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.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

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

Well, I suppose he could, but even he isn't that much of a mong.

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

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

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

That came about because of May's and Boris the Clowns desire to push a 'strong and stable' approach to the issue and rushing out before all the evidence was gathered.

Or they have a Russian sample sitting somewhere, can compare like for like, and know 100%. Or something in the middle.

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


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

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
That came about because of May's and Boris the Clowns desire to push a 'strong and stable' approach to the issue and rushing out before all the evidence was gathered.

Or they have a Russian sample sitting somewhere, can compare like for like, and know 100%. Or something in the middle.

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

I will reiterate this as it needs to sink in. First I do wish we had a better leader than Theresa May, but we are stuck with what we have got. I could make many choice comments of whether it would be better of Corbyn was in charge right now, but I wont because it is not relevant. On this note BoJo should not be anywhere near any position of authority and it is unfortunate that we have him as our spokesmen while facing of against Russia. However we have what we have got and replacing him now would send the wrong message.

With exception of a handlful of crazies such as Diane Abbott, Ken Livingston, George Galloway and initially Jeremy Corbyn the majority of the left has been behind the government and is NOT using this a political football beyond some very minor points scoring. Corbyn to his credit ceased his rhetoric presumably after he was briefed. They understand what is at stake.

 Ketara wrote:

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

This is partly true. the countries that backed the UK didn't rush to the judgement and were not ill informed either. However I personally don't think that they responded to concrete evidence, but to concrete threat. In an nutshell the whole intelligence community knows Russia did it with a very high degree of likelihood. From the target method and subsequent reactions from all sides, which is the ONLY real evidence you can trust. the respondees simply don't want the west, including themselves, to become the playground for Putin's chemical weapon armed assassins.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

There is nothing circumstantial about the evidence against Russia i is very solid but it is not based on criminal evidence.

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

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

I want you to understand this simple fact. The Russians are asking for proof because it can never be found, they are also fully aware that it is a pointless demand and one not generally used in these sorts of cases as anything more than insult. Anyone in the intelligence community or knows of the history or methodology of the intelligence community knows you will never find proof.
Russia whan it takes action doesnt with for proof either, NOBODY DOES, because it will not be found.

Such you can prove comes from records taken by turned agents when thy defect, which is years if not decades later. We cannot rely on James Bond or Sherlock Holmes to crack the case, we have to live in the real world.

Russia asks for proof before action as a smokescreen and as an insult. Individual Britons and others ask for proof due to having drank the Russian propaganda or due too a general ignorance of how intelligence works.

Why will there never be proof?

This is a reasonable question and the first on your mind, if you look at this honestly and it behooves me to give you a firm and reasonable answer. We are conditioned as citizens to expect proof as we normally see criminal cases and are aware of civic rights and due process. So your expactations are reasonable and Russian maskirovka is exploiting this. And by the way look up maskirovka.

A criminal wanting to murder someone might leave traces most do, even patient ones who wait for the right moment to attack, and the vast majority of murders and attempted murders as spur of the moment impulses or are relatively crudely prepared often with errors in the preparation a good detective and prosecutor can use.

A professional hitman is little different,. A team of professional hitmen or terrorists are harder to uncover because they have a ridimentary network and increased resources, but mostly are shielded by fear. Burden of proof is possible and desirable for action. Hoever burden of proof is all too often not sought when tackling terrorists, the Uk was notable for actually dong so as often as possible even if with mixed results.

State assassins are a completely different proposition. A state assassin is seldom a loner unless working in a third world country with impunity, and heaven help us if the Russians begin to pigeonhole us in that category - which they will do if we do not respond properly.
A state assassin is part of a team of anything from half a dozen to two dozen people, each will be loyal and highly trained and professional, and each will have but one job, so everything runs 100% smoothly. there will be one maybe a backup assassin, there will be people coordinating everything, there will be people who are entirely clean whose only job is to keep watch, if they see anything, and I mean anything out of place the mission delayed or cancelled until the assassination can be arrived out perfectly. Note that I do mean perfectly, pro assassins will wait das even weeks for the currect window, something as simple as a dog walker facing the other way a hundred yards down the street will be enough to give pause. Some people in the team will have the ob of picking up anything that is dropped or discarded that might possibly be used as evidence, this can go as far as cigarette butts or sweet wrappers.
The assassins will sit on their target for fething days or weeks, passing him by in the street if needs be not until that can kill him, but until they can kill him and 100% get away undetected.
As soon as its done the second half of the team arrives who has plausibility of having never met formally the assassin and are there to cover any loose ends, eliminate tracks etc.
Before anyone knows what is happening, in the case of a chemical poisoning before the target is even dead the assassin and anyone with direct hands on involvement is being whisked out f country. They will never be extradited, never be allowed to be questioned and if needs be will be given alibis that they were in Siberia playing bridge with a general and three local officials at the time.

