Your opinions on Vladimir Putin?

[furnessvale]

Anyone remember the last season of the TV series 24 where President Taylor asked for help from the former corrupt President Logan in getting the Russians to the table, where Logan said he'll do it but Taylor wasn't to ask for details on how it would be done. A similar situation may have occurred in real life Russia - Putin wanted something, someone offered a way of doing it but kept Putin out of the loop to keep him in the clear. Putin is known to be someone who says something along the lines of "Russians will have a good life under me but they must never question how I do my job."

Fortunately for my sanity, I do not watch such TV series.
I find Vera, Midsomer Murders, Frost etc, so far away from reality as to be unwatchable let alone US imports.
Even a recent UK "fly on the wall" police series was so staged as to make me wonder just how any of the people involved obtained a conviction.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

. However, the British state's "black ops" modus operandi is usually through collusion and plausible deniability, and generally only in times of war. It generally does not directly assassinate people for political gain. I cannot think of a genuine high profile false flag operation of this type perpetrated by the British state in modern history.

I note that you use the word 'generally' rather than 'never'...Pat Finucane was murdered, even David Cameron apologised for the collusion from our security services, and Finucane was a British citizen

 

[AlterEgo]

I note that you use the word 'generally' rather than 'never'...Pat Finucane was murdered, even David Cameron apologised for the collusion from our security services, and Finucane was a British citizen

This is an example of collusion, like I stated - this is the British State's MO for "black ops".

It was not a false flag operation.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ok - a partial print - based on the chemical structure of the agent used.



Agreed that is, just about, possible ( especially if you lean towards a conspiracy in everything) but it isnt plausible.



Why? Many people, many of whom are ardent Corbyn fans, see this as a vast conspiracy. Jewish liazard people are always a favorite of crack pot conspiracy nuts. Perhaps that isnt you but you are trotting out many of the lines the clown army are using to try and support their hero who messed up his response to yet another international issue. Anyone would think he was anti western in his approach. Mind you , he wouldn't do anything about chemical weapons being used in Syria so at least he is consistent.

It's still a hell of a leap you've made from me saying I don't blindly trust everything the government says (and that they could conceivably act against the interests of subjects), to lizard people and false flag operations. I've barely even mentioned Jeremy Corbyn on this thread yet you've projected onto me the cult-like mentality of a Corbyn fundamentalist.

For the record, I do quite like Corbyn but I don't agree with him on everything. I don't believe his response to this particular incident has done him or his cause any favours, but I do admire that he has been more cautious and less hawkish in tone- as opposed to being on a war-footing which is just going to escalate tensions... Though he has maybe gone a bit too far that way, especially considering that the mainstream media is anti-Corbyn by default without him giving them more ammunition. I certainly don't consider him a "threat to national security" as he's been described by both Tory MPs and members of these fora.

The latter are entitled to their opinions. The former, as elected officials, should be ashamed of themselves for those comments, it's been like a new wave of McCarthyism. If they're so convinced that they're right, they should debate the issues rather than resorting to smears and playing to the Sun.

 

[DarloRich]

Though he has maybe gone a bit too far that way, especially considering that the mainstream media is anti-Corbyn by default without him giving them more ammunition.

Why cant Corbyn come out and say that he utterly and unequivocally condemns this attack. Surely Seamus Milne can find a form of words to allow this to happen. Corbyn can still make all his nice, soft, wooley statements about international institutions and evidence without shooting himself in the foot. He knows, as you point out, the media are against him so why give them an open goal? he sounds like a man desperate not to blame Putin. Why? Every time this kind of thing happens he makes Teresa May look good - His Shadow Foreign Secretary gets it. his shadow defense secretary gets it. Even John McDonald gets it!

I certainly don't consider him a "threat to national security" as he's been described by both Tory MPs and members of these fora.

I do. I think he is a disloyal coward, an appeaser and anti western in his stance. I do not trust that he is a man to keep Britain safe. I simply do not. Like I said he would have done nothing about chemical weapons attacks in Syria beyond warm words, hang wringing and presenting his views as entirely reasonable and based on support for international institutions ( like he is now) while all the while knowing that means nothing will be done as Russia will veto anything in the UN. He will do nothing when faced with an international crisis. Nothing. You know that though.

