl of information presented by the Foreign Office and a formal statement from Porton Down as to what they actually said.

My concern is that his buffonery will make other countries more cautious in the future if we end up backtracking on the information presented. As I've pointed out previously it would have been much better to have waited gathered sufficient evidence and then placed facts on the table. Instead we've had a knee jerk reaction that I fear that if the evidence is less than convincing will make allies cautious of our intelligence int he future. In essence they tried to play a poltical game with the information and now they are having to back track at cost to reputation. All the while giving Russia the 'evidence' it needs to try and further divide people/nations and so on.

 Ketara wrote:

DW: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?

Boris Johnson:- Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory…

That being asked a direct question about where the evidence came from to implicate Russia, that he then references Porton Down, isn't actually stating misleading information on the evidence

Just so. Look at the grammar. It's not even remotely misleading. It's beginning to list a series of sources in which the collective evidence points to Russia. Porton Down is one piece of that sentence construction, but the sentence was interrupted before it could be finished.

Except no collective evidence was presented, the only evidence he presented was that from Porton Down implicating that this was the primary evidence he had in place for believing it was Russia

To proffer an alternative example, imagine that I'm working out who stole my pair of garden shears. I know it was my neighbour due to some DNA left behind. I also have a witness testimony from a friend who saw my neighbour in the area at the time, a suspicious footprint, a blurry camera image, etc.

So you say to me, 'How do you know your neighbour took the shears?' I respond by saying, 'Well, there was a blurry camera image, a footprint'- At that precise image, you interrupt me and ask me whether that camera showed someone of my neighbour's size. I then respond in the affirmative and talk about that aspect. You'll note that whilst my primary evidence is the DNA, I didn't get a chance to get to that in my listing. And the conversational flow is now such that if I write down a transcript and take it out of context, it'll look like I'm basing my accusation upon the camera image.

The argument being that if you are presenting your evidence you start with most circumstantial piece and then let yourself get side tracked and not talking about better more compelling evidence? If there is more compelling evidence why has this not been stated. Not many jury's are going to convict someone on a blurry photo when you fail to provide the DNA evidence. It is more likely he was presenting what he thought was the best evidence but exaggerated the claim to try and make a case and is now having to back track. It's not even that he didn't have three of four minutes to clarify what he was saying. He spent a large fraction of the time after the question talking about how he loved 'Russia' and the people for which there was no reason to do so, it was his own choice. He had plenty of time to make clear what he was saying about the accusation, yet he didn't. To return to the garden shears example it would be like saying, "I have this blurry photo that's the reason, but now I want to talk about how I love shear makers..." (and later wondering why people who have not had sight of any other evidence think that he has misled them)

But combined with the tweet from (another transcript) online, it's made it seem like the Foreign Office issued two separate statements making Porton Down evidence and the origin of Novichok dependent upon each other.

You mean this one...(now deleted)

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/981490573835161600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.co.uk%2Fentry%2Fboris-johnson-under-fire-over-salisbury-russia-claim-as-foreign-office-tweet-blaming-moscow-deleted-russian-embassy_uk_5ac4b1efe4b063ce2e5799c7

"Analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade Novicjok nerve agent produced in Russia. Porton Down is OPCW-accredited and designated laboratory"

and yet we now have DSTL tweeting

"Our experts have precisely identified the nerve agent as Novichok. It is not, and has never been, our responsibility to confirm the source of the agent"

So the first was apparently a 'mistake' and 'misinterpretation' of an embassy statement. Which is complete bullgak. It's not like their PR team is made up of one unsupervised 16 year apprentice. The original tweet would have been approved at the highest levels (if not Boris the Clown himself) because of the level of sensitivity.

Which has resulted in the Russians seizing on it with glee to push it as much out of context as possible, because that's what their information strategy is based around these days. Making people argue over meaningless little facets like this to distract from the issue in question and sow doubt and distrust.

