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.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

However, this was expected, Austria had already decided not to join its allies in expelling diplomats a few days ago. Its hard to see what Austria can really accomplish though.

it can help rebuild dialogue which is critical to all of us unless we are crazy warmongers... check this...

here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and first strike by the US and use of restraints instead:
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation, losing his patience, noted: “Well, you’d better make sure that they're a man and a woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power

Again, its not crazy, there is a level between just letting things happen and war. Nobody is advocating war. The dial has settings between 0 and 11.

no dialogue between nuclear powers is not crazy? are you sure? And, unlike some countries, Russia doesn't have a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike... does it makes sense to repulse everything I say just because I'm from Russia?

You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.

I think that what has been happenning recently is as close to 'no dialogue' as it hasn't been ever in the Cold War... as for preventive (or, pre-emptive), for me this is very straightforward - this is any doctrine allowing to be the first who fires nukes before another country uses nukes or WMD.. very simple - to beging nuke war before other country even attacks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You think expelling a few diplomats means there is no dialogue? You do realize all essential personnel is still in place right?
What country has a doctrine of a preventive nuke strike? I don't think you know what preventive means, because if that was the case we wouldn't be here talking.
I disagree with you because its a position of nonsensical extremes, the only 0 or 11 attitude.

I think that what has been happenning recently is as close to 'no dialogue' as it hasn't been ever in the Cold War... as for preventive (or, pre-emptive), for me this is very straightforward - this is any doctrine allowing to be the first who fires nukes before another country uses nukes or WMD.. very simple - to beging nuke war before other country even attacks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.

No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard (Russia even dropped its pledge to the No First Use policy), they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.

No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard, they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.

well, I was 30 and older when those things happened, so was quite aware of what was happening... now it's worse... it's like a dawn and a dusk - they may look the same, but certain things tell the difference... I'd be happy to learn later I was wrong on this...

please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ...
http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf

just so, no 'threat', 'prevent', 'deter' and my favourite 'To ensure US and international operations are successful'... so we need dialogue

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Situations were far more tense during Georgia and Crimea. This is still peanuts, we haven't even gotten to the sanctions stage yet.

No, preventive and preemptive are most certainly not the same thing, its the difference between us talking now and being charred corpses. That document doesn't mean much, it just list possible options when it might be considered and requested officially, its not carte blanche to start nuking people. These sorts of discussion have always been held in the US military from Korea to Vietnam to today. Russia and China are no different in that regard, they also have playbooks for their nuclear weapons. Besides, that was Bush, it changes with each administration.

well, I was 30 and older when those things happened... now it's worse... it's like a dawn and a dusk - they may look the same, but certain things tell the difference... I'd be happy to learn I was wrong on this...

please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ...
http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf

So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.

Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.

Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.

I believe you know how many civil airplaines and ships were shot by US (not some alleged US-backed rebels or what), when and where, and nobody went to war with US, so please don't throw this in my face... And as soon as this is said that Russia leaved something unsaid in its doctrine, that means other nuclear powers also must be suspected of leaving things unsaid in their doctrines... does it make things better, does it make my or your case stronger? nope

I can bear all the level of insults and disrespect to my country and its people I read here... but I can't bear warmongering of any kind...

back to my earlier point, any mediation between two nuke powers in conflict is a good thing... could I use any other words you won't feel obliged to debate?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So its worse because you can feel it in your bones? A few years ago Russia shot down a civilian airliner full of Western citizens. Nobody went to war over that. I hardly think the West is going to start one now over Skripal.

Yeah I certainly know what the public Russian doctrine is. But I would be foolish to think that it presents the full story. Publicly Russia also pretends to adhere and respect international law. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is not that different from the current US one, with the one you posted being outdated. Neither state adheres to the No First Use policy.

I believe you know how many civil airplaines and ships were shot by US (not some alleged US-backed rebels or what) and where, so please don't throw this in my face... And as soon as this is said that Russia leaved something unsaid in its doctrine, that means other nuclear powers also must be suspected of leaving things unsaid in their doctrines... does it make things better, does it make my or your case stronger? nope

back to my earlier point, any mediation between two nuke powers in conflict is a good thing... could I use any other words you won't feel obliged to debate?

Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it. Also I'm not throwing it in your face, I'm pointing that in public Russia can be quite disingenuous, so their public doctrine has no face value. Of course countries leave things out of public military information, they would be mad not to, as public basically means accessible to the opponent. But to restate, no country has a preventive nuclear strike doctrine.

I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.

(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.

what I earnestly don't understand... how would giving Russia a sample compromise or derail UK case... even if Russia would run its analysis and deny - there are so many laboratories who would prove UK case, no one would care what Russia says...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it.

in Gulf wars there were 2 airplains and a ship... 'by mistake' and 'accept/deny' do not matter, really

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)

this is a common attitude and a premise in this thread that Russia is bad and guilty just because it has done things... hell, it has done things, I know Russian history just too well... and I know many other respectable countries that have done things, even worse things... the 'good guys'... and all this 'ever good guys against the ever bad guy' attitude is annoying

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said mediation isn't a good thing though. I said its hard to imagine what Austria really is going to accomplish here, mediation doesn't exactly work when Russia and the West are diametrically opposed on the Skripal case. If the West even gives an inch it means basically folding to the use of chemical weapons in a Western city, while Russia giving an inch would mean admitting they did it. Neither sounds like a likely option to me.

what I earnestly don't understand... how would giving Russia a sample compromise or derail UK case... even if Russia would run its analysis and deny - there are so many laboratories who would prove UK case, no one would care what Russia says...

But why even give Russia a sample in the first place? All they're going to do is make up a lie with it that is as convincing as possible. You're just going to undermine the investigation and subsequent results. Just look at what happened to the misinformation from the Russian government on MH17. There isn't a single logical reason to give Russia a sample beyond humoring the most likely suspect of the deployment of chemical weapons, just so they can tamper with it.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

(Also why do you keep bringing up the US, I'm neither a US citizen nor live there)

this is a common attitude and a premise in this thread that Russia is bad and guilty just because it has done things... hell, it has done things, I know Russian history just too well... and I know many other respectable countries that have done things, even worse things... the 'good guys'... and all this 'ever good guys against the ever bad guy' attitude is annoying

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes, all told the US shot down 1 civilian airliner by mistake during the Cold War. So far the count on mistakes for Russia is 2 during the Cold War and MH17 in 2014. Besides, the US didn't deny it, they are still dicks about it, but at least they aren't denying and full on lying about it.

in Gulf wars there were 2 airplains and a ship... 'by mistake' and 'accept/deny' do not matter, really

2 during the Gulf Wars? Can you name them both? By mistake and accept/deny most certainly do matter. It shows a certain level of international responsibility. While the Iran Air 665 (which was in 1988 btw, not during the Gulf War) aftermath leaves a lot to be desired, it certainly beats the Russian MH17 circus.

 elk@work wrote:

please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ...
http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf

Since chemical weapons fall in to the WoMD category, looks like Russia gave the UK reason to nuke them per Russia's own rules...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2001, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

how much do you know of 2001 bombings of Afganistan? how many Al-Quaeda were identified and killed? what means of warfare were used? how many people got killed? how military involved commented on civilians killed? 3,500 civilians not in any way related to Al-Quaeda killed by indiscriminate bombing (so this was not face to face fire) - isn't it significant? what makes those people deserve life less than other people? what makes one tragedy less important than the other? what makes a civilian killed in his home in Afganistan less important than a civilian killed in his home in a western city?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

how much do you know of 2001 bombings of Afganistan? how many Al-Quaeda were identified and killed? what means of warfare were used? how many people got killed? how military involved commented on civilians killed? 3,500 civilians not in any way related to Al-Quaeda killed by indiscriminate fire - isn't it significant? what makes those people deserve life less than other people? what makes one tragedy less important than the other?

Mate, can you bugger off and start your own 'anti-US foreign policy' thread somewhere else? Russia kind of just unleashed a military grade chemical weapon against Britain. You can debate the finer moral complexities of Afganistan somewhere else.


