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.

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

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

since [Russia] no longer make chemical weapons

I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think Putin is a psychopath.

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

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

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

since [Russia] no longer make chemical weapons

I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

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

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

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian interests in the Ukraine were threatened. Putin intervenes.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


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

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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

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

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

Using the image you provided...



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

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

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


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

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

Why go to all this elaborate charade with chemical weapons?

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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