That came about because of May's and Boris the Clowns desire to push a 'strong and stable' approach to the issue and rushing out before all the evidence was gathered. A more cautious approach to gather the evidence and come out with a much more robust conclusion would have made it a lot less easier for the Russian government to deny its involvement. Instead we got May's preferred strategy of the "weak and wobbly" approach which has now left a massive question mark over the initial statements that allows those doubts to be exploited. We cannot yet definitely prove that Russia produced the agent and is circumstantial. Others could have made the chemical with the correct equipment. This is an interesting read about Chemists views on making such material...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/long-read-does-the-uks-case-against-russia-stack-up

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

The argument being that if you are presenting your evidence you start with most circumstantial piece and then let yourself get side tracked and not talking about better more compelling evidence? If there is more compelling evidence why has this not been stated.....

Come on mate. You know as well as I do that the alternative information is going to be intelligence based. Johnson isn't going to pull out an MI6 dossier in the middle of an interview with German TV, wave it around, and say, 'Yeah, this is how we know!'

No I do not expect them to release classified files. What I do expect however is not to use the information they will release in a sane and sensible manner rather than use it to mislead it for political ends. The only thing that allows is for those questioning the narrative the opportunity to pick holes and dismantle the argument lowering trust between allies and their populace of what is being said.

The BBC made an interesting point that the best way of knowing 100% for sure is if we have another Russian sample from the same place to compare to like for like. But if we had such a sample, the last thing we'd want to do is share that fact generally, because it would let on to the Russians the extent of our reach into their chemical weapons plant. And we certainly wouldn't do it because a bunch of people sitting on Dakka demand all the evidence so that they can sit in the position of 'Judge'.

Reading the Channel 4 article for all intents and purposes to be able to identify the specific agent is to have a sample. Assuming the information is correct, things like dismantling weapon labs in Afghanistan provided significant information on what was being developed there. It looks like from the Chemistry scientific community they have already accepted that we do have access to these chemicals otherwise we wouldn't have been able to identify them so quickly. It is also likely why the UK won't give access to Russia because that might give them insight as to where we have the information from. So at this stage it is "they know, we know, what they know"

Guv, have you seen Donald Trump on Twitter? Or frankly, any other Government Department? Managing the Twitter feed is all too often solely left either to the work experience guy, or a bitter older bloke who has no idea what he's doing but is damned if he's going to leave it to the kids. And even when it isn't, stuff does get run together quite regularly. People do misphrase things. We all edit our posts on here to clarify/remove spelling error all the time. Text based mistyping isn't the exclusive preserve of anyone.

That is just "whataboutism" (which to point out you were complaining about the other week). In government bodies the twitter/social media feed is run by experienced PR groups. There are specific protocols that are followed to issue such information. It really isn't 'a bitter old person who doesn't like the youths of today" (although to be fair that pretty much sums up the Tory party... )

But you're so desperate to pass judgement on the Government and find them wanting that it really doesn't matter if they have the guy who made this specific batch of Novichok giving them signed photos of him doing it and giving a thumbs up. If they released that, you'd call them idiots, if they hid it, you'd accuse them of 'rushing out before all the evidence was gathered'. The fact is, you don't know either way (not being in government), but you're sure as hell not going to miss a chance to stick that knife in. Which sadly plays right into the clearly stated (and it is, if you pay any attention to stuff published recently) Russian counter-intelligence strategy.

No I do not expect that. I expect a full investigation and then the evidence put forward in a combined package as to who we think is responsible. That includes investigation of who the perpetrator might have been where they went next and so on. You know good old proper police work. That's how our criminal system works. The government's weak and wobbly approach was "we have the Tesco knife that killed someone, it must be the managing director of Tesco that did it". It could well be that is the case but the source of the material does not necessarily mean it was state actioned and that needs more time to gather evidence to rule out other possibilities. It will be very embarrassing for the government if in three months time the police come out and say the person of interest is Uncle Tom Cobbly of the "Free the Volcanoes" far right group that just happens to be headed up by the former Russian Chief Chemical Weapon Engineer now living in Iceland. Just because it is a chemical attack does not change the burden of evidence that is required.

