Can you provide me with the source of your information about Novichok.  Nothing I’ve read by anyone says they can identify it as coming from Russia, only that Novichok was originally developed in Russia.  The most common phrase I’ve heard when it comes to identifying the source as being Russian is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ which does not suggest much in the way of irrefutable evidence.

I don’t think anyone has said that on the balance of probabilities Putin is an unlikely candidate.  I just think some of us are questioning how the government can be so certain.  Despite being a buffoon Johnson is the foreign secretary.  If he wasn’t speaking for the government then there should have been a statement put out immediately making that clear.  They didn’t and therefore it was a statement made by the government.

 The types of Novichok agents produced by other countries were different and all had different signatures so easy to identify the source of the agent.

No, it’s nigh on impossible to unequivocally prove the source through its “signature”, as I have gone to some length to demonstrate.

It is highly likely that only Russia has produced these agents, but it’s not impossible that others have. There are many other countries with the capability to synthesise highly toxic compounds. Whether they have synthesised novichok is another question. But the point remains that unless a vial of the stuff is found in the hands of a Russian agent, the line that novichok = Russia to the exclusion of all other sources is at best circumstantial.

I think the most plausible explanation is that Putin did it.

I agree. But that’s all it is: the most plausible. All the UK has a present is a plausible circumstantial case. It does not have categoric proof, and frankly, I doubt it ever will as the two ways of achieving this (finding it on an active Russian agent, or forensically tracing it to a lab in Russia) seem to be unlikely. With my chemist’s hat on, I’d say that catching someone red-handed would be the much easier avenue of obtaining proof.

(forget what BJ and others have said, that’s just a side show),

No, like it or not (and personally I don’t), he’s the Foreign Secretary, a Minister of the Crown. He speaks with the authority of the British Government on this issue. And as such, the Government’s statements have been factually incorrect.

a shot across the bow while we gather more understanding about how the agent was actually administered.

So once we’ve gathered this understanding, what do “shots at the bow” look like? Are we going to invade? Perhaps nuke them. Maybe we’ll take them to the ICC? This is the point. There is nothing the UK can do to hurt Putin or Russia in any material sense.

The more this continues, the wiser Corbyn looks. Of course it is pure Mail-fodder that he doesn’t join in the general excitement and making of animal-noises that characterises our seat of government, but May and her clown have given the Russians the perfect diversionary spectacle by not being open and straightforward.

Yeah, the Russians are innocent victims in all of this, Putin is hurt and upset by the unkind things we’ve been saying, and cannot understand why Boris is being so mean about him.

And all those other Russians living in the UK – just unfortunate accidents. It could have happened to anyone.

And the state-level doping going on at Sochi, and who knows where else, just western propaganda and lies, which could easily be proved if that Russian whistle-blower came out of hiding and testified in a nice open court. And he would be completely safe.

It’s bad news for us though that we’re pitting the likes of Boris Johnson and that Fireplace salesman guy up against Putin. Taking a knife to a gun fight.

Well well well – it appears that the Porton down scientists have NOT been able to identify this as russian manufacture but where pressured into saying

““Of a type developed by Russia”. Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured.”

Of A Type Developed By Liars

Yeah, the Russians are innocent victims in all of this, Putin is hurt and upset by the unkind things we’ve been saying, and cannot understand why Boris is being so mean about him.

Where have I said that it wasn’t Russia? All I’ve done is demonstrate that it’s damnably difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the threshold required by a court of law, that it is Russia. As such, pathetic overtures to a second cold war seem rather unhelpful.

On the balance of probabilities is another issue, but I’d rather like to think there’s a higher threshold of evidence required to justify punitive action against a foreign nation. You’d need more than that to send a shoplifter to jail.

If you give credence to what Craig Murray has to say, the medium article I posted back a page is worth a read

Maybe it was Lord Lucan and Elvis? In league with the Mossad agents that did 9/11? And some aliens?

Instead of being sarcastic arseholes, why not tell us how you’d prove in a court of law that the nerve agent came from Russia?

You couldn’t, but that’s against the context of Russian doctrine of deniability, see Ukraine, cyber attacks, online subversion etc. The whole MO is designed so you can’t prove it’s them. In that context, limited diplomatic measures seem reasonable.