Anyone with half a brain in the intelligence community knows what is being said when Russia asks for proof. They did it and it was a professional job, tracks covered, assassins home.


So what are we to do?

I can tell you what we are not to do. Dance to their fething tune. We wont find proof but there are many inferences that Russia did it. You should check out YouTube, the amount of propaganda out there is staggering, they are going full on with the maskirovka. This is also telling, Furthermore the accusations against the UK are very brazen extrmely thin on logical basis and because its the Russians accusig us, its not even expressed in terms of 'highly likely' but as flat fact. The brazen rhetoric while crude is effective, throw enough crap, some sticks. It's working, it has been working on you.

If we cant prove anything why not say nothing?

This is where Russia wants us to be. In the same category the CIA considered Chile in the 1970's, and considers Venezuela today or the way Mossad handles Iran or Lebanon. We have maximum burden of proof, they require none, we must dance to the tune at the UN, they can send in assassins whenever they please and kill whoever they please. Currently it's Russian exiles and journalists who write articles articles supporting them and their lawyers, - yes you should take look at the hit list of those suspicious deaths, Skripal is not the first just an escalation. Tomorrow it could be anyone who could make Britain stronger. That politician looks like they might makes a leader who is competent and strong in the future, so end them.

Theresa May 'weak and wobbly' though she certainly is has a borrowed backbone from the Civil Service and intelligence services on this issue, and has multi party backing. She is raising the ante. This is why the maskirovka was turned on full. In the first week the Russian media was mocking, now they are on full attack mode by any means necessary. Here is a nice sample for you:


European countries leaders are parts on head slowed and can't see through a simple Uk trick apparently.



How dare you object to our use of chemical agents in asassinations!



Because apparently we are locking up Russians left right and centre. They have to flee the regime. (I am living in North Korea and haven't noticed, help!!)




We should apologise to the Russians for being attacked with chemical weapons by the Russians. Feth that.



Apparently the UK did it and Russia doesnt need any evidence of any kind to make the claim. Burden of proof is for you, not us.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


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

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

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

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

 Whirlwind wrote:
No I do not expect that. I expect a full investigation and then the evidence put forward in a combined package as to who we think is responsible. That includes investigation of who the perpetrator might have been where they went next and so on. You know good old proper police work. That's how our criminal system works.

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

 Whirlwind wrote:


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

Evidence is there to try and disentangle possibilities (which to point out they would have been taking the same approach at PD).

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

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

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

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

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

If the UK has anything more than that it will be very highly classified, and not open to the public domain, I cannot speculate on this and this leave that aspect open in my commentary. However the fact that Russia demands full disclosure of is essentially saying tell us what you know of our intelligence services so we can plug that gaps'. Russia has also demandes access to EU investigations (which was refused) and to Skripal hiself (which was refused, though they will be allowed to tlk to his daughter if she agress, they have that right) , the former is basically the same statement as before, the latter is 'tell us about your chemical weapons countermeasures'.

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

One thing is certain it would take more than the six page powerpoint the Russian media has been circulating.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's challenging what other information you need to support the hypothesis. At the moment there are too many gaps in knowledge which could lead to widely different results depending on the outcome of those. It's not about proving guilt, it's about gathering evidence so that you can exclude other possibilities.

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

 Whirlwind wrote:

The UK government's approach has been as far as they are informing people is that we have a chemical, we know Russia designed it. However we do not know - how old is it, if it degrades over time then there may be chemical signatures that might show this. If it is over 20 years old that might imply an old USSR stockpile; raising questions as to who might have had access to it. If it is new, what facilities are needed to make it.