( Odd that his chums in Stop the War aren't to worried about Russian intervention in Syria but all over American intervention in, say, Libya)

as opposed to being on a war-footing which is just going to escalate tensions

What war footing? Christ on a bike. Are we massing our tanks to burst through the Fulda gap? Are our bombers at this moment circling their fail safe positions ready to strike? Our all our submarines being surged to sea to be ready to meet the Red attack? Have we called up our reservists? NO.

We have chucked out a couple of Russian diplomats/intelligence operatives and the Russians have done the same. That's all that will happen.

BTW - surely the Russians are on a war footing. They have already come very close to an act of war via a conspiracy to murder on British soil using a military-grade nerve agent, which poisoned three people, perhaps fatality

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Personally I consider myself a pacifist in all but very extreme circumstances. On the Syria situation, if we'd gone in what would our agenda be? Daesh are monsters, that's obvious. Assad is also a monster, that's also obvious. But the assortment of rebel groups in Syria aren't exactly wonderful people who embrace liberal western values either. Assad may have used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels, but so have Daesh and so have some of those rebel groups. The simplistic answer is that Daesh are the worst of the worst, so western powers could target them... but that would strengthen Assad (who is already propped up by Putin). So do we also enforce regime change and help those rebel groups overthrow Assad? That would further provoke Putin and besides, regime change worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn't it? I don't have the answer to the Syria crisis, but crucially neither does anyone else- including Trump/May/the UN. Any intervention by western powers would create a quagmire and worsen the already disgraceful humanitarian crisis. Besides, do Britain or the USA have any moral authority to intervene after the Iraq debacle? Doubtful.

By the way, I haven't heard any voices from the Stop The War coalition coming out in favour of Russia's involvement in Syria so I'm not sure where you've got that from. What would you want to see from those groups and what would it achieve? Absolutely nothing, I imagine. They campaign against UK/USA involvement because that's where their sphere of influence is.

The "war footing" I refer to is the eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia's western border since the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with Trump's insistence that European members of NATO increase military spending and presence in that area. Putin is insane, that's as clear as day, so ramping up the pressure is only going to provoke Russia to respond in kind, hence the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.
I'm certainly no Putin apologist, but our current strategy hasn't been working so to assume it suddenly will start to work is frankly ridiculous.

Yes, Corbyn could have condemned the Salisbury attack more vehemently, and probably should have done- but the fact he hasn't doesn't make him a Putin puppet. Putin is ideologically pretty much the opposite of Corbyn, so to draw that parallel (like the right-wing press have done) is absurd. Much of the media coverage of Russia both in the UK and USA seems to have forgotten that Russia isn't the Soviet Union any more, so the Red Scare and neo-McCarthyism is not only misplaced but is actually harmful.

Putin is a menace and a despot, but the people suffering most aren't us in the UK (apart from the Skripals et al, of course) but the Russian people:- particularly the minorities who have been targeted by the authorities there such as the LGBT+ community.

One possible approach might be to target the property investments of the oligarchs in London. All those luxury homes that stand empty, yet magically increasing in value at a far greater rate than any savings account? Enact a law allowing the seizure of those properties, and/or ban Russians with links to Putin from making further purchases. That would probably have far more of an impact than expelling diplomats. Though May (or whoever comes after) is unlikely to want to do anything to cause the gigantic pyramid scheme that is the property market to come crashing down.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why cant Corbyn come out and say that he utterly and unequivocally condemns this attack.

He has: "The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence, which we condemn in the strongest terms". Not sure how that isn't "utterly and unequivocally condemning this attack".

 

[Bromley boy]

( Odd that his chums in Stop the War aren't to worried about Russian intervention in Syria but all over American intervention in, say, Libya)

That’ll be because stop the war aren't really anti war at all, they’re anti west.

I seem to remember Corbyn saying he wanted to negotiate with ISIS. The most charitable view of this is that he’s extremely naive, albeit well meaning. The more likely view I’m tending towards more and more is that he secretly loathes the west and the UK. Hardly prime minister material, you would think.

I’m resigned to it. If this country is stupid enough to elect Corbyn it deserves everything it gets!

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Does anyone have any idea why people in Salisbury a fortnight ago are now being asked to think whether they saw that BMW during a period of several hours leading it to appearing in the Sainsbury's car park from which it was later removed? There must be hundreds of CCTV images: you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there is so much we're not being told. One comment in a paper a day or two after the attack too which has never been explained. Someone whose first name was given claimed to be a regular driver for the ex-spy and regularly ran him to Heathrow Airport for unspecified 'meetings'. I don't think this is nearly as 'open and shut' as with Litvienko. Also, why was the daughter of an ex-spy expelled from Russia in disgrace allowed to re-establish herself there? Most bizarre.

