I see Boris Johnsons response is at it's usual laughable levels.
"UK will robustly respond..." Yada yada. Back in your box Boris.
Sometimes you have to admit you are further down the food chain in a show of brute strength. Russia are far higher up that chain than good old blighty.May and Johnson know it full well. Putin's latest bit of dick waving and stick poking kills two birds with one stone. It sends a message to traitors that they will find and kill them no matter where they are or how ever long it takes. The next message is to smaller nations with notions of grandeur.what are you going to do about it? We will infiltrate your land and cause carnage as and when we choose with weapons and substances that you don't even recognise let alone have the power to prevent.
Unless all major nations come together in a show of force against this tyrant then Boris Johnson and the like may as well keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
I see Boris Johnsons response is at it's usual laughable levels.
"UK will robustly respond..." Yada yada. Back in your box Boris.
Sometimes you have to admit you are further down the food chain in a show of brute strength. Russia are far higher up that chain than good old blighty.May and Johnson know it full well. Putin's latest bit of dick waving and stick poking kills two birds with one stone. It sends a message to traitors that they will find and kill them no matter where they are or how ever long it takes. The next message is to smaller nations with notions of grandeur.what are you going to do about it? We will infiltrate your land and cause carnage as and when we choose with weapons and substances that you don't even recognise let alone have the power to prevent.
Unless all major nations come together in a show of force against this tyrant then Boris Johnson and the like may as well keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
You got it right with the first sentence. Then you lost it a bit.
Actually those commentators who specialise say that Russia has huge respect for both our secret services and our special forces. And they say two things that can be done:
1 as discussed above, clamp down on the Russian super-rich who swan around London> Of course I've been saying for years that we should start at an address in the Kings Road but football fans want to call him Roman, as if he is their mate, or wish he was...
2. Join forces with the rest of Europe in clamping down. That would bother them big time. Unfortunately there is something else going on that is hampering co-operation with our European friends. In that spirit, we really should by now have signed the Magnitsky Act.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Oh no Saddam definitely had them.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
I see Boris Johnsons response is at it's usual laughable levels.
"UK will robustly respond..." Yada yada. Back in your box Boris.
Sometimes you have to admit you are further down the food chain in a show of brute strength. Russia are far higher up that chain than good old blighty.May and Johnson know it full well. Putin's latest bit of dick waving and stick poking kills two birds with one stone. It sends a message to traitors that they will find and kill them no matter where they are or how ever long it takes. The next message is to smaller nations with notions of grandeur.what are you going to do about it? We will infiltrate your land and cause carnage as and when we choose with weapons and substances that you don't even recognise let alone have the power to prevent.
Unless all major nations come together in a show of force against this tyrant then Boris Johnson and the like may as well keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
You got it right with the first sentence. Then you lost it a bit.
Actually those commentators who specialise say that Russia has huge respect for both our secret services and our special forces. And they say two things that can be done:
1 as discussed above, clamp down on the Russian super-rich who swan around London> Of course I've been saying for years that we should start at an address in the Kings Road but football fans want to call him Roman, as if he is their mate, or wish he was...
2. Join forces with the rest of Europe in clamping down. That would bother them big time. Unfortunately there is something else going on that is hampering co-operation with our European friends. In that spirit, we really should by now have signed the Magnitsky Act.
Ha I was going to mention Abromovich earlier and forgot. Yeah it's really awkward to have one of the king cleptocrats and oligarchs as a key player in the national institution of football.
Yeah I totally agree with you but I come back to the thing that those sanctions only really hurt if the rest of the EU/NATO/US step up and form a solidified front. German trade with Russia increased something like 23% last year. And this is another in the long (and frustrating) line that "trade impacts foreign policy," but will Germany really want to risk that? And then to whatever extent so Germany goes so goes the EU.
The US can't enforce its own fucking sanctions.