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

 Whirlwind wrote:

Could you make it with a technical chemistry equipment in a standard lab or does it require specialist equipment. If it is the latter who makes this, can we track down such suppliers and so on. You test the hypothesis and go from there and test it again until there is little further evidence you can gather at which point you state what the evidence indicates and what potential options that leaves open and their likelihood.

What is that to prove? They will still deny it and it will be a cold case. Russia would have assassinated, Russia would have publically gloated, the UK would have been silent and that is all that is needed. Your policy makes no diplomatic sense. Robust response was needed, it was given and our allies have had the balls to back us up.
All the fake question marks are maskirovka, and they are outsourcing it to the ignorant to bleat for them. Think for yourself and dont be a part of that chorus of ignorance.

As for evidencer look at the evidence as it is. Russia alone had the motive and capability, Russia has the track record of assassinations using extreme toxins, Russia has the track record of assassinating its own dissidents on UK soil. Russia gloated in the state media after the assassination attempt. Russia started a massive misinformation campaign including making accusations without any evidence of a British false flag operation that makes zero logical sense and is presented without any proof while demanding proof of more reasonble claims.
It has already been eliminated down to one suspect. The boot fits.

"I am sure you appreciate that the entire episode is somewhat disorientating, and I hope that you'll respect my privacy and that of my family during the period of my convalescence."

Meanwhile Russian TV broadcast a recording of a private phone conversation she’s had with a relative. They don’t really do classy do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43652574

Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

idk, but the end bit sounds made up. If her dad is allegedly fine, why hasn't he woken up? And how would they know everything is fixable if he hasn't even woken up to test for potential damage? I mean, there is only so much you can learn from scanning someone in an (induced) coma. Very strange...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

Or both.

BBC really lay on the ‘alleged’ bit so they’re not buying this.

I wasn’t aware of anything presently saying her father is making recovery to wake up.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

idk, but the end bit sounds made up. If her dad is allegedly fine, why hasn't he woken up? And how would they know everything is fixable if he hasn't even woken up to test for potential damage? I mean, there is only so much you can learn from scanning someone in an (induced) coma. Very strange...

I’m guessing it is made up, and trying to follow the privious claim of “if we had done it he would be dead”.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

idk, but the end bit sounds made up. If her dad is allegedly fine, why hasn't he woken up? And how would they know everything is fixable if he hasn't even woken up to test for potential damage? I mean, there is only so much you can learn from scanning someone in an (induced) coma. Very strange...

You can also learn quite a lot from moving, poking, and doing some other specific tests* to people in a coma, but yes, it is limited without the subjective responses of a conscious patient. You can basically only test for gross changes and/or loss of function, but very little on higher functions and fine skills.


*Such as squirting water in an ear- used as part of an exam to assess brainstem function and brain death.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Meanwhile Russian TV broadcast a recording of a private phone conversation she’s had with a relative. They don’t really do classy do they?

This form of maskirovka isn't about classy, its about repetition of a theme brashly forwarded, do it long enough and you will be believed. So you want it as lowbrow as possible, and its surprisingly resilient to logical scrutiny as it is designed to provoke a hate response. It is a lot cleverer and more dangerous than it looks.




Apparently we are Nazis too.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
BBC really lay on the ‘alleged’ bit so they’re not buying this.

I wasn’t aware of anything presently saying her father is making recovery to wake up.

Was the 'Alleged Yulia' a BBC addition or from the Russian media?

 Haighus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

idk, but the end bit sounds made up. If her dad is allegedly fine, why hasn't he woken up? And how would they know everything is fixable if he hasn't even woken up to test for potential damage? I mean, there is only so much you can learn from scanning someone in an (induced) coma. Very strange...

You can also learn quite a lot from moving, poking, and doing some other specific tests* to people in a coma, but yes, it is limited without the subjective responses of a conscious patient. You can basically only test for gross changes and/or loss of function, but very little on higher functions and fine skills.


*Such as squirting water in an ear- used as part of an exam to assess brainstem function and brain death.

Exactly, so saying its fixable when he isn't even awake to know what could be wrong sounds quite fake. Also, there are times when damage doesn't have to be visible, but could still be permanent. Do we even know if Skripal responds to external stimulation in any way? I haven't heard anything to point out he does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Apparently we are Nazis too.