Meanwhile, back on topic, Yulia is apparently conscious and talking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43588450

I'm sure the police will be very interested in what she has to say. If both of them survive without mental disability; that turns the Kremlin from looking dastardly into looking idiotic. I mean, if you unleash crap like this and can't even kill the targets?

 skyth wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

please feel home to check Russian doctrine... here is an excerpt (thanks Google translate):
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against it (or its allies) of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction ...
http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf

Since chemical weapons fall in to the WoMD category, looks like Russia gave the UK reason to nuke them per Russia's own rules...

Ever heard of the word "proportionality"? If they had deployed enough gas to wipe out all of Salisbury it would have been different. Just a small dose of gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Or else farmers using nerve gas as insecticide would also be guilty of WMD use...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?

For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.

 Ketara wrote:

Meanwhile, back on topic, Yulia is apparently conscious and talking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43588450

I'm sure the police will be very interested in what she has to say. If both of them survive without mental disability; that turns the Kremlin from looking dastardly into looking idiotic. I mean, if you unleash crap like this and can't even kill the targets?

Good news.
Maybe we can also get more information now, although I doubt it. They will probably not have noticed much.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?

For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.

Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here

Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.

Yeah, Russia is pretty much being a Bond villain in this case. It was a pretty malicious, over the top thing to do, when they could have simply had him died while being mugged, poisoned, shot, etc.

Instead they unleashed a chemical weapon in a pub.

Actually it appears they put it all over the door handle of his house and both he and his daughter handled it. It then was transferred to their car, and public places they visited afterwards like the restaurant where it seemed to get everywhere but in lower dosage. Although full details have not been released I assume that is why some emergency crew and police were affected because they likely directly handled the couple and their belongings when first assessing their condition.

So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?

For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionate so that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.

Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?

 whembly wrote:
So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?

For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionate so that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.

Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?

The current expelling of diplomats does very little beyond degrading some of the capacity of intelligence agencies.

I assume additional sanctions are going to be brought up when the OPCW reaches its conclusion (although I fully agree to doing so). Its going to be hard to get a concerted effort going on sanctions once more on the part of the whole EU, because Hungary and Greece don't seem to be too interested in doing so. Maybe the OPCW report will convince them to go along however.

Go ahead with the sanctions, you will just deteriorate the european economy further. The previous sanctions hurt the european more than the russian, and I don't think they will impose any new economic sanctions, Germany in particular seems very reluctant to it.
And still no proof, even when the Czech president asked for them. The day we see the proof that Russia did it, and did it because they are bad guys, I will stop arguing.

Presumption of innocence ?
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies ? Anyone ?

It reminds me of "they have WMD !!! We have no proof (so, let's make them, like the malicious people we are !) but trust us ! Let's kill everyone there !". Don't you remember ? You all have forgot that already ?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?

For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.

Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here

Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.

Yes, you were factually wrong in some of the points you made. And you are wrong now as well. Russia did not let that spy go themselves. They were forced to let him go, because the West had captured a bunch of Russian spies and Russia needed someone to trade. He did not get out because he served his time. And there is no such thing as an ex-spy. You are assuming that when he was caught, he had already told everything he knew. There is no guarantee for that. He was the head of personnel affairs for the GRU. He might have known the identity of a lot of GRU spies that he had not revealed to British intelligence (for example because that person at that time was not relevant), and he might only have gotten out on condition he would never seek contact with British intelligence. Who knows? We do not, and that is why it is unfair of you to be so prejudiced and make assumptions like that.
Also, I am a nationalist? What the hell. In Crimea, my friends always tell me I am unpatriotic... If you think I am already a nationalist, you clearly have never met an actual nationalist. I am way too critical of Russia to be a nationalist.

 whembly wrote:
So the recent tit-for-tat mirrored responses... anyone thinks that is going to do anything meaningful?

For this kind of attack... I don’t think the response should be proportionate, I think it should be very disproportionate so that the next time someone wants to do this...they'd think twice.