You are asking too many questions that shouldn't be asked. If we don't hear from you again we must assume that you have had a knock on the door......

 

[DarloRich]

That’ll be because stop the war aren't really anti war at all, they’re anti west.

say it aint so

I seem to remember Corbyn saying he wanted to negotiate with ISIS. The most charitable view of this is that he’s extremely naive, albeit well meaning. The more likely view I’m tending towards more and more is that he secretly loathes the west and the UK. Hardly prime minister material, you would think.

he is right that a negotiated settlement is the best way to end conflict. However that presupposes both sides are willing to talk. He knows this and this is, to my mind, another example of his prima facie reasonable and sensible approach which obscures the fact that he knows this approach means nothing will be done. You cant negotiate with ISIS until they are beaten. You cant beat them without fighting. Corbyn wont fight but would happily negotiate. Until they are beaten there can be no negotiating. Therefore Corbyn does nothing yet seems reasonable and sensible.

His entire political life has been about championing anti western regimes and causes. Why would he change now?

Personally I consider myself a pacifist in all but very extreme circumstances. On the Syria situation, if we'd gone in what would our agenda be? Daesh are monsters, that's obvious. Assad is also a monster, that's also obvious. But the assortment of rebel groups in Syria aren't exactly wonderful people who embrace liberal western values either. Assad may have used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels, but so have Daesh and so have some of those rebel groups. The simplistic answer is that Daesh are the worst of the worst, so western powers could target them... but that would strengthen Assad (who is already propped up by Putin). So do we also enforce regime change and help those rebel groups overthrow Assad? That would further provoke Putin and besides, regime change worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn't it? I don't have the answer to the Syria crisis, but crucially neither does anyone else- including Trump/May/the UN. Any intervention by western powers would create a quagmire and worsen the already disgraceful humanitarian crisis. Besides, do Britain or the USA have any moral authority to intervene after the Iraq debacle? Doubtful.

So put simply tut and do nothing. Chemical weapons used and you and Corbyn would wring your hands and do nothing. All the while civilians die because you wont intervene. When does that become too much? We are supposed to be a civilised nation and there are supposed to be standards of civilized behaviour. Who will protect those standards if the civilised nations wont? My response would be to bomb anyone using chemical weapons over and over again until they stop.

The "war footing" I refer to is the eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia's western border since the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with Trump's insistence that European members of NATO increase military spending and presence in that area. Putin is insane, that's as clear as day, so ramping up the pressure is only going to provoke Russia to respond in kind, hence the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.
I'm certainly no Putin apologist, but our current strategy hasn't been working so to assume it suddenly will start to work is frankly ridiculous.

Are you seriously trying to defend or justify the invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis that NATO has expanded?

One possible approach might be to target the property investments of the oligarchs in London. All those luxury homes that stand empty, yet magically increasing in value at a far greater rate than any savings account? Enact a law allowing the seizure of those properties, and/or ban Russians with links to Putin from making further purchases. That would probably have far more of an impact than expelling diplomats. Though May (or whoever comes after) is unlikely to want to do anything to cause the gigantic pyramid scheme that is the property market to come crashing down.

I agree - That is exactly what should happen as part of a measured approach to this action. Corbyn should be making these suggestions but instead used his opportunity to attack Tory funding. It wasn't the right time or place. There is a very valid point to be made about dirty money but that wasn't it.

BTW Private Eye has discussed the laundering of money though the London property market many times.

He has: "The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence, which we condemn in the strongest terms". Not sure how that isn't "utterly and unequivocally condemning this attack".

It was his last point. It should have been his first. Make that statement and all the trouble is reduced. The fact he doesn't means the focus is on the worn part of the speech. He raised sensible points but they are lost and/or made to look more important than the attack. I note he couldn't bring himself to criticise Russia. Why?

Does anyone have any idea why people in Salisbury a fortnight ago are now being asked to think whether they saw that BMW during a period of several hours leading it to appearing in the Sainsbury's car park from which it was later removed? There must be hundreds of CCTV images: you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there is so much we're not being told. One comment in a paper a day or two after the attack too which has never been explained. Someone whose first name was given claimed to be a regular driver for the ex-spy and regularly ran him to Heathrow Airport for unspecified 'meetings'. I don't think this is nearly as 'open and shut' as with Litvienko. Also, why was the daughter of an ex-spy expelled from Russia in disgrace allowed to re-establish herself there? Most bizarre.