Nazi has just become the cool kids slang to use for authoritarian dictators for people who have the inconceivable idea of not bending over. Erdogan is a fan of throwing it around too

 Orlanth wrote:

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

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

Yet if they wanted there to be no proof, he'd have had a car accident or a "random" attack, not nerve gas. So either the Russians did it to draw attention to themselves and deny it (showing strength in the elections?), or the Russians didn't do it and are being blamed (distracting from Brexit negotiations? Trying to strengthen the value of UK intelligence?).

That the agent was allegedly working for the UK intelligence services, and looking into this Cambridge Analytics stuff also leads to the possibility that someone other than the Russians wanted rid of him.

I mean; it probably was the Russians to make a point / assert dominance, but can you actually be sure of it?
If we are so sure of it, how do we know that unless we've got a sample of this new compound without Russia knowing about it?

Your post is fairly lucid but its falls apart on the first point:

Herzlos wrote:

Yet if they wanted there to be no proof, he'd have had a car accident or a "random" attack, not nerve gas.

Give us your reasons for this statement, come on give it your best shot. Why wouldn't you want to use nerve agent? (it was likely not a gas). Keep in mind the definition of proof within the context of this incident and following diplomatic moves.
Give us your answer and I will critique it, and explain why it wouldnt make the blindest difference to proof and why it might be beneficial to use that method.
I do bite, but promise not to chew.

Herzlos wrote:

So either the Russians did it to draw attention to themselves and deny it (showing strength in the elections?), or the Russians didn't do it and are being blamed (distracting from Brexit negotiations? Trying to strengthen the value of UK intelligence?).

The former. The Russians made a lot of political play after the news broke about how it is not safe for 'traitors' to Russia to be in England. Putin being tough on 'traitors' during the election is a clear motive and the one I think most likely.

On the other hand letting a poison loose in the UK by our own government will not do a blind difference to Brexit, and we are not in the habit of poisoning our own policemen let alone killing off intelligence sources who came to the UK. We look after the latter, usually very well. If we cant protect our defectors or use them as political sacrifices spies wont defect to the UK.

Herzlos wrote:

That the agent was allegedly working for the UK intelligence services, and looking into this Cambridge Analytics stuff also leads to the possibility that someone other than the Russians wanted rid of him.

Tinfoil time.

Herzlos wrote:

I mean; it probably was the Russians to make a point / assert dominance, but can you actually be sure of it?

Yep, pretty much. It's a known MO of the Russians to use extreme toxins and to carry out assassinations in the UK.
The chance that we would kill Skripal ourselves is a flat 0%, intelligence officer defectors get looked after. That is a flat fact, we rely on that truth to encourage defectors, and most Russian defectors come to the UK not America. Human intelligence is the UK's Intelligence services speciality US intelligence is better at electronic warfare. Though all top end intelligence services use all the tools. As Putin is going more and more rogue state, there will be more and more dissidents in the Russian intelligence system. Many conscience driven spooks will not like the direction that Russia is heading in. I suspect that its prime recruiting time for MI6 of Russian dissentors right now. Though that is just my personal guess. True or not the UK has a rep for it, and Putin won't like the memory of that. He is ex-KGb himself an knows that British intelligence is and has always been a major threat not a minor nuisance to Russia.
To think we would spoil literal decades of solid intelligence rep to draw attention away from Brexit or make another cheap gambit is ludicrous. Its about as bonkers as claiming JFK shot himself.

Herzlos wrote:

If we are so sure of it, how do we know that unless we've got a sample of this new compound without Russia knowing about it?

If we have a sample it will be info kept to the highest levels of government and the intelligence community and shared with a very small and slct set of foreign partners at top government level only.
I cannot speculate on what MI5 and MI6 actually know on the side as that could mean just about anything.and you cannot share info like that even indirectly, you give away way too much by doing so.

 Ouze wrote:

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

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

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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

No but you still need evidence on that claim and that takes time and follows similar procedures regardless of whether it is a state act or a crime. It's also really about the crime being committed; it's still actioned by individuals - Serbs/Nazi's etc were and still are prosecuted in the Hague for their actions despite acting as part of the state.

The Serb leaders were brought to justice AFTER a military campaign had cleared territory and allowed investigators in, and with the help of surviving witnesses to open acts of war crimes. These were large scale activities with many cross referencing survivors, captured fighters and video evidence.
This is a very very different to a well orchestrated covert assassination op that doesnt leave behind evidence.