The fact that so many other Governments appear to be convinced and lining up behind it after private communication is, to me, the real proof in the pudding. You wouldn't get so much of the EU doing it without something concrete to hand over.

Or that given everything else that Russia has been involved with (Crimea, hacking, funding far right groups, providing military vehicles to shoot down airliners etc) that there is enough evidence (even if it is simply they have chemical weapons that they said were banned) to take some action. Which should the case arise they can conveniently blame the UK for if we've got it wrong. If this was an isolated incident I don't think there would have been the same reaction.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


I want to make a very clear point to you Whirlwind, and I hope you read it and it sinks in.

YOU WILL NEVER FIND PROOF
I ill repeat it for you
YOU WILL NEVER FIND PROOF
and again
YOU WILL NEVER FIND PROOF

There is a subtle but distinct difference between evidence (which is what I am asking for more of) and proof. To be proven guilty has to be taken to a judicial system and that system followed to review all evidence.

Evidence is there to try and disentangle possibilities (which to point out they would have been taking the same approach at PD). It's challenging what other information you need to support the hypothesis. At the moment there are too many gaps in knowledge which could lead to widely different results depending on the outcome of those. It's not about proving guilt, it's about gathering evidence so that you can exclude other possibilities. The UK government's approach has been as far as they are informing people is that we have a chemical, we know Russia designed it. However we do not know - how old is it, if it degrades over time then there may be chemical signatures that might show this. If it is over 20 years old that might imply an old USSR stockpile; raising questions as to who might have had access to it. If it is new, what facilities are needed to make it. Could you make it with a technical chemistry equipment in a standard lab or does it require specialist equipment. If it is the latter who makes this, can we track down such suppliers and so on. You test the hypothesis and go from there and test it again until there is little further evidence you can gather at which point you state what the evidence indicates and what potential options that leaves open and their likelihood.

 Ouze wrote:

Statecraft isn't part of the criminal justice system, so that's a remarkably poor analogy. A hostile act by a nation state is not a crime being committed by an individual and it's not going to be prosecuted like one.

No but you still need evidence on that claim and that takes time and follows similar procedures regardless of whether it is a state act or a crime. It's also really about the crime being committed; it's still actioned by individuals - Serbs/Nazi's etc were and still are prosecuted in the Hague for their actions despite acting as part of the state. The fundamental principles of investigation are the same. If we abandon the principles of evidence for political glory as our government has done then you are acting no different to the way Russia does in denying everything. It is much easier to fight lies and smears with facts and figures than it is to use smears and conjecture to prove who you think did it. The UK *could* end up with a large amount of egg on face if it turns out that it wasn't the Russian state. The question is whether the time to get more evidence is worth that to end up potentially being embarrassed in the long run (more than having Boris the Clown as foreign secretary anyway! )

 Orlanth wrote:
What possibilities. Just after the assassination the Russian state media started gloating. Russia had the capability motive and past track record. Who else could have done this, Australia?

Also what part of YOU WILL NEVER FIND PROOF don't you understand?

I'm still not sure you understand the difference between proof and evidence. So I'll try again. Proof is a concept in that a formalised process finds that the evidence presented to it undeniably in that system means that the person/actor/state undertook the stated act. Evidence is different. It's about gathering data to limit the potential options so that can you put a probability on the different options. I'm not asking for proof, I'm stating that with what has been indicated by the UK government was too light on evidence and leaves too many other potential options ill-considered that requires evidence to be gathered.

Professional state assassins cover ALL their tracks. They have multiple members of the teams each doing different things, some do not formally meet in the target country but work through a coordinator. You won't get the evidence you are looking for.

