Russia's at it again

I agree with this analysis of the Salisbury incident. The Kremlin has calculated that the UK will be unable to respond effectively and any anti-Russia rhetoric from UK politicians will only help energise the electorate ahead of the “elections”.

https://shar.es/1L63pg
 
Wonder how (Brexit) Britain will flex their muscles and hit the Ruski’s where it hurts most? Maybe Britain can ban Matroesjka’s or summink, that should really hurt Putin.
 
Suppose we're all going to learn more about the word Novichok in the coming days.
 
Rams said:
Wonder how (Brexit) Britain will flex their muscles and hit the Ruski’s where it hurts most? Maybe Britain can ban Matroesjka’s or summink, that should really hurt Putin.
Click to expand...

Given how much the Russian elite love London, they can hit certain individuals hard (a UK Magnitsky list). Unlike in 2006 when there was a lot of pressure from UK businesses to take a softly softly approach, there isn’t a great deal at stake financially anymore. In fact, if I were a PM looking for a way of bringing together a deeply fractured country, being seen to stand up to a foreign bully would not be the worst strategy.
 
Last edited:
Theresa May says the Salisbury attack was carried out using a "military grade" nerve agent known as Novichock, developed by Russia.

She says "the government has concluded it was highly likely Russia was responsible" for the attack.

The Prime Minister suggests either the either poisoning was a "direct" attack by the Russian state or the country lost control of its chemical weapons.
Click to expand...
:D Cop out there for Putin.
 
Raoul said:
Suppose we're all going to learn more about the word Novichok in the coming days.
Click to expand...

i. 8x more potent than VX?!
ii. At this point you actually hope the Russian govt did it (which is most probable imo), instead of the "lost control" option.
 
MoskvaRed said:
Given how much the Russian elite love London, they can hit certain individuals hard (a UK Magnitsky list). Unlike in 2006 when there was a lot of pressure from UK businesses to take a softly softly approach, there isn’t a great deal at stake financially anymore. In fact, if I were a PM looking for a way of bringing together a deeply fractured country, being seen to stand up to a foreign bully would not be the worst strategy.
Click to expand...
So xenophobia then.

:wenger:
 
Sweet Square said:
So xenophobia then.

:wenger:
Click to expand...
No, because there's a distinction between antagonizing a foreign state and the immigrants/population from that state. I'm not assessing the feasibility or desirability of the UK response, but just that otherwise it would be impossible for any defense/retaliation vs a foreign state not be decried as xenophobic.
 
MTF said:
No, because there's a distinction between antagonizing a foreign state and the immigrants/population from that state. I'm not assessing the feasibility or desirability of the UK response, but just that otherwise it would be impossible for any defense/retaliation vs a foreign state not be decried as xenophobic.
Click to expand...
1)You don't know the British public(Or I image have too much faith in them) - After Brexit(Which was a vote on the UK relationship with the EU)both racism and xenophobia went up, stoking anti Russian narratives will do the same(Anyone who isn't white and english sounding will get harassed)

2)The Tory Party.
 
Sweet Square said:
1)You don't know the British public(Or I image have too much faith in them) - After Brexit(Which was a vote on the UK relationship with the EU)both racism and xenophobia went up, stoking anti Russian narratives will do the same(Anyone who isn't white and english sounding will get harassed)

2)The Tory Party.
Click to expand...

No, that’s a lame comparison, this is not leave vote II.
 
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
 
Nucks said:
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
Click to expand...
Seems intentional, Putin loves drumming up conflict.
 
Nucks said:
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
Click to expand...
Thinking through it (not a lawyer) from the US point of view, I think it would be highly illegal considering that the former spy is one that was caught, tried and sentenced to a punishment other than death. Might be more feasible if it were someone who wasn't discovered before his escape to a foreign country. And even then, probably complicated if it were a US citizen (Al-Awlaki notwithstanding).

Finally, and this has been mentioned here before, a "retired" spy is a bit of a lame target for an intel agency that's focused on doing its core missions. He shouldn't be of much value to anyone, like Kim Philby after he fled to Russia.
 
Last edited:
Nucks said:
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
Click to expand...
Probably an element of botched, not that Putin would care much about collateral damage. Remember this is a real tough macho type who’s not afraid to dress up like a duck and fly behind a flock of birds on a hang glider making quacking noises. Real tough cookie who’s not afraid to embarrass himself.
 