Also you do not need 'evidence'. The evidence you talk about is proof. We already have evidence to those who want to defend Russia it is not enough, to those who want to back the Uk it is. the distinction is political NOT legal. Get this into your head.


Answer this.

When did we find proof before sending a drone to take out a ISIS terorist in Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-mohammed-emwazi-gone-court-jihadi-john

We live in the real world. Sometimes we have to act without going through the courts and due process, that s simple life.
You can be assured 100% that if we were able to name a suspect for the Skripal poisoning the Russians would not extradite him. BECAUSE THEY HAVE REFUSED IN THE PAST. In fact one of those wanted to questioning over the poisoning of Litvinenko is now a Russian MP.

 Whirlwind wrote:


The fundamental principles of investigation are the same.

Only in cloud cuckoo land. I like how when Corbyn said we should not have assassinated but brought back Jihadi John for trial, Tory politicians exclaim that 'of course he would have gone quietly' and how ISIS controlled regions would gladly cooperate with British detectives making enquiries. They were being sarcastic if you dont know.
Yes it would be nice to put Jihadi John on trial, to get proof etc, but honest expediency gets in the way.

We cant take Russia to court, you should know this. Proof means nothing, your call for evidence is just the same. We have all the macro evidence we need to come to a reasonable conclusion, and that is evidently good enough for most of the governments in the western world.

 Whirlwind wrote:

If we abandon the principles of evidence for political glory as our government has done then you are acting no different to the way Russia does in denying everything. It is much easier to fight lies and smears with facts and figures than it is to use smears and conjecture to prove who you think did it. The UK *could* end up with a large amount of egg on face if it turns out that it wasn't the Russian state. The question is whether the time to get more evidence is worth that to end up potentially being embarrassed in the long run (more than having Boris the Clown as foreign secretary anyway! )

The UK has the defacto backing of almost the entirity of the free world. Every European nation wth possible excaption of Hungary which did not expel diplomats has claimed support of the UK position but didn't do so for other reasons. Indian government is hostile, but Indian government can never be trusted and is easily bought. Bolivia is vocally pro Russia on this issue too. The claims of massive public backlash against European leaders who have supported the UK position in the Russian press is complete bollocks. To give you an idea of how much complete bollocks it is Russia Today went around asking people in Ireland who condemned the Irish government for backing the Uk. Who did the Russian media ask. Any guesses. Come on have a go....
Asking them for a balanced pinion on UK policies is like asking Hamas for an unbiased opinion on the Israeli government. We or they would be guilty by manner of drawing breath.

Now you don't like Theresa May, we get that. But Labour realise this is not an issue for party division over. It's too fething serious and they know it. If you want to anti Tory this or anti-Tory that have a whine at the new bereavement benefits cuts or some such, I might even join you. Don't dance to Putin's tune, and whine away to undermine those who want a robust response to a flagrant breach of chemical weapons protocols that even Brezhnev would not dare break.

Russia did it, and people far better informed than you or I will more access to the facts than we possess are willing to cross Putin to make that statement, and some of those don't even like the UK very much. President Macron in particular. Wonder what they know that you dont.

Just a bit of information, Russia can't extradite citizens. It is against Russian law. Against the constitution even. So they aren't really refusing, it is something the Russian government simply can't do even if it wanted to. Instead, Russians can be charged in Russia for any crimes committed abroad. If a Russian citizen commits a crime abroad, he has to be charged and prosecuted in Russia.
So, just a nitpick, but you should not say Russia refuses to extradite a suspect, instead you should say that Russia refuses to charge a suspect.
Because obviously Russia isn't going to charge people for what it does not see as a crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck in the early 1800's are we?

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

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

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

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

The boot fits.

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just a bit of information, Russia can't extradite citizens. It is against Russian law. Against the constitution even. So they aren't really refusing, it is something the Russian government simply can't do even if it wanted to.

Ok, I can accept that. Interesting ay to play.