That's not specifically correct. In the Litvinenko case for example the UK have a person that they believe implemented the scheme. That he is hiding in Russia and not coming out to play is another issue. However because that is the case doesn't mean you stop looking for evidence and trying to close off other possibilities.

Novichok is made by Russia, the target was a target of Russia alone, the Russans acted in a manner that all but confirmed their guilt in political realspeak while denying it openly.

The UK government stated that Russian involvement was 'highly likely' that is a correctly worded assessment to a reasonable supposition.

What does highly likely mean in this context. Is that a 9/10 chance they were involved. That's still a 10% chance they were not involved. Even a 50:50 odds could be considered 'highly likely' (as half the odds are placed on one actor). As far as I am aware the actual evidence for new sources of the chemical are limited. There is no denying USSR created it. It's almost certain that every major country has a sample of it and Russia at least has some old stockpiles of it. None of what you are stating is however factual evidence. It's conjecture where you are fitting the information to hand to the view you want to believe. It's this sort of thinking that gets us into the same mess the Tories are now in.

Russia has also demandes access to EU investigations (which was refused) and to Skripal hiself (which was refused, though they will be allowed to tlk to his daughter if she agress, they have that right) , the former is basically the same statement as before, the latter is 'tell us about your chemical weapons countermeasures'.

That's not really any different to any other scenario where a nation might use an opportunity to scout out another nations work. If roles were reversed I would expect the Russia and the UK to be playing the same dance with us asking and them denying it.

We know extra intel what they do have has convinced the US, France and Germany and it's notable that the US, France and UK are all on the same page politically, it doesn't happen often, and France is generally loath to take on Russia, doubly so if it is to help Les Anglais.

Stuck in the early 1800's are we?

No there are no wide gaps. Very few countries could pull this off. Russia, Israel, US possibly France. Only one has the motive and capabilitiy.
The idea that there are multiple options is the Russia propaganda you are swallowing.

You want a how to guide on Novichok? Do you understand what you are asking or why such information is kept out of public domain.

OK, so I guess you didn't read the Channel 4 article? The chemical composition is out there already, it's even shown in the report and to help here are some quotes from scientists...

"I can’t believe that Russia has the sole technology to manufacture Novichoks,” “If you want to make sure you’re protected against an agent which has been spoken about – and, in fact, even their chemical structures are on the internet – one would imagine that’s probably a duty of care.” - Jerry Smith former Chemical weapons inspector.
“A good synthetic chemist could do this work,” he said. “Look at the structures. It would take time and it requires talent, but there are lots of very competent and good synthetic chemists around.”
“There is no chemical synthesis that you cannot imagine someone with a chemical training not being able to do,” Professor Sella added. “Now that the structures are out there, chemists will sit there and speculate ‘how could I make this thing?’. Synthetic inorganic chemist at UCL
"Professor Sella explains: “There is no chemistry that one cannot conceive of doing in a back room, if you have the right sort of kit.” But he adds: “I honestly think the risks are just too high to do this somewhere in a back yard or a shed. The toxicity levels are extreme.”

The boot fits.

A size seven boot fits a lot of people. What you want is enough evidence to show that the boot was moulded to one particular foot or to the point where the likelihood that is anyone else's is very unlikely. We don't have that, the work has only just begun on the case. All you are pointing out is circumstantial actions afterwards, that could easily be attributed to others things (e.g. grandstanding by the Kremlin so as not to look weak). On the other hand the way you want the UK to act is exactly the way Russia does at the moment, and I'd prefer our country works to evidence not lowers itself to the same level as they are and rolls about in the mud.

 Steve steveson wrote:

This has been covered several times before. Knowing the chemical structure of one of the family of agents is easy. It is in books. It is on wikipidia.