Last edited:
Nucks said:
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
Click to expand...

It's an homicide even if he has been sentenced to death in his home country, that sentence has no value on foreign soil, he would have to be extradited and then killed within the frameworks of the rules of laws. Also I think that it was intentionally oblivious, it's a message to other potential traitors.
 
JPRouve said:
It's an homicide even if he has been sentenced to death in his home country, that sentence has no value on foreign soil, he would have to be extradited and then killed within the frameworks of the rules of laws. Also I think that it was intentionally oblivious, it's a message to other potential traitors.
Click to expand...
It also throws a wrench in future spy exchanges.
 
Bill Moffat, 51, an archaeologist, said: "I don't think that any particular aspect of our interests will be served by picking a fight really. Largely because I don't think that our own moral position is entirely impeccable anyway, and I think there are other geopolitical forces at work that are perhaps more important things to concentrate on then what's happened here. I mean obviously it's appalling and clumsy and so forth, but I don't see that there is any sense in going full on about it."
Click to expand...
Sky reporting what people think about the Novichok attack.

https://news.sky.com/story/live-pm-set-to-blame-kremlin-as-she-chairs-spy-poisoning-meeting-11286994
 
Pexbo said:
You think this will be bad for his election hopes?
Click to expand...

The UK response (politically, but especially from the media) has been pretty bizarre.

If you wanted to knock off an ex-spy quietly, there are much better ways to do it. So either it was hilariously botched, someone is trying to frame Russia to foster tensions, or Russia has achieved exactly what it intended to. I think the last option is by far and away the most likely, and yet the media typically doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that their reporting is the intended result. The same can be said of May's response – it was exactly the kind of response you would expect from a UK PM and so presumably is precisely what Russia desired when sanctioning an attack carried out in such a way to essentially scream "Russia did this".
 
Pexbo said:
You think this will be bad for his election hopes?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to do anything to win an election, it's a slam dunk for him, no matter what.

I just feel the timing and circumstances of this incident are very odd and make absolutely no sense from Putin's point of view. But whenever Russia/Putin as a subject comes up in the West all logical thinking gets thrown out the window. Why kill this guy now, after so many years, in England, of al places, where he's been living openly? Why use a Soviet made poison? Maybe they should have left Putin's photo next to the crime scene to make it even more obvious.

There's simply no upside to it for Kremlin, while the negative consequences are easily predictable.
 
Untied said:
The UK response (politically, but especially from the media) has been pretty bizarre.

If you wanted to knock off an ex-spy quietly, there are much better ways to do it. So either it was hilariously botched, someone is trying to frame Russia to foster tensions, or Russia has achieved exactly what it intended to. I think the last option is by far and away the most likely, and yet the media typically doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that their reporting is the intended result. The same can be said of May's response – it was exactly the kind of response you would expect from a UK PM and so presumably is precisely what Russia desired when sanctioning an attack carried out in such a way to essentially scream "Russia did this".
Click to expand...

...which is what?
 
antihenry said:
...which is what?
Click to expand...

PR, statement of intent towards spies and potential spies, heightening of tensions with West, etc.

What I am saying is the current media/political consensus seems to start from the position that Russia planned to get away with this attack. I think we should engage in a little bit more game theory and approach it from the stance that it was a deliberately conspicuous attack and so have the self-awareness to consider whether Hawkish responses are exactly what they desire.
 
Untied said:
PR, statement of intent towards spies and potential spies, heightening of tensions with West, etc.

What I am saying is the current media/political consensus seems to start from the position that Russia planned to get away with this attack. I think we should engage in a little bit more game theory and approach it from the stance that it was a deliberately conspicuous attack and so have the self-awareness to consider whether Hawkish responses are exactly what they desire.
Click to expand...

I guess anything is possible, but that version of events seems a bit far-fetched to me.
 
Nucks said:
Does anyone know what the actual legality is of killing spies that are accused of treason by their home country? Weighing in on judicial versus extra-judicial killings would be helpful as well.

I'm curious about the legality of it. It's a horrible incident, but it's also fascinating. It seems to me that the difference here between what Russia has most likely done, and what pretty much all other major nations involved in espionage have done at some point (or supported the actions of an ally that has), is that they don't seem to give a feck if they are caught.