I wonder how this plays out if a Russian is arrested abroad on domestic laws. In which case Russia cant do much the other way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Instead, Russians can be charged in Russia for any crimes committed abroad. If a Russian citizen commits a crime abroad, he has to be charged and prosecuted in Russia.
So, just a nitpick, but you should not say Russia refuses to extradite a suspect, instead you should say that Russia refuses to charge a suspect.
Because obviously Russia isn't going to charge people for what it does not see as a crime.

The Russian government refused to allow questioning either.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just a bit of information, Russia can't extradite citizens. It is against Russian law. Against the constitution even. So they aren't really refusing, it is something the Russian government simply can't do even if it wanted to.

Ok, I can accept that. Interesting ay to play.

I wonder how this plays out if a Russian is arrested abroad on domestic laws. In which case Russia cant do much the other way.

Exactly. If a Russian is arrested abroad Russia can't do much more than provide consular assistance.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Instead, Russians can be charged in Russia for any crimes committed abroad. If a Russian citizen commits a crime abroad, he has to be charged and prosecuted in Russia.
So, just a nitpick, but you should not say Russia refuses to extradite a suspect, instead you should say that Russia refuses to charge a suspect.
Because obviously Russia isn't going to charge people for what it does not see as a crime.

The Russian government refused to allow questioning either.

Yeah, you can blame them for that. If the Russian government was being reasonable, they'd at least allow questioning. IIRC, there is some kind of treat that means that if a foreign law enforcement agency delivers enough evidence for a committed crime and requests persecution, then Russian law enforcement is obligated to take up that case. But I think the Kremlin conveniently forgets about that whenever possible.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ludicrous!

Either the Russians bugged the relative's phone, or it's a fabrication.

idk, but the end bit sounds made up. If her dad is allegedly fine, why hasn't he woken up? And how would they know everything is fixable if he hasn't even woken up to test for potential damage? I mean, there is only so much you can learn from scanning someone in an (induced) coma. Very strange...

You can also learn quite a lot from moving, poking, and doing some other specific tests* to people in a coma, but yes, it is limited without the subjective responses of a conscious patient. You can basically only test for gross changes and/or loss of function, but very little on higher functions and fine skills.


*Such as squirting water in an ear- used as part of an exam to assess brainstem function and brain death.

Exactly, so saying its fixable when he isn't even awake to know what could be wrong sounds quite fake. Also, there are times when damage doesn't have to be visible, but could still be permanent. Do we even know if Skripal responds to external stimulation in any way? I haven't heard anything to point out he does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Apparently we are Nazis too.

Nazi has just become the cool kids slang to use for authoritarian dictators for people who have the inconceivable idea of not bending over. Erdogan is a fan of throwing it around too

He must respond to some external stimuli, or by definition he would be brain dead, and his life support switched off. He must be displaying brain stem function to be considered alive, and only a decline in function, or a prognosis of no improvement, and likely suffering, would lead to the life support being removed at this point.

@whirlwind.

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

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

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

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

I understand the difference between evidence and proof well enough. Its a very common theme in theology.


You fail to grasp that this is a poltical process not a criminal process. Russia asks for proof, they will not accept anything less than smoking gun proof as anything other than hearsay or junk. If smoking gun proof is found they will try a different track, claim it is fake etc etc. You cant win this way, any evidence is no evidence.
In a political process proof and evidence are one and the same, both are either adequate or completely inadequate dependant on your needs. The evidence that actually matters is burden of probabilities by assessment of intelligence officers. If we have this right it is overwhelmingly in favour of the UK. This is circumstantial but as the evidence is political not criminal that is fine. What matters is that do other governments believe it.

Russia is working the other way. They have support of China and those who are against the UK/US at this time. They are working from the ground up spreading maskirovka to convince gullible people there is no evidence then on failing that, claiming the UK is definitely responsible.

First lead you back to the total and utter lack of logic evidence or proof to the Russian claim that the UK is deliberately false flagging this and that MI5/Porton Down unleashed the chmical attack.. Such an allegation which demanding proof in turn should be evidence itself of where Russia really stands on this issue (aka guilty a fething sin).

Second while the UK has no proof there i evidence, first potential concealed evidence that convinced the US and France in particular to back us. And no they would not have fallen for a BoJo fib, the Americans are usually not that dumb and the French certainly are not.