Producing any Novichok requires a particular set of skills. Those of a good chemist. Like a research chemist with a doctorate. Now, those are not that rare, but it is not everyone on the street. They could synthesise small amounts of it. Without knowing the details of how it is formed "small amounts" could be beaker full or a few crystals in among a large amount of waste. Based on the evidence I would guess the latter.

This would also require a lab appropriate for handling this kind of chemical. That is something that only a few places in the world can do. Military research labs like Porton Down.

You then need the skills to weaponize it. One of the problems with nerve agents is that they are unstable and quickly break down, unless stabilized. This, again, requires a specific skill set.

And yet every state in the world and likely criminal and non-criminal organisations will have the ability to at least dabble and try. And that really is the issue. On this basis there is no evidence that Russia has to be the sole creator of such material. The evidence on this is flawed because as noted any potential state with some resources can in principle try and create such a chemical. If North Korea can design, get the material, enrich uranium and make a nuclear weapon (being perhaps the most isolated country in the world) then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that another state or wealthy actor could enact such a material given time. Hence the accusation that it definitely is Russia is flawed because there isn't evidence to disprove that others cannot otherwise make such a material. Further evidence is needed to allow us to disprove that possibility. Without that information it leaves a huge hole in the argument that Russia can exploit. Stating Russia is acting suspicious is not a reason to mean they did do it, only that they are acting in a manner that really is no different than they have done for the last 3/4 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


The chemists interviewed are mostly ivory tower theorists whose words were taken out of perspective by journalists seeking a better punchline for their TV program. Channel 4 is not a careful news organisation, and they muckrake for dramatic effect.

Yes in theory it could be done, in theory we could colonise Mars or eliminate world debt. The practice is harder.

I guess you didn't actually read the article then (or didn't get past the first line?) The article was well written and looked at the different reasons for and against the argument it was Russia. Channel 4 is one of the more reliable TV newscasters we have at the moment. I'd also suggest you look at the profiles of the people you are stating are ivory tower theorists. However I'm assuming this is more about experts telling a different side of the story than you want to hear and are happy to read a one line Daily Fail article stating "the Ruskies did it!!!!!".

I wonder if Whirlwind has even the slightest clue about what he is supporting: A situation where the UK has to apologise to a rogue state attacking us with chemical weapons because of technicalities in the investigation taken heavily out of context through a blatant propaganda machine and then bleated though the press by anglophobes backed up by malcontents in this country who want to take any opportunity for a cheap shot at the Tories.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not asking the UK to apologise. I'm asking them to gather sufficient evidence and complete the investigation and then take action so that the perpetrators can't wriggle out it. At the moment the UK is taking the "Charge of Light Brigade" approach and we know how that turned out. All glory and yelling then turning tail and running because of misinformation.

I personally think that we are being played by Russia. They will have known what sort of reaction would have arisen from the event, likely even planned for it. Russia's plan is to divide the west. The best way to do this is to get a country to over-react without full information, get others to agree and then slowly whittle apart the argument because it wasn't based on sound information to start with because it was rushed as an action to be seen as 'strong' (e.g Boris's retraction / deletion of FCO tweets). That leads to doubt in our abilities with allies and leads to disjointed approaches in the future. My concern is that we being played and Russia are laughing themselves silly because as a country we are bieng their useful fools. The only way to battle such a dynamic is to take your time, not make rushed, rash emotional decisions and use the evidence to your advantage and not let the lack of it be our undoing. Once you have that evidence in hand then take strong action and with the evidence in hand it is easier to bat away silly, purile arguments from Russia because they simply don't stand up to scrutiny with the gathered evidence.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So it took 20 years from the Soviets developing these agents for their mass spectral data to be even known in accuracy to the ocpw but people think that within 2 years of that data being out there people could replicate it? For reference, mass spectral data will tell you the ratios of elements in a substance, from which the chemical structure could be then pieced together but it gives zero indication as to how to produce the original sample. So it can tell you that your sample has oxygen nitrogen and carbon amd in what quantities but then you need to work out the structure of the compound and how to produce that structure.