I think you're dead on to say Britain should go after Russians looking to invest in London (property The City, whatever it may be). And I'm sure they can inflict some pain there. But there must be those in government thinking "we need trade deals and losing all that money coming in..." Again, the way Brexit has ripple effects.
Of course all this with the caveat of if it was Russia and if it was state sponsored.
Lastly do you guys remember Aum Shinrikio (probably spelling that wrong)? The Japanese cult that released Sarin on the Tokyo subway? It apparently took them years and like millions of dollars (and presumably a lot of dead people) to weaponize Sarin and get it from a liquid to a gas form and then make it so it was spreadable (should note this is from memory from a Netflix documentary I watched ages ago so apologies if details aren't exact). Point being, as I understand it Sarin is hard to make, weaponize, and handle. I struggle to see anyone else capable of doing it (with a motive) other than a Russian state backed agent.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Errm, there was the first gulf war which forced saddam to halt his use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Oh no Saddam definitely had them.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
Have you got the definitive date when he used and or destroyed his last remaining stockpiles of this gas? Seem to remember the UN having great difficulty getting access to verify this. But anyway, I don't want to take this thread off topic. It was just odd to hear a weapons expert referencing Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Oh no Saddam definitely had them.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
Have you got the definitive date when he used and or destroyed his last remaining stockpiles of this gas? Seem to remember the UN having great difficulty getting access to verify this. But anyway, I don't want to take this thread off topic. It was just odd to hear a weapons expert referencing Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.
No, but he did not have them in 2003 and what were presented as moving biological weapons trucks to the UN were actually just trucks.
Nobody has ever doubted Iraq's use of Sarin gas in the mid-late '80s, and I say that as someone who has been a critical of that war since before the invasion. He absolutely used those weapons on his own people there is no doubt about that. But a chemical attack in 1986-89 was not why we went to war there. We were told he had WMD and was an imminent threat and that he had something to do with 9/11 and all were false.
I can't believe we're having this conversation in 2018.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Oh no Saddam definitely had them.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
Have you got the definitive date when he used and or destroyed his last remaining stockpiles of this gas? Seem to remember the UN having great difficulty getting access to verify this. But anyway, I don't want to take this thread off topic. It was just odd to hear a weapons expert referencing Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.
No, but he did not have them in 2003 and what were presented as moving biological weapons trucks to the UN were actually just trucks.
Nobody has ever doubted Iraq's use of Sarin gas in the mid-late '80s, and I say that as someone who has been a critical of that war since before the invasion. He absolutely used those weapons on his own people there is no doubt about that. But a chemical attack in 1986-89 was not why we went to war there. We were told he had WMD and was an imminent threat and that he had something to do with 9/11 and all were false.
I can't believe we're having this conversation in 2018.
We are having this conversation in 2018, in the UK anyway, because, as Alastair Campbell has pointed out last week, every time Tony Blair intervenes in the vitally important national debate on Brexit he gets dismissed by large sections of both the left and right wing media with one word....Iraq.
But, as I posted earlier, this will be my last post on this topic on this thread as it risks taking it way off topic.
They had an expert on TV this lunch time comparing the nerve agent to that which Saddam used to kill hundreds of Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. Funny, I thought the accepted truth these days is that Saddam's possession and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction was a figment of Tony Blair's imagination.
Oh no Saddam definitely had them.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
Have you got the definitive date when he used and or destroyed his last remaining stockpiles of this gas? Seem to remember the UN having great difficulty getting access to verify this. But anyway, I don't want to take this thread off topic. It was just odd to hear a weapons expert referencing Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.
No, but he did not have them in 2003 and what were presented as moving biological weapons trucks to the UN were actually just trucks.
Nobody has ever doubted Iraq's use of Sarin gas in the mid-late '80s, and I say that as someone who has been a critical of that war since before the invasion. He absolutely used those weapons on his own people there is no doubt about that. But a chemical attack in 1986-89 was not why we went to war there. We were told he had WMD and was an imminent threat and that he had something to do with 9/11 and all were false.
I can't believe we're having this conversation in 2018.