We have a mounting smokescreen to fake questioning of existing evidence sourced from the Russian media. We already had statements from Soviet chemical weapon scientists now living in America that Novichok could not be manufactured except by a state agent. Now you have a plethora of people saying otherwise sourced mostly by the Russian media and tabloids. Its a smokescreen not a development of evidence.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

Litvinenko lived long enough to say who he had tea with, we cold trace back to where he was poisoned and we know where it happened because the Russian poisoning killed other people in the restaurant.. Skripal was poisoned via a dumb contact. His home was allegedly poisoned and he got contaminating be going home.

Note however that only Russia has tried that type of attack on UK soil, and radiological assassinations worldwide are extremely rare, Israel does them, there are rumours they got Arafat this way, US does them. Russia is a reasonable suspect on the reference of the Litvinenko case itself.

 Whirlwind wrote:

What does highly likely mean in this context. Is that a 9/10 chance they were involved. That's still a 10% chance they were not involved.

No it means they did it, but we cannot prove it in the Hague or in the world media by evidence we can share.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Even a 50:50 odds could be considered 'highly likely' (as half the odds are placed on one actor).

At 50/50 the Uk governmnt would not hae run with this. But more to the point Putin would have reacted differently.

You have to look at micro vs macro evidence. Micro evidence is stuff likel the chemicals used, anyone seen or caught etc. It would be nice if we had some of that but all too often we do not. Macro evidence is based on how governments act and it is the best and clearest evidence. Individuals can be random but nation states have a pattern to them, you can read what a nation states motives are by what they do politcially on a large scale.

Russian gloating after the Skripal poisoing news broke was very indicative as it came from press sources under Kremli control. If Puin was innocent he and the Russian state would have acted very differently to how they did. They would want to know who set them up. Putin would not have allowed the gloating and would be very interested to get to the bottom of this. High level diplomatic traffic of this nature would have been occuring. Putin would have been VERY interested in who would want to set up Russia, even if he thinks the UK is a joke, the people behind the assassination and false flagging are obviously not. As far as I am aware the actual evidence for new sources of the chemical are limited.

Russia did it, it's plain to see from an analysts point of view.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

Yes, exactly. And the UK was not above pulling ops in Warsaw pact territory, but its was rare and they would never dare to use a chemical weapon. Nowadays same things apply. The Uk spies on Russia, and has never stopped spying n Russia, we know this well enough as from time to time a British spy is caught. Hazard of the job.
I actually doubt the UK does assassinations there though, its way too risky. Russian agents in third world countires might suffer casualties though. However the world moved on rom Smersh which was a Stalinist doctrine. Kruschev toned things down a lot. Putin is in a very real way a throwback to Stalin's intelligece policy, which should alarm you.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

Stuck in the early 1800's are we?

2018 not 1820. If you think the French are our pals think again. Look at the knife Macron sticks in and twists over Brexit for instance. Yet he is willing to back us up over this.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

Channel 4 are way out there a lot of the time. Ivory tower chemists are one thing, you need to weaponise it. That is a lot more difficult, and frankly this is a smokescreen.
As has been explained to you by others Boris Johnsons comments were taken out of context. The press ran with the portions that made the best headline. Now I agree with you that BoJo shouldn't be speaking for the UK on something this critical, I wouldn't trust him to run a village fete, but he is an unfair targt here.
Only a state agent could have used Novichok as a weaponised agent in Salisbury and Russia is the only state that meets the criteria.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The boot fits.

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

The boot fits Russia and Russia alone. Its not a size seven, it's a size Putin.

Motive and capability, past record and choice of target. This is how Russia does its business and nobody else, THEY EVEN GLOATED ABOUT IT, The boots fits Russia alone. Americans could undoutably get hold of Novichok, are they valid suspects? The UK might also, are we? Russia seems to think so but Putin apparently is so innocent that polonium would not melt in his mouth.

 Orlanth wrote:
'If we had done it Skripal would be dead' - Putin himself made this remark. This holds some thin logic in that attacks caused by Russia with extreme toxins normally result in death.