Indeed - something doesn't seem quite right about the whole thing.

Aside from the above, while it is certainly true that a lot of Russian dissidents and defectors have died in often unexplained and suspicious circumstances, I cannot think of any other case where the "targeting" ( for want of a better word ) has hit anyone other than the intended person. It is certainly uncharacteristic that an attempt against someone risks a large number of other, un-involved, people.

Is it not also odd that it takes them eight years to get round to someone who is living openly in his real name?

What on earth are you people on? Have we become so enamored with conspiracy theories that we cant see reality?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

So put simply tut and do nothing. Chemical weapons used and you and Corbyn would wring your hands and do nothing. All the while civilians die because you wont intervene. When does that become too much? We are supposed to be a civilised nation and there are supposed to be standards of civilized behaviour. Who will protect those standards if the civilised nations wont? My response would be to bomb anyone using chemical weapons over and over again until they stop.

I'm not sure exactly who you are proposing to bomb. Putin? Assad? Any particular commanders? The pilot of the plane that dropped the weapon or the commander of an artillery unit? Or would you just keep bombing as you suggest and never mind any civilian casualties? I don't think that we have developed a bomb yet that can only kill the baddies....and history shows bombong isn't effective anyway.

 

[Bromley boy]

he is right that a negotiated settlement is the best way to end conflict. However that presupposes both sides are willing to talk. He knows this and this is, to my mind, another example of his prima facie reasonable and sensible approach which obscures the fact that he knows this approach means nothing will be done.

Generally I’d agree it’s better to negotiate. But in the case of ISIS the only effective way of dealing with them was to obliterate them. You cannot negotiate with fundamentalists.

Along with many on the left, Corbyn believes that all wars taking place around the world are the fault of western imperialism, and that those with brown skin are all victims of the west. He will turn a blind eye to fundamentalism and inhuman cultural practices.

As for antisemitism in the Labour Party, well that doesn’t exist does it?! We know that because noted champagne socialist Shami Chakribarti produced a whitewash in exchange for a peerage.

It’s a depressingly familiar story.

 

[Bromley boy]

So put simply tut and do nothing. Chemical weapons used and you and Corbyn would wring your hands and do nothing. All the while civilians die because you wont intervene. When does that become too much? We are supposed to be a civilised nation and there are supposed to be standards of civilized behaviour. Who will protect those standards if the civilised nations wont? My response would be to bomb anyone using chemical weapons over and over again until they stop.

Realistically there is nothing that can meaningfully be done. It would be suicide to bomb Russia.

I wouldn’t condone an action that is illegal and as you rightly say murder. Although at the same time I must admit I don’t have any sympathy for a double agent who betrayed his fellow countrymen. Frankly he probably deserved to be poisoned.

I admit the collateral damage, with others being affected, is inexcusable.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No, I'm not trying to justify the invasion of Crimea and you know that I'm not- you're just being deliberately obtuse. My point is that from Russia's point of view the expansion of NATO is a threat, in the same way that westward expansion of the Soviet Union would have been viewed as a threat by Western Europe*. If we just go around blindly with the attitude of "West good, others bad." we won't ever make progress.

*= in fact, even democratically elected left-of-centre governments were viewed as a threat by the West, hence the CIA-funded military coups in Chile and Nicaragua.

As for the idea of going into Syria to protect civilians, that is very naive. The limited US air strikes following the sarin gas attacks were not particularly accurate and killed many civilians. As I said, the US and UK have no moral authority to act as the World's Police Force after the last 2 decades. To think we still could do so is arrogant and jingoistic. We reap what we sow.

I don't like the idea of saying "not our problem" but that is unfortunately the least-worst option when it comes to Syria. Recent interventions have left nothing but sectarianism, destruction and Daesh.

And before anyone accuses me of it, I don't "hate the West" (and nor does Stop The War, by the way)- I genuinely appreciate that I have the freedom to write this post, to choose how I dress and what food I eat. I just recognise the mistakes made in the past and don't want to see them repeated.

Anyway, I'm out as I've just had some real-world news that needs dealing with.

 

[bb21]

I wouldn’t condone an action that is illegal and as you rightly say murder. Although at the same time I must admit I don’t have any sympathy for a double agent who betrayed his fellow countrymen. Frankly he probably deserved to be poisoned.