Reading the Channel 4 article it is implicated that it is likely that western world knew way before it was publicly available. I also point to this quote:-

In 1995, he warned that Russian officials familiar with the chemical weapons programme were being laid off and were desperate for money. The New York Times reported that the production of new weapons had halted, but said Mirzayanov was worried that existing stockpiles might be stolen or transferred. So the secrets behind Novichoks may not have been very well guarded. And – when combined with the details published in Mirzayanov’s book – it is perfectly possible that other countries had strong intelligence about what Russia was doing.

So it is hence supposition that it was only relatively recently other groups/states/actors could not have had the chemical make up of the material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
@whirlwind.

Ketara is talking sense and it's flowing off you like water off a duck. You really look blinkered here.

That's fine. I'm happy to be the voice of reason in a sea of madness....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


I suppose you are glowing about the program because it supposedly helps your narrative that its all somehow Theresa May's fault and wouldn't it be better if Corbyn was in charge, at any price.

Actually I didn't say that. I pointed out that May was more tactful. It was Boris that acted as the Clown because over emphasised the evidence, misled people and allowed false information to be posted on twitter.

It doesn't even help you that the chemists are refering to theory not practice, definitively so as none of them make Novichok.

Apart from the point that one statement came from a former Chemical Weapon expert that was quoted...but then I suppose he was just theoretical?

Channel 4 were muckraking, but that is the problem with having a free press.

So you are opposed to a free press? I still don't think you read the article though because it balanced both arguments and came to a conclusion.

You have not once tried to quote and refute the evidence given which was given thoroughly by myself and others. You snippet quote to avoid the arguments you cannot counter. For someone who's position is that we should look at the whole and not narrow down a conclusion prematurely it is very thin.

Like what? You are claiming proof of who did it. That places the obligation of burden to provide that *real* evidence on yourself. My argument has always been your statements are not evidence just circumstantial assumptions based on behaviour.

Actually I think for myself, you should try that sometime.

I would agree with you on this, perhaps surprisingly. You are basing your decision on assumptions without any real evidence other than what is being presented to you. Any other possibility is discounted out of hand because it doesn't align with what you think. The danger being of course if it is proven wrong you will feel badly let down - much akin to what happened with Blair and the Iraq war. On the other hand I know I don't have all the evidence and know the investigation is not concluded. Therefore I defer my thinking until such evidence is presented by the experts.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually you are asking for the UK to apologise or back down heavily at immense cost to our future security, because its is the direct continuence of your rhetoric is it is perpetuated and holds public value.
You are dancing to the Kremlin's tune, an the Kremlin are very likely to be the people who ordered the attack.

Just to clarify where did I say that we should apologise? The only people that are being the puppets are the ones acting through this current song and dance process. The outcome which was easily predictable because of what has gone before and to be fair I did predict the current mess with some information being wrong and then us having to back track because of it.

The government is either right or it is wrong. Think it over.

That's a very binary view on things and it is never as simple as that. I do think the government has grounds to be suspicious of Russia's involvement, I don't think it is correct for them to be calling them out on it a day after the event when the only real evidence they had was the chemical used, which has been shown, is not impossible for others to manufacture. No investigation takes a day to complete by making rash, emotional (and probably political decisions) without the full evidence they can gather runs a significant risk of being accused of making it up. Statistically in such circumstances something is going to be found to be incorrect. Much better to wait and gather that evidence first then take action so that you have all evidence to hand and that you aren't shooting yourself in the foot.

Russia did NOT expect the reaction that they got. We know this from two important pieces of evidence.

None of what you said proves that Russia were in anyway surprised by our reaction - this reaction is similar to other recent issues as well. Social media posts are generally not a good analogy to how surprised or not they are. The Tories get donations from the wife's of former Putin MPs as well. The principle that non-UK residents should be able to support our parties is questionable but its largely irrelevant here for this topic of discussion.

