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 am sorry to have to say it, but this is another situation where Brexit is bad news for the UK.

it's all very well for PM May to keep saying "Security, blah blah" but in reality, the rest of the EU is less likely to be influenced to support the UK since we've flipped them off and said we're taking our ball home.

 Ketara wrote:
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.

Yes. Saying this is true and sounds very though, but it is meaningless. What is Britain going to do? Declare war on Russia? I am sure having to dodge ICBMs will improve the safety of the British people...

 Ketara wrote:
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.

That is actually a lot more extreme than the Cold War. Even in the Cold War there was still contact, cooperation and travel between the Soviet Union and Britain. Furthermore, it would be hard to do legally under British and international law and probably accomplish less than expected since most Russians living in Britain are British or EU citizens as well as Russian citizens. Last but not least, it would hurt Britain as well. British businesses would lose access to an important market and lose all of the money that Russian oligarchs are pumping into Britain. It would also hurt Britain diplomatically, culturally and scientifically. It sounds though, but it really would not make things better for Britain.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It sounds though, but it really would not make things better for Britain.

It would make things better in that we would not be funding and abetting a power willing to literally deploy chemical warfare agents on us in our own country. I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

We will survive without a bunch of Putin's backers buying suits on Savile Row and eating in our restaurants. Because frankly, beyond investing Mafia proceeds into property; the Russian economy has very little hold here beyond that of luxury goods/services market. Trade between us halved back in 2015, and barely anyone noticed; there were more than enough Chinese millionaires lurking about the joint to replace them. There's very little cultural and scientific exchange either. Certainly nothing worth trading dozens of people's lives for. It's more about a) making a strong statement that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated, and b) removing the apparatus by which it can be carried out. Then you make a very clear statement attributing it, and stating that if this behaviour continues, NATO will be invoked.

And no, that wouldn't be an overreaction on our part on the second time. Because carrying out sloppy military grade chemical weapon attacks on another country, is a textbook, open-shut case of military aggression; just as much as firing a missile, occupying the Isle of Wight, or sinking a ship. If a country feels that they can murder large quantities of your citizens whenever they please, you have two choices. You accept it and roll over (ala Pakistan with America) or you fight back.

This isn't some vague case of cyber-attack damaging a handful of SCADA, or stealing a few million dollars. This is functionally identical to a handful of guys wearing balaclavas jumping out of a helicopter and machine gunning people. The only difference is the weapon involved. At the moment, our metaphorical balaclava wearers are anonymous. The minute that they are proven to be of Russian military origin is the minute that you freeze all relations on every level. You don't start a war over just one such military incident in today's civilised world. But two or three? You do. And that would need to be made abundantly clear.

Putin is an international opportunist. Draw a decisive line in the sand, make clear that you will stick to what you say, and he'll backtrack several miles.

Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us. This, IMO, is a step to far that cannot be ignored by the international community in the way it has with Ukraine, Russia shooting down planes and the aggressive flights and naval routes. Russia have stepped over a line and the international community must now stand up to Putin. This morning they found traces of the agent in a restaurant, so they have the smoking gun. It won’t be long until they can prove the country of origin.

I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

Perhaps it would be prudent to add 'WIth Nerve Gas', on the end of that.

Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

As long as they continue to support that government, they share responsibility for what that government does. They are the people with power to force through lasting change in their own country, it is up to them if they use it.

A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

Russia, is well Russia.
It's very different to Western nations, and yes things like protests need to be approved and so mean opposition is not always as viable but there still is one, its not a monarchy.

Putin, yes had alot of power and influence, and being his enemy is not the best choice, however he is not quite also the DR evil type super villa some claim at times.

Don't post intentionally baity stuff to/that could derail a discussion, thanks.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I've heard Russia described by some politics pundits as "a chain of Mafia ran gas stations, and a network of hackers, with flags".

How accurate do people closer to Russia see this statement as being?

Add in the military and it is fairly accurate.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us. This, IMO, is a step to far that cannot be ignored by the international community in the way it has with Ukraine, Russia shooting down planes and the aggressive flights and naval routes. Russia have stepped over a line and the international community must now stand up to Putin. This morning they found traces of the agent in a restaurant, so they have the smoking gun. It won’t be long until they can prove the country of origin.

And that is the only way the UK could send a message that Russian government actually notices. Alone the UK can't do much, but if it coordinates a response with other countries it can do much more. Unfortenately, I think the UK wasted most of its international credit and negotiating power.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Russia is a nation of millions of ordinary people, with their own lives to get on with, much the same as anywhere else.

It would be unfair to blame the general population for the stuff their pseudo-democratic government has done.

As long as they continue to support that government, they share responsibility for what that government does. They are the people with power to force through lasting change in their own country, it is up to them if they use it.

True. The Russian government isn't some evil dictatorship that is far above the common population. It is elected and approved (in a reasonably fair election, as confirmed by international monitoring organisations) by the Russian people, and currently highly popular. Russians love their government doing this kind of stuff, so they most certainly are to blame.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of them don't support the government (e.g. Pussy Riot) but since Russia is a pseudo-democracy, it's hard for them to do much about it.

As well as Russians in the UK, there's a bit of a history of Putin's domestic opponents suddenly up and dying in odd circumstances.

Yes, there is plenty of Russians that do not support the government, but on a national scale they are not very many. The current Russian government has massive, overwhelming support that is unprecedented in Russian (or perhaps even European) history. So anti-Putin voices are there, especially in Moscow and Peterburg, but they just get drowned out in waves of Putin supporters from the smaller provincial cities where most of the Russian population lives.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yep. Any loss of Russians will quickly be made up by Chinese or middle eastern millionaires. The UK could lose Russian trade without even blinking. Russia however would not just be hit by the UK. Other countries would have to join us.

I suspect there would be little issue gaining such support for the most part. Few 'credits' needed, as it were. It is one thing when Russia is messing around in its backyard with little green men and loaned weapons. Out of sight, out of mind. If it turns out to be the case that they are responsible for this incident; it raises the spectre that they will repeat it next in France, Germany, or America. We are a First World Western nation with one of the highest budgets on military spending. If Putin feels he can get away with it here, then no place and no citizen is safe from him any longer.

Unlike the Syrian rebels or the Ukrainians however, we very much have the capability to damage Russia equally back; be it in economic/political sanctions, or in half a dozen tit for tat surprise chemical attacks around Moscow (since you can't complain about someone doing to you what you do to them, after all).

And if Putin didn't order this? Then he needs to get his house in order, because the minute this is irrefutably established as coming from Russia? He'll be the one taking the flak. That's the thing about being a dictator; we don't necessarily believe you when you say you weren't the one in control.

In regards to ownership the Russians can't play the same hand as they did Ukraine, at least in the short term. Where they adamantly denied involvement whilst suggesting that the resulting actions were a good thing (already happened here), before walking that back a while later to saying "yeah, we did it, so what?". The Russians are still using the argument that their soldiers one day decided to just walk off with hundreds of tanks and other military hardware, but faced no repercussions.

If that's the image which Putin wants to project to the world of how inept his government is then they could presumably play a similar hand here. All the while internally putting out smug statements to his own people about how smart they are in fooling the West. Unfortunately those who buy into that guy's line have an inferiority complex which results in them using the argument "oh, but the West's been doing this for decades, so we have every right to do it too". Though I suppose that predicates also not stopping to think "wait, we just did a bad thing. Regardless of someone else having done a bad thing, we're still doing a bad thing" or "no, you can't get away with theft just because that other guy stole something".

...Though any arguments of that sort are pretty moot. We're dealing with a government who's default stance seems to be smugness. "Look how smart we are in how we can circumvent all your laws", and so on. Putin's response this week to "Was it the Russian government who influenced the US election?", was "Russian citizens acting independently maybe, but they must have been Ukrainians, Tatars, or Jews" (which, yeah, feth you dude). In this 1984 style state that government's already sold their followers that any sanctions and isolationism is a good thing, as it only this separation from the West only makes them stronger (which is against the line put out from the Russian Federation prior to Putin). As the UK government carries out its investigation here we're yet to see what the reaction will be, but hopefully it'll be something which sums up the West's feelings over the past few years of nonsense which that state's perpetrated.

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

Because publicly operating drone strikes for the explicit purpose of eliminating members of violent groups who have perpetrated many atrocities at home and abroad (and will likely continue doing so) is entirely morally equivalent and identical to unleashing indiscriminate cloaked chemical arsenals to kill a harmless ex-spy trying to have a meal with his daughter, right?

I get there are some very broad brush similarities in that both involve governments killing people they disapprove of abroad, but trying to discount reactions on that basis is just virtue signalling taken to the extreme. 'Sometimes there's collateral damage when YOUR government kills people. What are you complaining about? You people are all just as bad as each other'

I mean, seriously?

 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.

It is odd. I'm pretty sure that most posters here if given the resources this attack must have required, could come up with dozens of more precise ways to kill someone on foreign soil, that would also send a message to other "traitors". I think its possible that the attacks message is not just to individuals who have crossed Putin, but to other countries as well.

It's a very messy assassination given the substance used.

A police officer being directly affected. 100's asked to take care washing clothes and other items, Its going to be hard for The govt and whitehall to continue asking police and other offices to turn a blind eye to the funny funds that have been washing into the country - and London in particular - since Blairs government welcomed Russian monopoly money in the late 90's.

Messy by design or accident I'm pretty sure this will lead directly back to the Kremlin.

Diplomatic explusions ahead and I'm pretty certain that Oligarchs should probably start expecting visits from the SFO and their ilk - and that will probably hurt Putin and his pals.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I will gladly take the (negligible) economic hit over spending the hundred odd lives the Russian Government decides are easy collateral in my country next time they wish to sloppily murder someone using VX nerve agent or somesuch. And the hundred from the time after that, because they keep getting away with it and consequently keep doing it.

Nation states operating questionably accountable drone bombing campaigns with rampant "collateral damage" in foreign countries shouldn't throw stones.

How is a conventional attack on a military force you are at war with, in a war zone, morally the same as a nerve gas attack on a civilian target in a neutral country?

Is this becoming a major political issue in England? Will the English government simply ban news. Coverage of it to. Prevent unrest or demands for action?

Spetulhu wrote:
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.

The difference is the US has deal with Yemen and other countries. There is no violation of sovereignty when the government of the country gives you permission to make the attack.

A more complicated situation is Pakistan. The US originally had permission for the attacks but that was withdrawn later, after which the Pakistani government has made a lot of noise to its domestic audience about how outraged they are about the violation of their sovereignty. Except that position is purely for show, Pakistan has continued to work with the US and fly drone missions out of Pakistani airfields.

If there is a case of the US making attacks without any government permission, that would be terrible. But is there any such instance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
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?

Ah, my mistake. I read the news piece and forgot about the post it was linked in. I see you were just making a factual statement, my bad.

And how much confirmation do you need? That Russia is behind this was already more crystal clear than a mountain stream.

You were the one who said this wasn't proof. Read your own post again. I was making the point to you that you are now repeating back to me.

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.

What utter crap. People can say that the drone strike program is wrong, and there's a strong case to be made, but trying to claim that it is 'assassinating people they do not like' is very silly. Taking that even further, as you did, and trying to claim Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't engaged in an armed struggle against the US is so far wrong it's close to parody, he was an active recruiter for AQ and linked to many terror attacks.

So no, you didn't provide a list of other major powers doing the same that Russia does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind.

Seriously, Pakistan saying the US undertakes strikes without their permission is a con. The drones fly out of Pakistani airfields.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Is this becoming a major political issue in England? Will the English government simply ban news. Coverage of it to. Prevent unrest or demands for action?

No, no, and no.

 sebster wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Aye, that is a good point. But sometimes they don't - Pakistan comes to mind.

Seriously, Pakistan saying the US undertakes strikes without their permission is a con. The drones fly out of Pakistani airfields.

Not only that, there is some evidence that the Pakistani military actively cooperates in target selection and also requests certain targets to be hit inside Pakistan.

Tangentially the EU's upholding the existing sanctions against Russia over Crimea.

A former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, Theresa May has told MPs.
The prime minister said the government had concluded it was "highly likely" that Russia was responsible for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
She said Russia's ambassador in London had been summoned to explain whether it was "a direct action by the Russian state" or the result of it "losing control" of its stock of nerve agents.

The BBC

Specifically:

She said the UK would consider his response before deciding what action to take, but added: "Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom."

To which my response is, they better not let this slide... I'm not sure the usual "oh, it was a non-state actor who did it" will cut it. ...Or rather as per Putin's most recent comments regarding non-state actors, "it must have been the Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews" .


As a followup, the particular nerve agent used in the attack is rather deadly. "Wash your phone" wouldn't really cut it. Nah, that stuff could defeat the Hazmat gear of the time it was invented in...

Again playing into the notion of "its not healthy to harbour our enemies" (yes, even the ones we made peace with...).

https://twitter.com/UKIPHighWycombe/status/971773863230164992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalscrapbook.net%2F2018%2F03%2Frussian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning%2F

@RussianEmbassy too early to say who did it .It could be a third party such as the EU trying to interfere in UK Russian relations

That's the UKIP branch in High Wycombe saying that it could be the EU behind it.


Who are renowned for their usage of bio weaponry.

whilst the UK Russian embassy is ...well




https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/russian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning/

which is a proper classy move eh ?


https://twitter.com/TimmermansEU/status/973267588217298945

I followed closely the declaration made by PM May today on the attack with nerve gas in the UK. I want to express my strong feelings of solidarity with the British people and the British government. We stand with you.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/971712153274191872

EU countries must show solidarity with UK authorities dealing with the suspected deployment of a nerve agent on British streets. We should react together; our unity is our strength. There should be clear consequences for Russian authorities.

Odd how quiet some other twitter accounts are eh ?

Soon learn who your real friends are eh ?

 reds8n wrote:


https://twitter.com/UKIPHighWycombe/status/971773863230164992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalscrapbook.net%2F2018%2F03%2Frussian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning%2F

@RussianEmbassy too early to say who did it .It could be a third party such as the EU trying to interfere in UK Russian relations

That's the UKIP branch in High Wycombe saying that it could be the EU behind it.


Who are renowned for their usage of bio weaponry.

whilst the UK Russian embassy is ...well




https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/russian-embassy-jokes-about-salisbury-spy-poisoning/

which is a proper classy move eh ?

UKIP time and again show themselves to be total idiots.

As for the Russian embassy. WTF? Are they admitting that Russia’s definition of “spy” is so wide as to include just about anyone?

I didn't believe the Russian Embassy would make such a stupid, circus style provocation, so I checked their Twitter.

It does appear to be true, though.

It's almost as if the Russians are behind the affair. They certainly aren't acting like someone who wants to calm things down.

smugness

noun

excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.

The Russian state media has two settings. Smugness and acting affronted. Even if they didn't perpetrate the attack the management would have them play it up to net some brownie points with the Nationalistic audience. They were gloating about their troops killing French and Israeli Special Forces in Syria months ago (...almost like they want to portray us as their enemy. Heaven forbid!).