We are having this conversation in 2018, in the UK anyway, because, as Alastair Campbell has pointed out last week, every time Tony Blair intervenes in the vitally important national debate on Brexit he gets dismissed by large sections of both the left and right wing media with one word....Iraq.
But, as I posted earlier, this will be my last post on this topic on this thread as it risks taking it way off topic.
Good idea, maybe read up on the history of the two gulf wars and the intervening period. Saddam had to give up his weapons but had to also pretend he had them so he wouldn’t be overthrown and tried and executed by his own people (like he eventually was).
Radio 4 PM tonight took the trouble to remind us that it took 8 years of battle by Litvinenko's magnificently courageous widow Marina to get the full public inquiry into her husband's murder. Her solicitor at the time detailed how the Home Secretary at the time did everything possible to block it, claiming that it would harm relations with Russia.
And who was this Home Secretary? Theresa May
And did relations get worse? I can't see any sign of that, as they were already at rock-bottom. And London is still full of Russians.
Radio 4 PM tonight took the trouble to remind us that it took 8 years of battle by Litvinenko's magnificently courageous widow Marina to get the full public inquiry into her husband's murder. Her solicitor at the time detailed how the Home Secretary at the time did everything possible to block it, claiming that it would harm relations with Russia.
And who was this Home Secretary? Theresa May
And did relations get worse? I can't see any sign of that, as they were already at rock-bottom. And London is still full of Russians.
Mind you, Tony Blair was PM at the time of the incident in 2006 and Gordon Brown was the PM from 2007-2010. The Conservatives came to power in May 2010, some 3.5 years later.
Was that the Inquiry that said it was 'probably' approved by Putin and that There was 'a strong possibility' it was committed by the two main suspects that Russia refuse to extradite to the UK?
Oh and there were 'strong indications' of state involvement in the manufacture of the Polonium 210?
Don't you just love a public inquiry that comes out with such definitive answers. How dare the Home Secretary try to prevent such a waste of public money.
Was that the Inquiry that said it was 'probably' approved by Putin and that There was 'a strong possibility' it was committed by the two main suspects that Russia refuse to extradite to the UK?
Oh and there were 'strong indications' of state involvement in the manufacture of the Polonium 210?
Don't you just love a public inquiry that comes out with such definitive answers. How dare the Home Secretary try to prevent such a waste of public money.
Did his widow learn anything or gain any justice?
I frankly don't understand your point at all. It looks like cynicism for the sake of it.
You will be aware that in the UK, unlike in Russia, the only way to get a definitive result would be to put the bastards on trial, but of course we could not do that. The Russians on the other hand put Sergei Magnitsky on trial after they had killed him,lo and behold, they secured a conviction. To your last sentence, why not check out what she has to say in tonight's PM. Such a brave and determined woman has earned the right to your attention, and the chance to correct your wilful ignorance of the matter.
Of course I haven't heard what she said in tonight's radio programme. I was too busy watching RT.
I did note that after the Inquiry she felt nothing had been resolved. As of course it would never be until you can put the two main suspects on trial in the U.K. Which will never happen. The Inquiry achieved nothing we weren't aware of before it took place and Owen's report was so vague as to be worthless.
But because it doesn't suit your narrative of blaming the establishment and the PM doesn't mean my view is 'wilful ignorance'.
Of course I haven't heard what she said in tonight's radio programme. I was too busy watching RT.
I did note that after the Inquiry she felt nothing had been resolved. As of course it would never be until you can put the two main suspects on trial in the U.K. Which will never happen. The Inquiry achieved nothing we weren't aware of before it took place and Owen's report was so vague as to be worthless.
But because it doesn't suit your narrative of blaming the establishment and the PM doesn't mean my view is 'wilful ignorance'.
“We looked at the report and thought: ‘Yes!’” Marina said on Thursday. She spoke to the Guardian after Owen’s bombshell finding that Putin and his spy chief, Nikolai Patrushev, had “probably approved” the FSB’s killing of Litvinenko with polonium-210.