I have kept a close eye on this thread with interest, but with that one, is anyone really that surprised that the guy was killed?

To the Russians, he probably did present a risk to national security as a British spy, so no surprise there to me that he was targeted.

I wonder if the shoes were on the other foot, how many who contributed in this thread would have called it "justice served", rather than all the indignation on show? Perhaps more an indignation that Britain couldn't protect its own spies?

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't like the idea of saying "not our problem" but that is unfortunately the least-worst option when it comes to Syria. Recent interventions have left nothing but sectarianism, destruction and Daesh.

I hate to admit it , but I agree with you on this.

If anything I think Putin made the right call in supporting the Assad regime. Yes he’s a despotic war criminal, but the cold truth is some of these countries need a dictator.

What has been achieved from years of war and hundreds of British lives lost in Afghanistan? We rarely see it in the news these days. By all accounts it’s in largely the same state it was before we intervened.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure exactly who you are proposing to bomb. Putin? Assad? Any particular commanders? The pilot of the plane that dropped the weapon or the commander of an artillery unit? Or would you just keep bombing as you suggest and never mind any civilian casualties? I don't think that we have developed a bomb yet that can only kill the baddies....and history shows bombong isn't effective anyway.

I was discussing Syria and the approach taken by Corbyn. it seems we have another Corbyn fan who would stand by and let people die in chemical weapons attacks. It is cowardly.

Realistically there is nothing that can meaningfully be done. It would be suicide to bomb Russia.

I wouldn’t condone an action that is illegal and as you rightly say murder. Although at the same time I must admit I don’t have any sympathy for a double agent who betrayed his fellow countrymen. Frankly he probably deserved to be poisoned.

I admit the collateral damage, with others being affected, is inexcusable.

I was discussing Syria and the approach taken by Corbyn. We aren't going to bomb Russia nor am I suggesting we should. It would be madness. Suicidal madness.

PS i DO have sympathy for someone who comes over to our side and helps us. He deserves our protection. Obviously a British traitor joining the Russians is a slightly different kettle of fish!

No, I'm not trying to justify the invasion of Crimea and you know that I'm not- you're just being deliberately obtuse. My point is that from Russia's point of view the expansion of NATO is a threat, in the same way that westward expansion of the Soviet Union would have been viewed as a threat by Western Europe*. If we just go around blindly with the attitude of "West good, others bad." we won't ever make progress.

Odd, because this\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ looks like saying that the expansion of NATO gave Putin justifiable grounds to invade Ukraine and that by extension your view is that NATO should not expand in case they upset someone. Perhaps we should leave NATO just be be sure we don't upset Putin.

The "war footing" I refer to is the eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia's western border since the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with Trump's insistence that European members of NATO increase military spending and presence in that area. Putin is insane, that's as clear as day, so ramping up the pressure is only going to provoke Russia to respond in kind, hence the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.

BTW - I also think that West is best by a long, long, long way and our values and institutions should be championed. Corbyn and many of his fans don't. They detest western values and feel that some mythical western imperialism is to blame for all the problems in the world.

As for the idea of going into Syria to protect civilians, that is very naive. The limited US air strikes following the sarin gas attacks were not particularly accurate and killed many civilians. As I said, the US and UK have no moral authority to act as the World's Police Force after the last 2 decades. To think we still could do so is arrogant and jingoistic. We reap what we sow.

I don't like the idea of saying "not our problem" but that is unfortunately the least-worst option when it comes to Syria. Recent interventions have left nothing but sectarianism, destruction and Daesh.

So do nothing? Ever? Just stand around until someone wins?

EDIT - i am not saying we should invade countries willy nilly and try to enforce our views but we should take action when certain red lines are crossed. One of those should be the use of chemical weapons by despotic regimes. Others should be genocide or ethnic cleansing like Bosnia or Kosovo. Then we should be using our planes and missiles and technology to hurt those regimes

 

[bb21]

PS i DO have sympathy for someone who comes over to our side and helps us. He deserves our protection. Obviously a British traitor joining the Russians is a slightly different kettle of fish!

How do you know some of them aren't double agents?

Once a traitor, ...

 

[Bromley boy]

I was discussing Syria and the approach taken by Corbyn. We aren't going to bomb Russia nor am I suggesting we should. It would be madness. Suicidal madness.