Finally once the government did say enough was enough and made statements that they were going to take serious reciprocal measures the Russians likely did not expect the level of support the Uk government actually received. Initially France was sceptical, in fact they made noises not to dissimilar to your own, but rapidly changes their tune.

As I've pointed out this is what worries me the most because we have got it wrong then we won't ever be trusted again. They will have made the decision based on Russia's past activities and what we presented them. If we have it wrong then there will be a price in trust. Better to be certain than gamble when the stakes are that high

What disjointed approach? the Uk has claimed it eas hilhy likely Russia commited the attack, and most of our allies have firmly backed this up, including those that did not expel diplomats.

It's about the future and how we will be trusted then. Divide and conquer.

If Russia was laughing themselves silly they would not be raising the ante consistently. Look at the Russian internal video press, links ave been provided. They are getting more nasty more brazen and more desperate. They were highlighting their nuclear strike capabiliities with the UK as a target.

Russia have been raising such things for years. They've been showing nuclear rocket launches well before the current issue was even dreamt up. I ask you, as this seems to be your interpretation of Russia's desperate actions, how would you know the difference between an act and the real thing?

If you were right the political divisions would be there. However they exist only in Russian propaganda and such press as wants to make an anti-Tory message regardless of the price to the nation.

You don't seem to get the point. It's not about now. They won't backtrack now because it won't look good in their own public eyes. They will be more distrustful and cautious in the future however, hence the divide and conquer approach.

This was covered before, and it was explained to you why that would be a feeble and poor method of response.

Without any sound argument as to why just "because you say so"? As I said the charge of light brigade, act and worry about if you have got it wrong later (and then post it as some heroic defeat).

"We have just suffered a chemical weapons attack, let's not be hasty but wait until it all blows over before making any comments." - Not said by any responsible government with a spine.

It actually takes more spine to defer a decision until you have the information to hand because our evolved response is to act and the public want to see some action regardless of how insane. However that has tendency to be manipulated by those that are calculating the moves.

Actually I am a political analyst,and was following my own conclusions. Much of what I wrote here was my own take on what is happening based to the evidence provided. Which is what an analyst does.

By that definition we are all political analysts...but your conclusions are not based on enough evidence. Not really surprising when it comes to politics...

 Ketara wrote:


For example, a small point that you were off on before; a chemical analysis can also (or so I am told) reveal the specific locale/plant which did the production if you have another identical sample from it. So if we do have a source inside a current Russian Government's chemical plant which has forwarded such a sample, or we have obtained one by other means, we would not wish to advertise such a fact widely. Alternatively, if we've pieced together the movements and identity of the perpetrator, but do not wish to reveal how we know of them? The same situation. If we have an intercepted SIGINT report dispatched from the perpetrator to Putin's Government confirming the hit has taken place? Same again.

I've not seen evidence that you can determine the exact site can be determined from the analysis. From what I have read it is feasible to determine the chemical composition and type of manufacturing process used as you can, for example identify certain chirality ( your left hand / right hand is a good example) in elements which would indicate how it was put together. It is also a reason some companies object to the OPCW entering their facilities as that information can provide evidence of the process and fear of giving away trade secrets. Because I can't find evidence that this can actually be undertaken I am concerned that this is word of mouth confusion between nuclear material and chemicals. For nuclear material you can determine the source because breeder reactors create radioactive elements in specific proportions because of the fixed components (initial material composition, thickness of rods, the type of control rods and so forth). These set ups stay static for 30 years or more (but need to be retested when a component changes) because that then changes the proportions of the radioactive materials. On the other hand chemicals are not constrained in the same way, it uses base materials that will change between each batch simply because we can't control the contaminants that well and how it is created. A 'simple' example would be something like concrete, a chemical process. The same factory can create two batches of the same material one straight after another but have different compositions simply because of the slight differences in input materials. Therefore I am slightly sceptical that refining to the exact factory is possible. I could agree that the same *batch* could be linked and if you have a batch from a known factory at a known time then perhaps you can link it in that way.