You couldn’t,

Well, there you go

…..quack, etc

Whilst i agree we cannot prove it was them -imagine spies being able to do assassinations that cannot be proved to be them even when they do it in a way that really shows its them- its a signal to ex spies* as much as it was to him.

I am not sure what you want or expect us to do. the trolling comments by the russians show their complete disdain for all of this and we have basically two options

1. Say we cannot be sure t was them and do nothing

2. Do this

Which do you prefer?

IMHO russia is becoming a serious threat with Putin nothing more than a dictator hell bent on destabilising the democracies and the alliances of the west by any means necessary, We know this and we know he is not as shit as leave absolute proof. We have to act on what we know is their MO even though , on many/most/all occasions, we cannot prove it was them even though we all know [ and they barely deny it]

I think anyone willing to give russia the benefit of the doubt* is hopelessly naive and play into the plans of russia to sow discord in our societies

* as  I said we can never prove it in a court of law but we all know the pattern and the MO at work here.

Neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson have decided who the perpetrators of the attack were. That judgement was probably made by the UK’s most senior career intelligence officials (Joint Intelligence Committee?). It would have been based on more than just the fact that the Russians developed the Novichok agents,  i.e. it’s possible they may have other intelligence sources such as from GCHQ and from any moles MI6 might have in the Kremlin or the Russian intelligence service.

The JIC will have communicated both its assessment of who the perpetrators were to Theresa May, and crucially it will also have told her how confident it was of its assessment. It’s possible that the JIC knows with absolute 100% certainty that the Russians did it, which might explain why Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been so unequivocal in accusing the Russians. If there is little or no prospect of getting the sort of corroborating evidence which would not expose their intelligence sources and which could be shared with the public, such as scientific evidence about the source of the Novichok agent used, then there might be little point in waiting for the official police investigation etc. to run its course before accusing the Russians.

What I would prefer Junkyard is a different option.  collect the evidence then make measured sanctions as a result.  Not kneejerk reactions followed by evidence gathering.

I’d have thought waiting to next week would have helped in two ways:

1) Not jumping straight on the Russians before it could seemingly be proven (as far it is possible)

2) If Putin did it to help garner support for his election with the narrative of them being bullied by the west, it would have negated that.

My take on it is that it will be impossible to prove definitely – say, the burden of proof required in court.

But on balance of probabilities, it likely was the Russians and Putin in particular. The response to this should have been presented as a response to the widening series of provocations from them – Crimea, hacking of infrastructure, distorting social media in elections and referendums, Syria/’mercenaries’, flying through our airspace etc
Not all can be definitely attributed to them, but the probabilities it wasn’t get smaller and smaller with each (for example) 90% confidence in the assessment of it being them wot dun it.

Look, I’m comfortable with it being probable that it’s Russia. It seems quite probable, and multiple lines of circumstantial evidence point to that. However, probable is all it is.

So, assuming that it was Russia, what’s the end game here? What does success look like? How do we get there? If none of that stacks up, then perhaps the do nothing option is the more appropriate pathway.

Ultimately, are any of the actions on the table currently remotely likely to prevent Russia from carrying on the way it has?

Ultimately, are any of the actions on the table currently remotely likely to prevent Russia from carrying on the way it has?

Ultimately, are any of the actions on the table currently remotely likely to prevent Russia from carrying on the way it has?

I am not sure anything we can do can stop them but i am not sure how the pretending it is not them doing it and doing nothing  is going to be more successful. What would they need to do for you to act?

IMHO they endangered citizens of this country with the manner of the assignations. This is not something we can or should ignore. Will anything we do make Putin be a nice guy who plays by the rues – no  but that is setting the bar a little high. If they want to act like NK then that is their choice but we need to treat them like NK rather than go it might not be them so lets do nothing and hope they stop.

what’s the end game here?

the end game is to destabilise the west, fracture alliances, sow discord, make us weaker, achieve russian strategic aims , have deniability and inwardly portray the west as against russia with only strong putin able to defend and protect the motherland . I dont think we can alter this but i dont think we can ignore it either. What we need is a unified approach to them from all the west.