This is all true, but there's another element. Putin's boast is based on an assumption that Putin and the killers he would use are highly skilled, they'd get the job done. And sure, they got the job done with Litvinenko, but the actual operation was comically amatuerish. The container with the polonium leaked, and the two Russian agents just wiped it with a towel and put it down the sink, then continuing taking the polonium with them all over London. They needlessly exposed themselves to the poison, and left an obvious trail for investigators that pinpointed them as the killers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But again, while I can see it being useful when having to make a medical diagnosis in limited time, it is dangerous to apply in many cases because it fallaciously assumes that simple = more true.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Read the saying again, horses aren't 'more simple' than zebras. What horses are is more common. The saying is telling you that the most common thing is probably what happened this time as well.

Since we can't proof that Russia is behind it, eliminating other options is the next best thing.

You can't disprove all possible negatives. There will always be some other option that hypothetically could have happened, if we're willing to add in enough whackjob conspiratorial elements with nothing to indicate them.

And you didn't respond to the first part of my post. If its important to reach a legal standard in this case because justice matters, why did Russia refuse to extradite the man Britain credibly accused of murdering Litvinenko to stand trial? The double standard is obvious - the court's burden of proof is used as a shield to protect Russia, but the due process of a trial is rejected, also to protect Russia. There is ideological consistency in the position, just whatever needs to be said in the moment to protect Russia.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You then have the fact that Novichoks are a family of chemicals. What is available is the generic compound which is an example of a group of agents. If this was not a state agency they must have got very lucky.

There is no way this was anyone but a state actor. Even Russia have given up on claiming that it was organized crime or a rogue agent. Now they are claiming it is all fake. The whole way Russia is acting is suspicious.

Not to mention the quotes are of chemists saying that, given the chemical formula of the end result, chemists could speculate how to manufacture it. They are not actually saying that it is remotely likely, just that it is theoretically possible.

It is not that simple to look at the end chemical structure and be able to figure out all the steps from available precursors to make that end result. It is possible, but a lot of it will depend on incredible fine tuning of the proportions of the precursor materials used, temperatures, pressures, catalysts etc. So you'd have people needing to buy large amounts of chemical precursors, lab equipment etc. That is not something that you can easily do, especially if the precursors you're using are monitored substances in their own right.

If you could just look at the chemical structure, hire a bunch of chemists off the street and start pumping out nerve agents by next week then no state would bother with chemical weapons programs as the weapons created, once developed and the structure is leaked to the world, would be instantly poached by every other nation with a chemical weapons program.

It’s not that suspicious, they’re being as brazen and confrontational in their ‘defence’ as they can, just daring countries to take them on and argue with them. They’re hoping if there’s even a 1% uncertainly that many countries will just back down, the fact we’re not injures their pride, how dare we? Don’t we know how important and powerful they are?

The moment we do back down they’ll have us, because they know exactly what they can get away with.

On the requirements for chemical synthesis, many proposed Novichoks seem speculative and chemists unclear how you’d synthesise them. It’s very different to look at s molecule and know the theoretical means to produce it, and the actual optimal conditions to do so.

“I want to state with all possible certainty that the Soviet Union or Russia had no programmes to develop a toxic agent called novichok,” said Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov last week.

Well that’s obviously a lie. Unless it’s some semantic word play because they don’t call it ‘Novichok’ they claim they never made it.

The fact they’d rather play semantic word games and blame Sweden or the UK, in some tinfoil hat conspiracy, shows they’re not acting in the good faith an innocent party would.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Not to mention the quotes are of chemists saying that, given the chemical formula of the end result, chemists could speculate how to manufacture it. They are not actually saying that it is remotely likely, just that it is theoretically possible.

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

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

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It’s not that suspicious, they’re being as brazen and confrontational in their ‘defence’ as they can, just daring countries to take them on and argue with them. They’re hoping if there’s even a 1% uncertainly that many countries will just back down, the fact we’re not injures their pride, how dare we? Don’t we know how important and powerful they are?
The moment we do back down they’ll have us, because they know exactly what they can get away with.

They dont just want us to back down they want an apology and then likely demand political compensation.

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

Putin is a player, those dancing to his tune have been played, excepting China, they are players too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


If you could just look at the chemical structure, hire a bunch of chemists off the street and start pumping out nerve agents by next week then no state would bother with chemical weapons programs as the weapons created, once developed and the structure is leaked to the world, would be instantly poached by every other nation with a chemical weapons program.

Al Quaeda would have done it if nobody else. They would not miss an opportunity like this, and were well funded. Daesh also.
There were chemical terrorist labs in Morocco, which failed.