PS i DO have sympathy for someone who comes over to our side and helps us. He deserves our protection. Obviously a British traitor joining the Russians is a slightly different kettle of fish!

My bad, apologies, I didn’t appreciate the context of your previous post.

It is a difficult one. I think personally I view any kind of double agent, betraying his country for personal gain, as the absolute lowest of the low. Revealing the names of Russian agents and presumably putting their lives or liberty at risk isn’t cricket. He was also recruited after the fall of communism so not a moral crusader in any way shape or form.

BTW - I also think that West is best by a long, long, long way and our values and institutions should be championed. Corbyn and many of his fans don't. They detest western values and feel that some mythical western imperialism is to blame for all the problems in the world.

Spot on.

I wonder if the shoes were on the other foot, how many who contributed in this thread would have called it "justice served", rather than all the indignation on show? Perhaps more an indignation that Britain couldn't protect its own spies?

Indeed, and do we really care that much? Yes it’s illegal/immoral etc. But I’m sure the U.K. security services have assassinated people in the past and will do so again.

 

[Bromley boy]

How do you know some of them aren't double agents?

Once a traitor, ...

Poison them all to make sure. I’m only half joking.

 

[DarloRich]

How do you know some of them aren't double agents?

Once a traitor, ...

It is a difficult one. I think personally I view any kind of double agent, betraying his country for personal gain, as the absolute lowest of the low. Revealing the names of Russian agents and presumably putting their lives or liberty at risk isn’t cricket. He was also recruited after the fall of communism so not a moral crusader in any way shape or form.

I am not saying trust them, just ensure they are looked after/protected if only to encourage others. Perhaps try to avoid murder via an exotic method as a starting point

 

[Bromley boy]

I am not saying trust them, just ensure they are looked after/protected if only to encourage others. Perhaps try to avoid murder via an exotic method as a starting point

You must admit it’s a horribly effective strategy from Russia’s point of view.

No need to go after all the double agents, just some of them. Enough to generate a few headlines. Anyone spying against Russia knows they might one day drink a cup of tea laced with radiation of have a vile of poison shot into their leg from an umbrella.

No real downside. It’s diffucult to prove, politicians will tut, ring their hands and do little.

That must be enough to make many potential spies stop and think, is it worth it?!

 

[DarloRich]

You must admit it’s a horribly effective strategy from Russia’s point of view.

No need to go after all the double agents, just some of them. Enough to generate a few headlines. Anyone spying against Russia knows they might one day drink a cup of tea laced with radiation of have a vile of poison shot into their leg from an umbrella.

No real downside. It’s diffucult to prove, politicians will tut, ring their hands and do little.

That must be enough to make many potential spies stop and think, is it worth it?!

it is fantastically effective - we know where you are, we will get you whenever we want & however we want. You will die slowly and everyone will know we did it and why and we wont just stop with you.

 

[Iskra]

You must admit it’s a horribly effective strategy from Russia’s point of view.

No need to go after all the double agents, just some of them. Enough to generate a few headlines. Anyone spying against Russia knows they might one day drink a cup of tea laced with radiation of have a vile of poison shot into their leg from an umbrella.

No real downside. It’s diffucult to prove, politicians will tut, ring their hands and do little.

That must be enough to make many potential spies stop and think, is it worth it?!

That's one way of looking at it, but it swings both ways. It's probably a large disincentive for a lot of potential sources/agents who may have been prepared to work with Russia, but now would think twice about any repercussions later down the line.

 

[Bromley boy]

it is fantastically effective - we know where you are, we will get you whenever we want & however we want. You will die slowly and everyone will know we did it and why and we wont just stop with you.

There’s something quite romantic and timeless about it.

“The red fox trots quietly at midnight”, Shadowy figures in smart suits and long coats, umbrellas with poison capsules. Very James Bond.

If you betray your country and countryman, years later they’ll come and murder you most horribly, to set an example.

To be honest I think the Russians did the right thing here (collateral damage aside).

 

[Bromley boy]

That's one way of looking at it, but it swings both ways. It's probably a large disincentive for a lot of potential sources/agents who may have been prepared to work with Russia, but now would think twice about any repercussions later down the line.

To be fair to Russia, they only do this to people who work against them.

I’d like to think people who worked against the U.K. would meet a similar fate. Somehow I doubt our government has the balls for that.

In that respect I admire Putin. I know they will put me at odds with many.