When we consider the collateral damage of the attack, was it botched? Intentional?
Click to expand...
What do you mean legality? Its murder, or at this stage attempted murder.

It happened in the UK and is covered by UK law.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
What do you mean legality? Its murder, or at this stage attempted murder.

It happened in the UK and is covered by UK law.
Click to expand...

He's probably thinking about it from the Russian point of view. Very simple: Some guy has done something wrong. Flees the country. No chance of getting ahold of him other than kill the guy. Is this justifiable? Surely must depend on the crime and in that case it's no less than treason which in all criminal codes is amongst the most serious offences.

Still in @Nucks case it's not hard to answer the question because the guy is simply accused, so acting without verdict must be against due process in Russia too. Would be another question if there was a verdict against the guy and then the only way I can see for it to even be in the neighbourhood of legitimacy (probably still not actually legit) it would have to be the death penalty.
 
Javi said:
He's probably thinking about it from the Russian point of view. Very simple: Some guy has done something wrong. Flees the country. No chance of getting ahold of him other than kill the guy. Is this justifiable? Surely must depend on the crime and in that case it's no less than treason which in all criminal codes is amongst the most serious offences.

Still in @Nucks case it's not hard to answer the question because the guy is simply accused, so acting without verdict must be against due process in Russia too. Would be another question if there was a verdict against the guy and then the only way I can see for it to even be in the neighbourhood of legitimacy (probably still not actually legit) it would have to be the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Skripal had already been tried, convicted and jailed. He was released and pardoned by Medvedev as part of the Illegals program.

Also, the only crime his daughter has committed is being a Putin critic.

They went going after a guy in Britain that they had already pardoned and released as part of an exchange program with britain. It's a blatant feck you to any kind of deal you could think to ever make with russia, nevermind the attack being on british soil.
 
Untied said:
PR, statement of intent towards spies and potential spies, heightening of tensions with West, etc.

What I am saying is the current media/political consensus seems to start from the position that Russia planned to get away with this attack. I think we should engage in a little bit more game theory and approach it from the stance that it was a deliberately conspicuous attack and so have the self-awareness to consider whether Hawkish responses are exactly what they desire.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is an obvious "WE DID IT" message, they never had any intention of getting away with it.
Its a very powerful move for Putin to make. Essentially saying, I'll kill anyone I want, wherever they might be and I don't give a feck if everyone knows I did it.
I doubt the person targeted meant anything specifically, just someone they could find easily (was living under his own name).
 
GloryHunter07 said:
What do you mean legality? Its murder, or at this stage attempted murder.

It happened in the UK and is covered by UK law.
Click to expand...

Espionage against your home country is considered treason by every single country on the planet as far as I know. That is a capital offense in every single country that I am aware of. As such, if the guy spied on his own country, and he is found guilty, then killing him would be a judicial killing. If he is killed without being found guilty via due process, then it is extra judicial.

Many countries have done it publicly as a judicial killing, and who knows how many have been done silently as an extra-judicial killing. My question was regarding the legality of killing a "double agent" or however you want to phrase it, on foreign soil, in this case England. The question of legality doesn't even have to pertain to this incident. It could pertain to ANY judicial, or extra judicial killing of an accused spy on foreign soil.
 
Nucks said:
Espionage against your home country is considered treason by every single country on the planet as far as I know. That is a capital offense in every single country that I am aware of. As such, if the guy spied on his own country, and he is found guilty, then killing him would be a judicial killing. If he is killed without being found guilty via due process, then it is extra judicial.

Many countries have done it publicly as a judicial killing, and who knows how many have been done silently as an extra-judicial killing. My question was regarding the legality of killing a "double agent" or however you want to phrase it, on foreign soil, in this case England. The question of legality doesn't even have to pertain to this incident. It could pertain to ANY judicial, or extra judicial killing of an accused spy on foreign soil.
Click to expand...
It doesnt matter what you have been convicted of, in Russia or wherever. It is illegal to kill people on the streets of the UK, regardless of conviction.

If Russia wanted to execute him for treason they would have to extradite him to Russia first.

You seem to be implying that because he has been convicted of treason Russia can do what they want?

By the way "capital offense" doesnt exist in the UK. Capital punishment is completely banned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.