So rather than do nothing and hope they stop, the idea is that we do something we know will achieve nothing, and then hope they stop.

Run that by me again.

So you can mis represent it again?

You seem to suggest we can ONLY do something if it will work and if wont we should do nothing. Perhaps you could expand on how you think doing nothing “works” an what “works” is ?

Speed limits dont stop speeding [ nor do laws prevent crimes] but that is not a reason to  not have them.

There are no good options here but ignoring their actions is the worst choice. What would they need to do to make you act?

The interesting thing is, there’s not really much stopping us or anyone else behaving in that way either. We could probably off Russian agents in Russia if we wanted with a certain level of impunity.

Which I suppose in some respects leads us neatly back to the initial whodunnit question

To be fair, the Uk is floundering a little. Losing status in the world.. the whole brexit debacle. lily wristed beardie men like Corbyn been given credence etc.

Theresa May should just send one of the SAS lot out with a long distance rifle to lob a bullet into putin’s skull… then say “Yeah, I ordered that and we did it. There ya go baby. Right, who wants a nice trade deal?”

Maybe not the Theresa we want, but maybe the Theresa we need?

Some of the commentators on that Craig Murray site would make JHJ blush…

So you can mis represent it again?

How did what I posted misrepresent this:

I dont think we can alter this but i dont think we can ignore it either.

It’s a vexing issue and no mistake, but given the choices appear to be either to do nothing, or to demonstrate the impotency of what little we can do, I’m going to take some convincing to accept that doing something for the sake of being seen to do something is a sensible approach.

That judgement was probably made by the UK’s most senior career intelligence officials (Joint Intelligence Committee?

Charles Blandford Farr, who heads the Joint Intelligence Committee has an interesting history…

There again, so does David Lidington…

lily wristed beardie men like Corbyn been given credence etc.

Yes. Damn him for suggesting that evidence is useful in proving guilt 🙄 I assume you also think he’s a Czech spy and a member of the IRA?

Frankly I’d rather Corbyn at this moment than the most hapless PM in living memory who thinks all her Christmases have come at once now she has somebody to rattle the sabres at and deflect attention from the absolute rank incompetence of her own leadership.

I hope appeasement works [ or is a more powerful statements to the russians] but I remain to be convinced.

I think you are setting the bar high if you think we can only act if we can be certain the actions will completely change Putins MO. Its setting the bar too high and a goal that can never be achieved .

I still fail to see how doing nothing sends a clear single to them – could you explain?

Doing nothing sends the signal that we can’t do anything.

Doing something that will have negligible impact also demonstrates this. I fail to see a material difference between these two scenarios.

And as both Napoleon and Hitler demonstrated at the opposite end of the spectrum, all out military invasion ultimately achieves nothing when it comes to Russia too.

Putin knows this, and he doesn’t care. We can either get our knickers in a twist and provide him the bonus of amusement, or do our best to ignore him.

As unsavoury as it is, that’s about the long and short of it.

Good article in today’s Guardian by Magaret Hodge

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/16/how-to-curb-putin-russian-kleptocrats-salisbury-dirty-money?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Never mind expelling diplomats and other such tokenism, what we should be doing is cracking down on the billions and billions of blood-stained Russian dirty money being laundered through the City of London. And not because Putin did or didnt bump somebody off, but just because the U.K. shouldnt really be facilitating that shit! It’s not like it benefits the country as a whole, economically. It’s not like anyone is paying any tax. So why let it carry on?

Of course, that is the one thing you can absolutely 100% guarantee will not happen. Too many of Theresa’s mates and Tory party doners with their snouts in that particular trough

do our best to ignore him

If you want to learn some lessons from history then learn that ignoring despots rarely turns out to be an effective strategy * . If putin knows there are no consequences is he

1) less likely to act

2) More likely to act

its not the hardest question to work out the answer to even if you think any response is impotent or tokenism.

* Comparing any action we might do to failed attempts to invade/conquer russia is strange and again setting the bar way too high.

So why let it carry on?

Would guess that there are tories and tory supporters who are gaining from it.