The judge’s conclusions surprised them, said Marina. Not because she disagreed with Owen, but because few people are willing to accuse Russia’s president so directly, or to take quite such a brave course. “It was a very important message,” she said.
However my point remains that 'probably approved' is an opinion and not a definitive accusation of guilt of either Putin or the FSB. The Inquiry report provided no surprises. As soon as it was announced that Pulonium 210 was used, it was obvious that it was a state sponsored murder as it's obvious that the current attempt at killing a Soviet double agent is exactly the same.
The only person who got real satisfaction from Owen's report was Putin. It basically said to the World, look what I can do and you can never prove it. It laid down a marker, otherwise Litvinenk would have been run over/shot/stabbed or murdered in one of a hundred ways rather than use a manufactured chemical weapon.
The mysterious old man and blonde woman captured on CCTV in Salisbury are now probably tucked up at home in Moscow, with no chance of prosecution in the U.K. even if they are identified.
Like the Litvinenko murder, justice will never be done in this case because our democratic and legal system doesn't allow us to use such tactics that the FSB can utilise at any time and any place that they so wish. And we have no need to.
Like the Litvinenko murder, justice will never be done in this case because our democratic and legal system doesn't allow us to use such tactics that the FSB can utilise at any time and any place that they so wish. And we have no need to.
But as discussed above, many say that the effective way to respond is to hit them in London, all their dodgy financial doings. But equally, the same people say, what stops us is that too many Brits are benefitting from it. That should disgust the rest of us, and be the reason not to shurg shoulders and walk away from this.
Not to mention that with 21 people affected, this is an act of terrorism. Isn't it?
Don't disagree, but you will not be hitting the architect of these disgraceful acts, rather those who some say are actually investing in the UK and are here because they are anti Putin.
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
Don't disagree, but you will not be hitting the architect of these disgraceful acts, rather those who some say are actually investing in the UK and are here because they are anti Putin.
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
Some news outlets are suggesting Prince William will boycott the World Cup. Putin must be shaking in his boots at such damning and robust response.
God give me strength. I'd have more respect for our lot if they simply held up their hands and admitted `there is fuck all we can do about it cos they've got us by the balls financially' rather than these predictable, piss weak, insulting attempts at obviously fake outrage.
Why doesn't he do what the England football team usually do at big tournaments - that is attend but still boycott in spirit!
Don't disagree, but you will not be hitting the architect of these disgraceful acts, rather those who some say are actually investing in the UK and are here because they are anti Putin.
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
I don't know what the answer is.
I can have a go at answering that, but of course I am simply retailing the thoughts of people with expertise, which makes sense to me (Misha Glenny, Edward Lucas, Bill Browder are my main sources, read the books of all three, and recommend them).
A dictator is still human, and there are a lot of oligarchs. In a mafia state like Russia, the sands of power shift quickly (we saw that depicted in McMafia). Putin needs to keep the oligarchs onside. If a lot of them get together to say "enough is enough", then it will be dangerous for him. Many of the oligarchs want to launder money through London, swan around there, send their kids to school here, etc. If that lifestyle is threatened, that is something that could persuade a lot of them to move against him. As it is we have been far too tolerant of them (because too many Brits profit from the often shady money) and should be moving against them anyway. I reckon a lot of them are surprised how easy it is for them in London, so they could easily believe their lifestyles are at risk if Putin over-reaches himself.
Finally there is the old, old adage that when dealing with Russia you really have to stand up to them. I've seen it in business actually. They come in swinging their dicks (especially in this part of Europe) but when people turn round to them and say "your proposals are a load of bollocks, and we're not having any of it" they capitulate with remarkable speed. (I'm not talking about gangsters here, obviously). The issue is how to stand up to them. If we threaten them militarily this plays into Putin's hands, they can plaster it all over the TV that the West is threatening them again. However freezing the assets of oligarchs in London, that won't get on TV, because the average Russian will say "bring it on!". And if they do hear about it, they will think, hang on, why doesn't the UK want to eventually return this money to us? Suddenly we have the levers...