Although I’m equally sure U.K. state sponsored assassinations take place when necessary. Made out to look like suicides etc, or course you’ll never get a whiff of it in the press.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I am not saying trust them, just ensure they are looked after/protected if only to encourage others. Perhaps try to avoid murder via an exotic method as a starting point

I always thought that we did look after and protect double agents in the cold war, or did I read too much Le Carre? Something clearly went awry with Skripal...I haven't seen anything written about any protection he might (should?) have had. Oh, and please don't call me cowardly.

 

[Kite159]

If the Salisbury poisoning was down to Putin/Russia, does anybody really expect for Putin to say "oh yes, that was us sorting out unfinished business"?

Local level, the poisoning has been bad for the local economy, shoppers are staying away from the city centre, the local ambulance station is down a couple ambulances (even one which only arrived in January).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Does anyone have any idea why people in Salisbury a fortnight ago are now being asked to think whether they saw that BMW during a period of several hours leading it to appearing in the Sainsbury's car park from which it was later removed? There must be hundreds of CCTV images: you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there is so much we're not being told.

Further to this:

The reasoning behind the desperation to trace the BMW's movements appears - from what was said in the paper today - to be because one theory is that the poison was placed in the air conditioning vents of the car in powder form, meaning that as soon as they switched the fans on the interior of the car would fill with the stuff. Apparently only a very small amount, just 5 microns, would have been sufficient so there would have been no tell tale cloud of dust coming from one of the vents to alert the occupants.

We can summarise, therefore, that the movements of the BMW are needed in order to ensure that there is no contamination along the route it took.

An alternative theory, mentioned in the paper at the end of last week, is that the daughter's suitcase was tampered with before she left Moscow and an item of clothing was contaminated. This would explain why the car in which she was driven from Heathrow to Salisbury was taken away for examination today.

My personal feeling is that the suitcase theory is less likely as by now there would surely have been cases of illness associated with the airport, particularly with the baggage system, and with anyone else who has been in that car in the intervening two weeks. If there was a contaminant in a suitcase, well... a suitcase is not exactly a biosealed container is it?

Of course, just because these theories have been in the newspaper doesn't mean that one or the other is what has happened - at this stage both are still just that - theories.

I'm finding the "false flag" conspiracy theories unsettling and unpleasant. And a very unwelcome import from the US.

It is correct that governments of all colours lie. However, the British state's "black ops" modus operandi is usually through collusion and plausible deniability, and generally only in times of war. It generally does not directly assassinate people for political gain. I cannot think of a genuine high profile false flag operation of this type perpetrated by the British state in modern history.

A variation on this possibility... a "false flag" attack by Chechen or Ukrainian rebels, designed to cause trouble for Russia... All they would need would be one sympathiser in the weapons storage system to get them a small quantity of the two ingredients for this stuff...



Point is, at this stage we do not know anything for sure; we can neither rule anything in or rule anything out.

What may be more indicative is the hints that up to 14 of the other Russians who have died mysteriously in the past few years are to be exhumed and tested for Novichok. If the results are ever made public, that is. Finding the stuff in one or more of those bodies would point the fingers rather more firmly towards Moscow, would it not?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some very callous sentiments being expressed on here in the last few hours. Skripal "deserved it" apparently

Would you say the same about Alexander Litvinenko? Or any of the other Russians who have suffered mysterious and dubious "suicides"?

As for Corbyn (and apologies for the topic drift here, I'll try to keep it brief) to accuse him of cowardice over not wishing to intervene in Syria is to completely misrepresent the situation in that country: namely that unfortunately the deaths of many thousands of civilians in Syria was sadly inevitable (at least in part down to the illegal war in Iraq) whether 'The West' intervened or not. The only difference being whether they died from chemical weapons deployed by Assad/Daesh/the ragtag of rebel groups, or whether they died as "collateral damage" from friendly British or American bombs. As someone posted earlier, we haven't developed technology that allows munitions to distinguish between the "goodies" and the "baddies" yet.

And finally, I've just been watching a recent Boris Johnson interview on the Andrew Marr Show and I'd advise anyone who hasn't seen it to do so. It would have been quite funny if it wasn't so serious, but if you think that Corbyn is more dangerous than our current Foreign Secretary then you must be either deluded or sadistic. I'd like to think I'm driven more by hope than fear but the thought of BoJo* as our next Prime Minister is truly terrifying.

*=A stupid nickname, I know. To bring some levity to this post, my phone tried to autocorrect it to "Bono" which is almost even more frightening!