One might ask the same question concerning Litvinenko - in that case it was even more obvious it had to be the Russian government. It positively screamed “Russia did this” - it literally could have been no one else. It was likely a warning. This was likely one, too.
There’s been a spate of suspicious deaths of Russians (who were inconvenient to the Kremlin) that have happened in the UK and US written off as “accidents,” even when they clearly weren’t, and no one has done anything about them. (E.g. the recent case of the Russian who “got drunk and bludgeoned himself to death” in his hotel room.) Russia may have gotten used to that.
Suggesting that we really don’t know who did this is rather fatuous.
It became obvious once they figured out he had polonium poisoning. That took over three weeks, though, and wasn’t confirmed until the day after he died. Until then while it was assumed Litvineko was poisoned doctors couldn’t figure out what the hell was killing him. According to KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky:
“Did you know that polonium-210 leaves traces? I didn’t. And no one did. This was the main failure of this operation. Everything else was done correctly, everything was calculated, and so on. But what they didn’t know was that this equipment, this technology exists in the West – they didn’t know that, and that was where they miscalculated.”
Well blimey! Thats no way for someone to have to start their morning.
I did read it. The point I was refuting was the idea that this is a rare and specifically Russian agent. Forgive me but I thought it was already accepted that Russia had produced this agent in the past. The question was whether anyone else could. The scientists in the article made it perfectly clear that he believed the UK could synthesize it with only a few clues. Worth noting that the original production facility in Uzbekistan was dismantled by the US. I wonder if they picked up any clues regarding the manufacture of such agents?
In another The Bell article I think I read that the Russians had not managed to synthesize as a binary agent. Which means transportation is particularly hazardous. You would probably want to minimize the distance you were transporting as much as possible.
And yes, the Russians shouldn’t have lost control of the agent in 1995. But things were different back then. This guy was in charge.
Wasnt there an interview with Boris Johnson where he actually admitted that Porton Down had synthesized this chemical and had samples?
"You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …
So they have the samples …
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, “Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt. "
So really the question is who doesnt have this chemical agent?
Well the Irish Times made the point that the UK has a well documented history of bumping off inconvenient people. And then there are other countries. And of course the Russians point out that while its true that a lot of Russians seems to die in the UK, the UK is the other common factor. Seems that Russians in Germany or the US dont have the same longevity issue.
But rather than emphasize that point (cos its speculative) the 2 key points I would highlight are
Why Putin? Why now? Is every murder in the UK associated with Teresa May? The idea that Putin needed to make an example of Skripal (and his daugher) 8 years after he left a Russian jail and just ahead of the Russian elections and the World Cup doesn’t convince me. A theory of the crime should include the timing. Why now? In terms of timing, now is a good time to keep the pressure on Russia given the situation in Syria and the noises coming out of Trump regarding arms control. If you wanted to keep the Syrian war alive and prevent a restoration of relations between Trump and Putin, this poisoning is very lucky. But there is no way this event was in Putin’s interest.
Why the rush to publicize and blame? OPCW said it needed 3 weeks to analyse the substance. The Met Police say they need 3 months to investigate. What was the hurry to work out what had happened here? If the Russian state is murdering its ex-agents and their daughters, it will still be true in 3 weeks. I read the statements by May, and they amounted to the agent was developed by Russia, and we cant imagine who else might have done it. So its Russia. Pure gishgallop.
Yeah, compelling.
Agreed. So are now saying that Russia is a democracy and power changes hands solely in elections. Errr ok. That’s one of the reasons why Putin wants 70% margins- makes it harder to stage a palace coup.
I’m literally not 100% sure you know the definition of literally. So you go one step further than the carefully chosen British judge who said that the balance of probabilities was that Putin had ordered it. Because its not like Russia might have lost control of some of its Polonium or that some Russian oligarch was freelancing is it?
“Likely a warning” - more likely he “did it for the nookie” i.e not very likely at all. They had 8 years to give a warning and they pick now. Once again why now?
Apologies for responding to multiple posts and addressing to “heckblazer”. Thought it better to save space.
That sure sounds to me like it’s referring to samples collected from the crime scene.
You’ve gathered a lot of information that supports your point of view, but that doesn’t do any good when you can’t see the obvious staring you in the face.
Yes, this is what I’ve been thinking too. The “cui bono” doesn’t really point to Putin in this case, this assassination seems to have been giving him more trouble than anything else.