Would additional economic sanction fall in that latter category?

Considering the level of economic activity between the UK and Russia, no economic sanctions are almost completely meaningless. It only works if the whole EU comes together, but that is unlikely to happen. And even if it does, Russia is already heavily under sanctions, without much noticeable effects. Russia is pretty isolated economically so sanctions against it don't tend to do much.
However, London is a popular hang-out for rich Russians. Many of those are relatives or friends of people within the Russian leadership. Taking action against those people might sort some effect, though I imagine it would be difficult to do under British law, especially seeing as that many of the people in question are British citizens.
It is hard to find a stronger response than expelling diplomats. Especially since you know that Russia will retaliate tit-for-tat, so you have to be careful not to escalate things too much.

 godardc wrote:
Go ahead with the sanctions, you will just deteriorate the european economy further. The previous sanctions hurt the european more than the russian, and I don't think they will impose any new economic sanctions, Germany in particular seems very reluctant to it.
And still no proof, even when the Czech president asked for them. The day we see the proof that Russia did it, and did it because they are bad guys, I will stop arguing.

Presumption of innocence ?
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies ? Anyone ?

It reminds me of "they have WMD !!! We have no proof (so, let's make them, like the malicious people we are !) but trust us ! Let's kill everyone there !". Don't you remember ? You all have forgot that already ?

Is that a joke? European sanctions barely had any effect on the European economy as a whole. The only sectors really affected were those heavily geared towards exporting to Russia. Russia suffered a lot more.

Just because they haven't made the evidence public doesn't mean there isn't any. The fact remains that dozens of countries agreed with the UK findings, even those that traditionally are more supportive of Russia in the EU.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Every country does things wrong, but there are degrees of wrong. Most of the times that happens its plain stupidity or incompetence, not malice. The Skripal case is clearly malice. Shooting down MH17 was stupidity until Russia turned it into malice by fabricating ludicrous 'evidence'. That doesn't mean that Russia will always be the bad guy, but the last ten years it has committed a number of blatantly malicious acts it needs to be called out on. All countries have dark pages in history, but intent and actions in the aftermath do factor into the equation.

you are so sure of this... then check, just what first comes to memory, US bombing of Afganistan in October-December 2011, or Panama-Grenada in 80s, onset 40 days of bombing in the first Gulf war and doctrines used then... was it mistake or malice? why only and ever malice is attributed to Russia and other countries only make mistakes? this is not fair, I'd say

If you honestly don't see the difference between military action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Gulf War (you do realize the context of the military actions right?) versus poisoning a civilian in a Western city with chemical weapons and blatantly manufacturing conspiracy theories after shooting down civilian airliners I honestly don't know what to say. I never said only Russia has malicious acts, but Skripal certainly is an outstanding one.

Both of you are totally wrong, and for a large part also totally off-topic. MH-17 and US war crimes are totally not relevant here. May I suggest you abandon this tangent?

For the rest, it is difficult to say the poisoning of Skripal was malice or not without more evidence. For all we know Skripal had been talking to MI6 again. Or maybe the aim of the operation was not revenge, but rather discouragement of other potential traitors. Such a goal would make it a military operation rather than malice. The fact that we know nothing beyond "Russia is involved, somehow." makes drawing any conclusions difficult. Immediately concluding that the assassination was conducted out of malice says enough about your attitude towards Russia, I feel.

Lol, sure I'm the one totally wrong here

Is it difficult to say its malice? An EX spy that already served time in Russia and Russia let go themselves getting hit with chemical weapons isn't malice? Talking to MI6 about what? He's been out of the game for almost a decade, what possible thing can he have told of value he didn't tell a decade ago. Deploying a fething military grade chemical weapon is still fething malice when a bullet to the head would have achieved the same result without the horrible collateral casualties. Your nationalism blinds you to taking a rational view. If you willingly take the risk to cause dozens of innocent casualties when there are dozens of ways to make sure only a single person gets hurt Idk how you don't see that as malice. Russia had to basically go out of its way to also harm other people.