Don't disagree, but you will not be hitting the architect of these disgraceful acts, rather those who some say are actually investing in the UK and are here because they are anti Putin.
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
I don't know what the answer is.
I can have a go at answering that, but of course I am simply retailing the thoughts of people with expertise, which makes sense to me (Misha Glenny, Edward Lucas, Bill Browder are my main sources, read the books of all three, and recommend them).
A dictator is still human, and there are a lot of oligarchs. In a mafia state like Russia, the sands of power shift quickly (we saw that depicted in McMafia). Putin needs to keep the oligarchs onside. If a lot of them get together to say "enough is enough", then it will be dangerous for him. Many of the oligarchs want to launder money through London, swan around there, send their kids to school here, etc. If that lifestyle is threatened, that is something that could persuade a lot of them to move against him. As it is we have been far too tolerant of them (because too many Brits profit from the often shady money) and should be moving against them anyway. I reckon a lot of them are surprised how easy it is for them in London, so they could easily believe their lifestyles are at risk if Putin over-reaches himself.
Finally there is the old, old adage that when dealing with Russia you really have to stand up to them. I've seen it in business actually. They come in swinging their dicks (especially in this part of Europe) but when people turn round to them and say "your proposals are a load of bollocks, and we're not having any of it" they capitulate with remarkable speed. (I'm not talking about gangsters here, obviously). The issue is how to stand up to them. If we threaten them militarily this plays into Putin's hands, they can plaster it all over the TV that the West is threatening them again. However freezing the assets of oligarchs in London, that won't get on TV, because the average Russian will say "bring it on!". And if they do hear about it, they will think, hang on, why doesn't the UK want to eventually return this money to us? Suddenly we have the levers...
Certainly doesn't help our cause seeing our Foreign Secretary hanging from a zip wire, waving a Union Jack from each hand, plastered all over the main Russian news channel yesterday!
Don't disagree, but you will not be hitting the architect of these disgraceful acts, rather those who some say are actually investing in the UK and are here because they are anti Putin.
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
I don't know what the answer is.
I can have a go at answering that, but of course I am simply retailing the thoughts of people with expertise, which makes sense to me (Misha Glenny, Edward Lucas, Bill Browder are my main sources, read the books of all three, and recommend them).
A dictator is still human, and there are a lot of oligarchs. In a mafia state like Russia, the sands of power shift quickly (we saw that depicted in McMafia). Putin needs to keep the oligarchs onside. If a lot of them get together to say "enough is enough", then it will be dangerous for him. Many of the oligarchs want to launder money through London, swan around there, send their kids to school here, etc. If that lifestyle is threatened, that is something that could persuade a lot of them to move against him. As it is we have been far too tolerant of them (because too many Brits profit from the often shady money) and should be moving against them anyway. I reckon a lot of them are surprised how easy it is for them in London, so they could easily believe their lifestyles are at risk if Putin over-reaches himself.
Finally there is the old, old adage that when dealing with Russia you really have to stand up to them. I've seen it in business actually. They come in swinging their dicks (especially in this part of Europe) but when people turn round to them and say "your proposals are a load of bollocks, and we're not having any of it" they capitulate with remarkable speed. (I'm not talking about gangsters here, obviously). The issue is how to stand up to them. If we threaten them militarily this plays into Putin's hands, they can plaster it all over the TV that the West is threatening them again. However freezing the assets of oligarchs in London, that won't get on TV, because the average Russian will say "bring it on!". And if they do hear about it, they will think, hang on, why doesn't the UK want to eventually return this money to us? Suddenly we have the levers...
Certainly doesn't help our cause seeing our Foreign Secretary hanging from a zip wire, waving a Union Jack from each hand, plastered all over the main Russian news channel yesterday!