Another thing I’m thinking is that Russia is a big place with a huge population, and Russians may indeed have done this, but that does not mean the Russian government did it. I’m not saying, mind, that the Russian government or state apparatus did not do it; I’m just not seeing any evidence either way, to tell the truth.
The third thing I’m thinking is that if Putin and his government are in fact not personally behind this, you guys are just too easy to trolley and trick with propaganda lies. I agree completely with Glenn Greenwald when he says that the American centre appears to have gone crazy with their irresponsible, Cold War-esque Russia-blaming. No, Russia did not put King Trump on his throne - the American voting system, gerrymandered by Republicans as it is in many places, did that.
And no, Russia did not lose the election for Hillary Clinton - Clinton did that all by her own self with an exceptionally weak campaign, apparently led on the basis that she deserved to win against a crackpot like Trump, so she didn’t really have to put in the effort of adressing the working class in states like Michigan or Wisconsin.
So, the Russia trope is both frustrating and irresponsible, because it offers an easy scapegoat based on a lazy and weak analysis of the situation. And why is everyone so focused on laying down this murder on Putin’s personal doorstep? Obviously, because that strengthens the story about the nefarious Russians.
But, am I implying Putin did not order this killing? Once again, no - I’m only implying that we should reserve judgement until we have more evidence.
But, am I implying that the Russian government would never interfere in American elections? No, that would be stupid, especially given that the US was bragging about turning the Russian election back in Yeltsin’s day, on the cover of TIME of all places. Of course they might want to affect the outcome.
I’m just implying that such interference was not the reason that Trump got elected. Trump got elected because of various very indigenous clusterfucks of American politics, and I think people should stop pointing at the Russians and deal with these instead.
Does this mean that I somehow support Putin? No, and to imply such a thing is McCarthyism. For the record, I was sort of a fan of Anna Politovskaya, and I think that Politovskaya’s assessment of him was completely correct (if you don’t know what I mean, do yourself the favour of reading one of her books.).
I suppose the answer is ambiguous but the question wasnt. Mind you thats Boris Johnsons MO isnt it?[quote=“john_c, post:45, topic:118220”]
but that doesn’t do any good when you can’t see the obvious staring you in the face.
[/quote]
The “obvious” isn’t always objective. However i can’t find an argument or fact to dispute in this sentence. I guess we just disagree.
Yes, you may say that. And if you said that, I don’t think I’d have any trouble saying, “I don’t believe that’s true.”
So, let me ask directly. Russia interfered with the US election. Russia was behind the poisoning of Skripal. Are you just questioning the right of people to assert those things, or would you actually say, “I don’t believe that’s true.”?
This is exactly what people said before the Iraq war, “there must be a good reason, he’s the president, he knows things we don’t”. This is not how democracy functions, this is how you get lied into a war - a thermonuclear war, in this case. Let’s be sure and demand evidence.
First of all, in the Iraq war they did supply evidence. It was just bullshit. So getting them to supply evidence isn’t exactly all that relevant. If you don’t trust them, you shouldn’t trust them whether you have what looks to you like evidence or not.
Secondly, are you suggesting that if you had what looked to you like absolute proof that Russia was behind this attack, you would support a war with Russia? I hope not. And if not, then again, the supplying of the evidence is quite irrelevant.
I am not sure what I find more alarming - the notion that Russia (or Putin if you’d rather) is sufficiently untroubled by international opprobium to flamboyantly knock off former covert agents living abroad, or the notion that non-state actors have the sophistication and resources required to synthesize complex chemical weapons.
Not that you were asking me but with regard to 1. I think i interfered in the US elections in the same way Russia did. I think neither me nor the Russian state had a measurable effect on the result.
Nah, i don’t think the Russian State killed Skripal and his daughter. Give me a non-stupid motive and i might change my mind.
This is dumb, “oh, well, they will lie anyway, why bother?”
The point of presenting evidence is that it may be challenged. This happened during the Iraq war (notably by Scott Ritter and Joe Wilson). That they ignored public outcry and pressed ahead with the war despite these challenges is unfortunate, but by not presenting evidence we are forestalling even this possibility.
There’s a lot of mileage being clocked by those who believe that the more evil and aggressive Putin is shown to be, the more tar it slaps onto Vlad’s friend Donny.
The problems with that are first, Donny is getting more than enough tar on his face all by his lonesome, and second, the more you establish that Vlad is an evil aggressor in command of a vast military and intelligence machine, the more you should feel an obligation to do something to oppose him. Thoughts and prayers for his victims are not opposition.