Yes, you were factually wrong in some of the points you made. And you are wrong now as well. Russia did not let that spy go themselves. They were forced to let him go, because the West had captured a bunch of Russian spies and Russia needed someone to trade. He did not get out because he served his time. And there is no such thing as an ex-spy. You are assuming that when he was caught, he had already told everything he knew. There is no guarantee for that. He was the head of personnel affairs for the GRU. He might have known the identity of a lot of GRU spies that he had not revealed to British intelligence (for example because that person at that time was not relevant), and he might only have gotten out on condition he would never seek contact with British intelligence. Who knows? We do not, and that is why it is unfair of you to be so prejudiced and make assumptions like that.
Also, I am a nationalist? What the hell. In Crimea, my friends always tell me I am unpatriotic... If you think I am already a nationalist, you clearly have never met an actual nationalist. I am way too critical of Russia to be a nationalist.

See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.

It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...

How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.

It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...

How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?

Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.

It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...

How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?

Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?

I wasn't wrong though, but ok.

The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.

Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.

Because by nature they tend to spread, killing and injuring bystanders, and even low levels of exposure can have serious health effects down the road, even if it didn't kill you outright.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.

It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...

How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?

Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?

I wasn't wrong though, but ok.

The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.

Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.

Because by nature they tend to spread, killing and injuring bystanders, and even low levels of exposure can have serious health effects down the road, even if it didn't kill you outright.

Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders. The amount of assassinations with guns in which innocents were injured or killed are many. With this chemical, only 3 people were hospitalised in the end (the target and only two bystanders) and no one was killed (yet), so it is not like the spreading or lethality is that bad. I don't think this is enough evidence to be able to say that this means that chemical weapons are likely to cause much more additional casualties. Yes, chemical weapons have the capability to create vast amounts of casualties, but they not necessarily do. They only create mass casualties if they are deliberately spread to do so. But then again, guns in sufficient quantity and with sufficient rates of fire can also cause mass casualties. And while they can cause suffering and long-lasting health effects, so can being wounded by a bullet. I know several people who are still in huge pain every day because of bullet wounds they received in the past.
Now you guys are saying things like "I can't believe you are defending chemical weapons", but that is a fallacy, not an argument. You have not actually yet made it clear to me why the use of a chemical weapon in this case was so much more malicious than the use of a gun.
Like, I get why you guys are so opposed to chemical weapons. There is something sinister about them. I too initially had this response. But now that you guys made me thing about it, I think that this response might not be entirely rational. I need to hear some good arguments.

I think it does come down to the precision. For example- shoot the guy in his house, and only his daughter is also at risk. First responders etc are not at risk, other than if they try to apprehend the assassin (which is true eitherway).

The chemical appears to have been smeared on his door, to target just him. Yet despite being on just his house, it has potentially affected 130+ people, because the Skripals themselves have unknowingly spread the chemical further. The local postman could've gotten almost as big a dose. The chemical has been capable of injuring people long after it was applied in the actual assassination attempt. It is very much more inherently indiscriminate, and importantly hard to control. The fact no one has died so far is more luck than anything else.

Firearms can be used more indiscriminately, but they are inherently less indiscriminate than a fire-and-forget weapon that contaminates the entire area, like the novichok did.

Which given Russia's history of assassinating its opponents, was presumably the intent. Not only in threatening its enemies, but also stating the point that those people are inherently dangerous due to the weapons which are used to kill them (reinforced by statements made by the Russian state media and politicians - because seriously, if they want to say they didn't do it, explain away all the gloating prior to the formal accusation of Russian inclement FFS).

I'd think that behind closed doors the assassination may have been in response to another event, or to send a message relating to some scheme the Intelligence agencies have been up to. Whether something was done to provoke this, or more likely it was the Russians wanting to send a message to other groups is up for debate.

Meanwhile, the matter of that Russian who died on the day where the British government asked for a response from the Russians continues to not be addressed in relation to the current case. However, as with the re-opened cases of assassinated Russians which the British are investigating, it'll all perhaps come out in time.