Would the Russians have the balls to do this to the Israelis? Perhaps we should ponder why the Russians believe they can act with impunity in our country but would think twice with another relatively small nuclear power. We need to question whether the liberalism we espouse has made us seem weak to our enemies and has unwisely tied our hands when it comes to deterring future attacks.
Would the Russians have the balls to do this to the Israelis? Perhaps we should ponder why the Russians believe they can act with impunity in our country but would think twice with another relatively small nuclear power. We need to question whether the liberalism we espouse has made us seem weak to our enemies and has unwisely tied our hands when it comes to deterring future attacks.
Comments
"UK will robustly respond..." Yada yada.
Back in your box Boris.
Sometimes you have to admit you are further down the food chain in a show of brute strength. Russia are far higher up that chain than good old blighty.May and Johnson know it full well.
Putin's latest bit of dick waving and stick poking kills two birds with one stone. It sends a message to traitors that they will find and kill them no matter where they are or how ever long it takes.
The next message is to smaller nations with notions of grandeur.what are you going to do about it? We will infiltrate your land and cause carnage as and when we choose with weapons and substances that you don't even recognise let alone have the power to prevent.
Unless all major nations come together in a show of force against this tyrant then Boris Johnson and the like may as well keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
You got it right with the first sentence. Then you lost it a bit.
Actually those commentators who specialise say that Russia has huge respect for both our secret services and our special forces. And they say two things that can be done:
1 as discussed above, clamp down on the Russian super-rich who swan around London> Of course I've been saying for years that we should start at an address in the Kings Road but football fans want to call him Roman, as if he is their mate, or wish he was...
2. Join forces with the rest of Europe in clamping down. That would bother them big time. Unfortunately there is something else going on that is hampering co-operation with our European friends. In that spirit, we really should by now have signed the Magnitsky Act.
In 1989.
And I absolutely support a war to overthrow him using a time machine and an exit strategy.
Yeah I totally agree with you but I come back to the thing that those sanctions only really hurt if the rest of the EU/NATO/US step up and form a solidified front. German trade with Russia increased something like 23% last year. And this is another in the long (and frustrating) line that "trade impacts foreign policy," but will Germany really want to risk that? And then to whatever extent so Germany goes so goes the EU.
The US can't enforce its own fucking sanctions.
I think you're dead on to say Britain should go after Russians looking to invest in London (property The City, whatever it may be). And I'm sure they can inflict some pain there. But there must be those in government thinking "we need trade deals and losing all that money coming in..." Again, the way Brexit has ripple effects.
Of course all this with the caveat of if it was Russia and if it was state sponsored.
Lastly do you guys remember Aum Shinrikio (probably spelling that wrong)? The Japanese cult that released Sarin on the Tokyo subway? It apparently took them years and like millions of dollars (and presumably a lot of dead people) to weaponize Sarin and get it from a liquid to a gas form and then make it so it was spreadable (should note this is from memory from a Netflix documentary I watched ages ago so apologies if details aren't exact). Point being, as I understand it Sarin is hard to make, weaponize, and handle. I struggle to see anyone else capable of doing it (with a motive) other than a Russian state backed agent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21814734
Nobody has ever doubted Iraq's use of Sarin gas in the mid-late '80s, and I say that as someone who has been a critical of that war since before the invasion. He absolutely used those weapons on his own people there is no doubt about that. But a chemical attack in 1986-89 was not why we went to war there. We were told he had WMD and was an imminent threat and that he had something to do with 9/11 and all were false.
I can't believe we're having this conversation in 2018.
But, as I posted earlier, this will be my last post on this topic on this thread as it risks taking it way off topic.
And who was this Home Secretary? Theresa May
And did relations get worse? I can't see any sign of that, as they were already at rock-bottom. And London is still full of Russians.
The Conservatives came to power in May 2010, some 3.5 years later.
Oh and there were 'strong indications' of state involvement in the manufacture of the Polonium 210?
Don't you just love a public inquiry that comes out with such definitive answers. How dare the Home Secretary try to prevent such a waste of public money.