So apologies for the threadomancy, but it appears this would be better placed here than start a new thread.

However it has just been confirmed that two new people have been poisoned by the same nerve agent as the Skripals (so Novichok)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-44707052

So it is now going to be interesting how the UK acts. It's one thing for former spies to gone after (not that this is acceptable, but I'm sure there are people that shrug their shoulders and say 'spy games') but when it starts affecting innocent civilians then there is a potential major issue.

It also highlights that agent may have been dumped somewhere and despite all the clean up is still active in the area. Given it was thought to degrade rapidly in the environment, either this is a new source or that information is incorrect.

The reports suggest that they visited areas that were close to where the Skripals frequented before the attack.

I doubt this was in Russia's plan. They will have little grounds for defence when it is uk citizens, the U.K. Government attacking its own would clearly be a daft statement. It might mean either the excess was discarded prior to or just after the attack and my guess is that these unfortunate people just happened to find some not previously picked. For example suppose they met at a very rarely used bird hide and the perpetrators had contaminated that site to give them the best chance that they would be infected. These two then decided to go there over the weekend because of the nice weather etc.

What is perhaps worrying is that despite the clean up operation they have at least missed one location which means there could be more in out of the way places

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I think some people may be jumping to conclusions. They don't know if it is related to the Skripal poisoning, and it seems these people haven't been to Salisbury recently. So all we know is that two people collapsed in a town near Salisbury, and the government is evidently not taking any risks and investigating whether there is a connection to the earlier novichok poisonings nearby. I say we wait with conclusions until they finish their investigation.

This article suggests they were in a similar vicinity
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/salisbury-couple-fresh-victims-novichok-205230021.html

The response was delayed as one was a known drug addict. That might suggest a possible method of containment, a drug container or syringe, that might have been dropped in a drug area somewhere on the assumption it would be missed amongst other detritus left there.

The idea that there is a novichok factory in Wiltshire is mostly likely ludicrous. We had a discussion and experts have stated before that although technically possible to create in a back garden shed it would be extremely hazardous and require specialist equipment that I am sure the police have already checked with manufacturers just in case.

I would suggest that it is more likely that either

Russia have continued to refine novichok and it is now more stable than expected
That it is more stable than anyone expected and has been sitting around waiting for a victim or two
That an element was discarded in a sealed container of some form that prevented its degradation (a vacuum sealed container for example)

 Iron_Captain wrote:


This assumes that the vector wasn't something like a sealed container that burst open when someone stepped on it.

That is possible. It would be really sloppy of an assassin to leave a container of deadly nerve agent lying around, but it is possible. I guess we won't know unless they give us more information.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Again, that is possible, but it seems unlikely. Why would an assassin hide his valuable nerve agent, which he needs to do his job, in a place where it is at high risk of being seen and accidentally picked up?
I guess they could have picked up an empty container that still had some residue in it. That would not be lethal anymore after such a time, but perhaps still potent enough to knock people out.

Because they were spooked and wanted to get rid of asap? Perhaps they simply didn't care who else it affected? That they wanted it to be found?

The reports coming out now that they did handle a contaminated item
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44727191

 Whirlwind wrote:
On the other hand as DINLT points out it does not appear as lethal as initially made out. We could hypothesise that the chemical composition has been altered to make it more stable and longer lasting, but at the same time making it less lethal

Then it would not be a novichok agent. It would have to be something new of an entirely different composition. But since the Porton Down labs identified the substances used in both cases as novichok, I think we can already reject this hypothesis.

Novichok is a series of agents not just one. We talk about it as being one specific type of agent but it covers at least 5 known varieties from the information to hand. That would suggest there are likely others that we don't know of. Hence a less potent but more stable variety is not an impossibility.

 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)

 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.

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