Why is, for example, poisoning a spy with a nerve agent "pushing the limits" relative to say poisoning a spy with polonium - it seems to be of about the same order of magnitude as far as risk etc.. is concerned - I wouldn't describe the second attempt at pushing a limit but rather just more of the same and they got away without many repercussions last time. Yes I think they'd perhaps be less likely to attempt the same thing in future given the rather higher cost incurred this time around.
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Why is, for example, poisoning a spy with a nerve agent "pushing the limits" relative to say poisoning a spy with polonium - it seems to be of about the same order of magnitude as far as risk etc.. is concerned - I wouldn't describe the second attempt at pushing a limit but rather just more of the same and they got away without many repercussions last time. Yes I think they'd perhaps be less likely to attempt the same thing in future given the rather higher cost incurred this time around.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,662
What high cost ? They hit 3 targets which according to some sources had been evacuated ahead of the strike, this strike has achieved nothing and certainly not done anything to harm Russia
It won't stop their behaviour, if they are responsible for their behaviour and it's not disinformation of course, they will keep doing this and eventually we will have to take much harsher action
The only way this path leads is to eventual war, the fact you think it's going to make them think twice for what is a glorified slap on the wrist is incredibly naive
So in short, you believe the Russians because you want to believe the Russians. How is that any different from those that believe the British because they want to believe the British? (Not to mention the public part of the report stating that they agree with the UK findings, something you haven't really addressed)
It cant really be "easily confirmed or denied" by the Swiss lab as they would have been working for the OPCW and will be required to keep the full report secret.
"higher cost" - it is a relative term... attention to detail, I'm not sure why you're getting confused and are now talking about the Syrian strikes
see - closure of their consulate in the US, mass expulsion of diplomats from multiple countries, generally showing them up for the rogue state they currently are... did you not watch the news recently?
in your head it seems to do that perhaps, it seems more likely that the assassination was simply the action of a state currently run by gangsters who see traitors as legitimate targets for execution... these are hardly the only people the current regime has assassinated - given the relatively low level of repercussions last time they tried it then I'm not sure how you can conclude that doing so again is them wanting to start a war... more likely they're just carrying on as usual and trying to send a message to any other would be spies or influential people opposing the regime
Last edited:
Don't put words in my mouth. The difference is I never base my judgment on nationality but individual character. No nation has a monopoly on truth or good behaviour (or bad for that matter).
Bit of a pointless question. These Swiss findings never made it into the member-state report, of which there is a public summary. So the question is why? I don't have to answer why. It's the UK and OPCW members that need to answer why, obviously.
Well, "easily" can easily become semantics. They can easily do it, in the sense that they know already if this is true or not. But you raise an interesting matter. The question is whether they will decide to, and incur the wrath of NATO and be expelled from the OPCW even though that disclosure would prove there were shenanigans afoot in the OPCW. The more important question is not arguing about easy or hard, but how come we are in a position where the Swiss could legally be prevented from disclosing very pertinent information which is missing from the report and its summary?
I can hazard a guess at how the UK government and OPCW legal experts have played it - the Swiss lab also confirmed the presence of the unnamed agent (that the UK originally called Novichok), and it was decided that they could legally go with "OPCW confirms UK findings". The deception being, of course, that apart from confirming the UK's findings, they also found the presence of BZ, and this went unmentioned both in the report and public summary. Interestingly, the Swiss lab is said to have expressed surprise at the purity or "freshness" of the 'novichok' sample, and this is also something that never made it into the report or public summary. We will see.
Do you think these findings, if true, ought to be kept secret?
Do you think these findings, if true, ought to be kept secret?
Again...if they're secret how do you know about them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,662
Russia and Syria are interlinked, an attack on Syria is effectively an attack on Russia by proxy and I'd consider the strike far more harsh than expelling some diplomats and let's be honest the ones expelled were suspected spies
My point is though, if their behaviour won't change, which based on prior history it won't, then a line will have be drawn somewhere like the west has done against Syria and chemical weapons which will result in harsher measures than expelling some diplomats or imposing sanctions, neither of which seem to phase Putin, what other option is there apart from violence once you've expended all the other non violent avenues (not including proxy acts of violence on allies of Russia)
It's possible in your fantasy world Russia will actually heed warnings (if they're even responsible) and will change behaviour but I highly doubt it and they will keep pushing and pushing until the West says enough and ups the ante or on the flip side Russia has enough of the accusations of the West and finally takes some proper action
Either way if they continue and there's no evidence to suggest they won't then war is inevitable
I think I've answered plenty of questions recently, and can assure you I will answer yours, but it's high time others show the same courtesy and answer mine, first.
I think you missed the point - there is nothing fantasy about it, it was factual to point out that there was a higher cost this time around, that in itself makes it less likely - it has to be worth paying that potential cost if they want to pull another stunt like it again. There was a relatively low cost previously, it was clearly worthwhile for them to try it a second time. The west has upped the ante - the cost of assassinating someone in the UK now involves some major disruption to their spy networks across Europe and the US.
no one is going to war over the assassination or attempted assassination of a spy
an attack on chemical weapons facilities in Syria isn't an attack on Russia
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,662
What other option is there if Russia keeps killing spies in the UK ?
Surely the government has to act beyond expulsion of "diplomats" otherwise it looks a pushover to other states which may potentially pose a threat
What option does Russia have if the West keeps bullying them and their allies into a corner ? Putin doesn't strike me as a leader willing to look weak on the global stage
An attack on alleged chemical weapons facilities might not be a direct attack on Russia but it is an attack on them due to their vested interest in Syria
The UK hasn't sold anyone chemical weapons since before the international ban.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Russia has been up to some dodgy stuff the past few years, There is the Ukraine invasion, the passenger jet that got blown out of the sky, the assassination of Litvinenko and attempted assassination of the Skripals. There is the whole hacking and elections thing as well.. in fact Putin has been up to no good for years and getting away with it.
Suspect this is the west giving him a reminder that enough's enough.
Suspect this is the west giving him a reminder that enough's enough.
It isn't an attack on them, no Russian was killed, it didn't destroy any of the Syrian Regime's military capability other than their ability to launch chemical weapons attacks, it didn't even kill anyone.
There are lots of options if Russia keeps killing spies in the UK, there aren't really too many spies for them to kill though... it is a bit bizarre that you seem to think the inevitable conclusion is war. That is a risk re: say escalation in the Syrian conflict and is why the West have been rather careful in avoiding (official) Russian military casualties.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
It does still make them look weak though, they couldn't protect an ally.
Putin isnt likely to take that lying down.
Putin isnt likely to take that lying down.
Good read, even if the title is disagreed with: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/14/russias-humanity-moral-conscience-leading-war/
"It speaks to the humanity and moral greatness of the Russian government led by Vladimir Putin..."
oh it gets better:
"Russia held the military cards. Russia could easily have destroyed every ship and every airplane."
hmmm....