Did his widow learn anything or gain any justice?
You will be aware that in the UK, unlike in Russia, the only way to get a definitive result would be to put the bastards on trial, but of course we could not do that. The Russians on the other hand put Sergei Magnitsky on trial after they had killed him,lo and behold, they secured a conviction. To your last sentence, why not check out what she has to say in tonight's PM. Such a brave and determined woman has earned the right to your attention, and the chance to correct your wilful ignorance of the matter.
I did note that after the Inquiry she felt nothing had been resolved. As of course it would never be until you can put the two main suspects on trial in the U.K. Which will never happen. The Inquiry achieved nothing we weren't aware of before it took place and Owen's report was so vague as to be worthless.
But because it doesn't suit your narrative of blaming the establishment and the PM doesn't mean my view is 'wilful ignorance'.
The judge’s conclusions surprised them, said Marina. Not because she disagreed with Owen, but because few people are willing to accuse Russia’s president so directly, or to take quite such a brave course. “It was a very important message,” she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/marina-litvinenko-alexander-murder-inquiry-report
However my point remains that 'probably approved' is an opinion and not a definitive accusation of guilt of either Putin or the FSB. The Inquiry report provided no surprises. As soon as it was announced that Pulonium 210 was used, it was obvious that it was a state sponsored murder as it's obvious that the current attempt at killing a Soviet double agent is exactly the same.
The only person who got real satisfaction from Owen's report was Putin. It basically said to the World, look what I can do and you can never prove it. It laid down a marker, otherwise Litvinenk would have been run over/shot/stabbed or murdered in one of a hundred ways rather than use a manufactured chemical weapon.
The mysterious old man and blonde woman captured on CCTV in Salisbury are now probably tucked up at home in Moscow, with no chance of prosecution in the U.K. even if they are identified.
Like the Litvinenko murder, justice will never be done in this case because our democratic and legal system doesn't allow us to use such tactics that the FSB can utilise at any time and any place that they so wish. And we have no need to.
Like the Litvinenko murder, justice will never be done in this case because our democratic and legal system doesn't allow us to use such tactics that the FSB can utilise at any time and any place that they so wish. And we have no need to.
But as discussed above, many say that the effective way to respond is to hit them in London, all their dodgy financial doings. But equally, the same people say, what stops us is that too many Brits are benefitting from it. That should disgust the rest of us, and be the reason not to shurg shoulders and walk away from this.
Not to mention that with 21 people affected, this is an act of terrorism. Isn't it?
It's clear where the target for 'retribution' should be, but we as a Country are not in a position to do anything about it, either legally or moraly.
I don't know what the answer is.
Declare war on russia
A dictator is still human, and there are a lot of oligarchs. In a mafia state like Russia, the sands of power shift quickly (we saw that depicted in McMafia). Putin needs to keep the oligarchs onside. If a lot of them get together to say "enough is enough", then it will be dangerous for him. Many of the oligarchs want to launder money through London, swan around there, send their kids to school here, etc. If that lifestyle is threatened, that is something that could persuade a lot of them to move against him. As it is we have been far too tolerant of them (because too many Brits profit from the often shady money) and should be moving against them anyway. I reckon a lot of them are surprised how easy it is for them in London, so they could easily believe their lifestyles are at risk if Putin over-reaches himself.
Finally there is the old, old adage that when dealing with Russia you really have to stand up to them. I've seen it in business actually. They come in swinging their dicks (especially in this part of Europe) but when people turn round to them and say "your proposals are a load of bollocks, and we're not having any of it" they capitulate with remarkable speed. (I'm not talking about gangsters here, obviously). The issue is how to stand up to them. If we threaten them militarily this plays into Putin's hands, they can plaster it all over the TV that the West is threatening them again. However freezing the assets of oligarchs in London, that won't get on TV, because the average Russian will say "bring it on!". And if they do hear about it, they will think, hang on, why doesn't the UK want to eventually return this money to us? Suddenly we have the levers...