Never mind expelling diplomats and other such tokenism, what we should be doing is cracking down on the billions and billions of blood-stained Russian dirty money being laundered through the City of London.

Isn’t that what Corbyn and McDonnell are suggesting by way of the Magnitsky Act?

@junkyard: So we should act simply to save face, even though we know it will have no impact?

You appear to have made up your mind here, I’m just a bit baffled as to why. There is nothing we can do here that will have one iota of an effect. As such, why do it? Why take an action that has no impact? It won’t punish Putin, and it sure as hell won’t discourage him. And all the while we talk about it, and ignore the mess that May is making at home.

By the way, it was you that jeered at the idea of appeasement – a term most frequently associated with Chamberlain’s reticence to go to war vs Churchill’s bloodlust. Fact remains, there is little, short of a successful regime change, that will alter how Putin conducts his foreign policy. More broadly, I’d say history was fairly split on the success of toppling vs ignoring tyrants.

And there we have it: England 23 – 23 Russia.

Do we expel 23 more and hope it has the desired effect this time, or do we hope for a convincing winner in injury time to make it 24-23?

EDIT: Ooooh, the dirty scumbags have closed a consulate and booted out the British Council. Surely that’s a yellow card?

There is nothing we can do here that will have one iota of an effect.

Pretty much my take on it. Military action is of course out of the question, anyone suggesting otherwise must have suicidal tendencies. The only options open are symbolic actions. Expelling all russian billionaires (they’re not all in exile) from the country and freezing Russian assets would have an impact, as would leading a call for an international boycott of the World Cup. Of course they won’t do that, it’s easier to talk hard on the telly and not do anything.

 So we should act simply to save face, even though we know it will have no impact?

You are bright stop doing this-  I have repeated the question to you numerous times for you to answer, Its clear why we  sometimes act even though it wont be 100% effective just as its clear do nothing is less effective than doing something[ even if its not 100% effective]. none of this is controversial or refutable hence you wont directly engage with the questions.

There is nothing we can do here that will have one iota of an effect.

False plenty we will do can have an effect it  just wont  “stop” him whatever that means.

 It won’t punish Putin, and it sure as hell won’t discourage him.

Premise is false conclusion is false –  again will it discourage him more than doing nothing – these are not hard questions you keep ignoring

And all the while we talk about it, and ignore the mess that May is making at home.

Whabouterry and its possible to both tackle putin and deal with the mess may is making. its not either or.

Well well well – it appears that the Porton down scientists have NOT been able to identify this as russian manufacture but where pressured into saying

““Of a type developed by Russia”. Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured.”

No ones claiming proof that they manufactured it there, but considering that there are 100’s of potential Novichok substances, a non-state actor or another state would first have to find out the exact compound Russia was using through espionage and then copy it.

Also, Junkyard is on a roll today. 😀

And as both Napoleon and Hitler demonstrated at the opposite end of the spectrum, all out military invasion ultimately achieves nothing when it comes to Russia too.

We could, ahem, send aid to the Ukraine in the form of anti-tank missiles etc

Also

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-troops-who-repelled-russian-mercenaries-prepare-more-attacks-n855271

Never mind expelling diplomats and other such tokenism, what we should be doing is cracking down on the billions and billions of blood-stained Russian dirty money being laundered through the City of London. And not because Putin did or didnt bump somebody off, but just because the U.K. shouldnt really be facilitating that shit!

Damned right

There is nothing we can do here that will have one iota of an effect.

Pretty much my take on it. Military action is of course out of the question, anyone suggesting otherwise must have suicidal tendencies. The only options open are symbolic actions. Expelling all russian billionaires (they’re not all in exile) from the country and freezing Russian assets would have an impact

I ask myself, “what would Putin do if he was in charge here?”

Answer might well include giving a non-lethal but scary dose of something to a couple of wealthy UK-based friends of Putin and then publicly hand-wringing and accusing the opposition of more naughtiness.  Personally I don’t believe this is what has already happened  but I imagine it could, if we had a proper bastard in charge here.

Not being liked by Vladimir Putin IS natural causes, confirms coroner

Maggie would have known what to do: