Russian Intelligence War in the Uk

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Putin is testing the limits of Russian power in a world where they have successfully elected Trump and gone a long way to breaking up the EU.
If you listen to UK radio you will hear endless numpties calling in defending Russia saying it might not be them, Russia's disinformation is superb.

It's not a matter of Russia's disinformation.

It's that the Brits have a history of state sponsored murder and MI6 are no strangers to concocting a story to suit their agenda.

If I am to believe that it was Russia that did it I must also be willing to believe that they wanted it to be known it was them that did it.

It could be argued that it is equally a numptyish to blindly believe that Russia is behind it based solely on the word of May and her government.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Yes, the nerve agent was of a type only the Russian's produce, the "Novichok" nerve agents specifically desgined to evade NATO detection equipment. I think this is a message to the UK and not specifically Russians. If it had been a message to former spies specifically, that Skripal's death would have been enough, but Russian continued to assassinate people despite the UK demanding answers and assassinated Nikolai Glushkov less than 12 hours after Elizabeth May demanded answers from Putin.



https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...nitely-russian



Not likely at the moment I would say since the US position is unstable. But this is a systematic attack on UK soil with the deaths of now 16 nationals under UK protection.



Yes, a direct military confrontation is not the answer to de-escalate. A message has to be the sent though. Russia has employed mercenaries to attack US bases, does NATO respond with similar proxy battles with it's own mercs? I am not sure what deters this type of asymetrical proxy warefare that Russia is currently employing.

Putin has shown no willingness to back down in use of these type of irregular forces in both the Crimea, Ukraine and Syria... he will continue to employ them if not deterred.
He is rich and can weather the sanctions, his lackeys cannot though.

If this is a message to UK, what it is?

To me, killing former spies, traitors, opponents and such is still more or less an internal matter, even if it is being resolved on the foreign soil.

Another question is why so many of such characters are in UK of all countries. Not in Spain, New Zealand, China, whatever.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I also think, that the perceptions of Putin is a bit off in that he is being portrayed as a thug who does as he pleases. To me, he looks more like a desperate man, who is being cornered. Like that Crimea annexation, it happened because the west had toppled a Moscow puppet in Ukraine, so Putin felt he has to act or he is next.

This murder is more or less a "hands off" warning to MI6. Putin feels threatened by the western intelligence plotting against him in Moscow and he is trying to show his decisiveness. He is aging and declining, but he needs to make sure his spies are still scared of him, do they won't fall for a £100,000 like Skripal. It is about Putin trying to not lose his grasp on power in Russia, not so much about him trying to rule the world.

I think it's more deliberate and systematic than that - the Russian regime is trying to undermine democracy in the West. This really is the Cold War Part 2.

How Putin Meddles in Western Democracies (the Economist)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Another question is why so many of such characters are in UK of all countries. Not in Spain, New Zealand, China, whatever.

London is full of Russian expats, especially the wealthy who want to live the high life. Many oligarchs send their kids to school there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think it's more deliberate and systematic than that - the Russian regime is trying to undermine democracy in the West. This really is the Cold War Part 2.

How Putin Meddles in Western Democracies (the Economist)

I think in a lot of ways its worse by a lot of degrees then the old cold war.

Back then there were a lot of proxy fights, but there was almost an unwritten rule against direct action by the Russians against the Americans and other NATO allies and American's against the Russians.

you sent in your spies to spy and gather intelligence, but you didn't really want to destabilize the governments of major powers because you lost the predictability of control.

That kind of changed with the Soviets when it came to Reagan because the Russians' were genuinely frightened of him, they didn't believe he was all that stable, and they honestly believed that he was the President that wanted to destroy the Soviet Union and was willing to initiate a first strike

Because of that they initiated RYAN, which was an all hands on deck Soviet attempt to uncover his intentions.

While it wasn't designed to interfere with Reagan (Nuclear crazy remember). It was designed to look at things like shelter preparation, stocking of emergency supplies and blood banks and infiltrate the US government as high as they could go.

I tend to think that Putin took a lot of inspiration from Reagan and turned it up to 10. He actively is initiating activities directly against major powers in the West, and he's become completely unpredictable.

This isn't a cold war, its certainly not a hot war, but its a black war in between.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's an absurd comparison for many reasons, and if you can't see that, you've totally lost the plot. Just stop with the embarrassing attempts at creating equivalencies. There is no "well, but they did this so they're bad too" in this situation.

This is far less convincing, than nearly all of your hockey posts. There's no denying that USA has done its share of evil and that share is fairly large.

As for specifically killing political opponents, it is a trait of Putin, rather than Russia as nation. Previous leaders such as Yeltsin and Gorbachev were not doing this.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think it's more deliberate and systematic than that - the Russian regime is trying to undermine democracy in the West. This really is the Cold War Part 2.

How Putin Meddles in Western Democracies (the Economist)

Thanks for an interesting article. While I do see your point in general, I don't quite understand, how killing traitors, opponents and journalists alike could lead to undermining west democracy. Such murders are more of an internal defensive move, rather than an offense against another country.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Pointman

If this is a message to UK, what it is?

To me, killing former spies, traitors, opponents and such is still more or less an internal matter, even if it is being resolved on the foreign soil.

Another question is why so many of such characters are in UK of all countries. Not in Spain, New Zealand, China, whatever.

That's an idiotic way to look at it. Murders in a country cost resources and spread fear amongst the citizens. Using a toxin in a public place is a potential danger to others.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Pointman

This is far less convincing, than nearly all of your hockey posts. There's no denying that USA has done its share of evil and that share is fairly large.

As for specifically killing political opponents, it is a trait of Putin, rather than Russia as nation. Previous leaders such as Yeltsin and Gorbachev were not doing this.

I just want to say thank you for bringing your side of the issue here. I have thanked a couple posts critical of you, and do feel like you are practicing that age old Russian 'whataboutism', but I genuinely do value your opinion as someone on the other side of the world that see's things from the Russian point of view. I don't particularly plan on participating in the discussion as I have always used this thread to see what those outside the states think, but I do very much enjoy the back and forth on this topic.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Pointman

As for specifically killing political opponents, it is a trait of Putin, rather than Russia as nation. Previous leaders such as Yeltsin and Gorbachev were not doing this.

Stalin had Trotsky killed in Mexico. Putin is just harking back to the good ol' days of Uncle Joe and his merry band of murderers.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Pointman

If this is a message to UK, what it is?

To me, killing former spies, traitors, opponents and such is still more or less an internal matter, even if it is being resolved on the foreign soil.

Another question is why so many of such characters are in UK of all countries. Not in Spain, New Zealand, China, whatever.

I think Putin's messaging here is multi-faceted to different audiences. For this particular assassination and the follow up after.

Given the context of the Brexit manipulation, this assassination and the immediate Glushkov assassination afterwards, along with the weapon of choice used, this is definitely not an internal matter at all. Putin could have used something that did very little collateral damage such as Ricin pellets and Polonium, which have been used in the past. Instead the weapon of choice here was a nerve agent that is persistent and has also hospitalized 21 other British citizens.

So to me, in the wider context of past Russian actions in the past year, Putin to the UK: "Stay out of Putin's finances, income sources and Russian sphere of influence matters otherwise we our clandestine services will act and continue to act with impunity within your borders and we will continue to destabilize your country. We will hit you where it hurts, you will know it was us and your intelligence services will not be able to stop us from carrying out our goals whatever they may be."

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Like US had been trying to kill Castro for decades:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assa...n_Fidel_Castro

But again, I am not debating the lists of sins. It us more about overall optics of global powers playing dirty power games. Portraying this as "good vs evil" is naive.

Ok two things:


1: they US must be pretty #### at it if they can't get it done 638 attempts

2:

Fabián Escalante, a retired chief of Cuba's counterintelligence, who had been tasked with protecting Castro, estimated the number of assassination schemes or actual attempts by the Central Intelligence Agency to be 638

seems like an unbiased source.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Pointman

This is far less convincing, than nearly all of your hockey posts. There's no denying that USA has done its share of evil and that share is fairly large.

His point is that you are obviously trying to employ false equivalencies here. Quoting some anachronistic point about Castro is old history, while Russia actively engages in assassination practices right now and then gloats about it on state TV.

Your post seems to be trying to normalize this behavior "because someone else does it too".

Originally Posted by Pointman

As for specifically killing political opponents, it is a trait of Putin, rather than Russia as nation. Previous leaders such as Yeltsin and Gorbachev were not doing this.

No its not just limited to Putin, and any history book will tell you this. Since we like quoting wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...assassinations

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, I missed that part of the announcement. My bad, however what's the Russian response, is basically, prove it. Even the French are basically saying we need more in terms of a string of evidence.

Well to be fair with the Litvenko case it took them almost a year for a proper investigation to find the exact low level foot soldiers who carried out the murder, I don't see this being any different. The choice of weapon can only be from one place.

Sure I agree, I fully believe that the Russians are killing former agents and enemies abroad in the Uk. it goes all the way back to the Umbrella and Markov in the late 70's. But the question is, is this a matter of military concern?

Probably not, its still a police matter to me.

And a diplomatic matter.

It's only a police matter until MI5/MI6 agents get killed. How long until more bodies show up ala Gareth Williams.

And he won't back down, and there aren't a lot of levers to stop him.

I agree a tit for tat shooting war isn't in anyone's best interests, but to deter Putin, it has to be costly for him. He cares about his power and his money, so those need to be the first things Western nations have to hit until he acquiesce and plays within international norms. Black war seems like the only option.

[JohnnyO]

Sounds like a future episode of McMafia on AMC which is not a bad show so far.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Well to be fair with the Litvenko case it took them almost a year for a proper investigation to find the exact low level foot soldiers who carried out the murder, I don't see this being any different. The choice of weapon can only be from one place.

Its the start of the evidence chain though, not the end. Basically the Russian response could eventually turn out to be. Sorry, but we decided to do an inventory of our weapons storage and a bottle of the stuff went missing. It happens sometimes, we have an immense black market here and people steal for money.

It opens up a can of worms where the Western World reacts and says you have to fix that problem, but in a sense it clouds the murders in the UK.

I doubt the Russians are too afraid to manufacture evidence or roll out members of the "mafia" for trial.

Britain simply needs more evidence, forensic proof pointing to an actual Soviet Official or known spy at this point.

I'm not saying the Russians didn't do this, I believe of course that they did. But right now the Russians can basically say "we encourage you to find the attackers, but until you do, we didn't do it.

Originally Posted by FlameOn

It's only a police matter until MI5/MI6 agents get killed. How long until more bodies show up ala Gareth Williams.

To me using a persistent nerve agent does two things. It pretty much guarantees that its an easier mission. you don't have to be anywhere near the scene for it to work. The mistake that the North Koreans made was using actual people to physically attack Kim's brother. In this case its a matter of understanding the pattern of your victim and then applying the poison where you know they're going to go. Its dangerous because of its persistent nature, but it really removes the attacker from being directly linked to the victim. Unless they get a picture of a guy mixing the chemicals and applying them, this is the perfect murder weapon.

Second of all, it hints at a perfectly horrify ability and willingness to use it scenario. Its basically all about we have long arms and nobody is safe, and we can basically silently kill anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I agree a tit for tat shooting war isn't in anyone's best interests, but to deter Putin, it has to be costly for him. He cares about his power and his money, so those need to be the first things Western nations have to hit until he acquiesce and plays within international norms. Black war seems like the only option.

Possibly, but we need to understand the extent of what a black intelligence agency war is, and how far it can go.

I'd argue that the likely response to this will be cyber.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Just as bad guys, just as bad.

Look how many bodies of journalists and political opponents the US is stacking up.

Russians deserve their leaders.

How does "supporting ethnic cleansings" compare with "killing journalists" in your books?

Turkey along with their Islamist militia allies are currently attacking essentially-Kurdish-controlled areas in Northern Syria and openly threatening them with ethnic and sectarian cleansings. And they've alreadly probably started doing this. You might have noticed that this same attack on Afrin is also mentioned on the story about Russian mercenaries attacking a US airbase. This is the what Putin has criticized the US for.

Now, US involvement in Turkish operations is indirect, but it's pretty definite. They are selling arms to Turkey which the Turks are then directly handing over to the "Arab militias" doing much of their groundwork, and there's nothing about this that's much of a secret.

Personally, I find it interesting that the western media has suddenly gone to calling these militias working with Turkey "Arabs"... more than a little vague, which in itself should already tell you what they are. They are of course Islamist extremist militias, some of them literally former ISIS guys under a new flag.

So, let's reiterate.

US is (indirectly but knowingly) arming Islamist extremists actively in the process of committing ethnic and sectarian cleansings with the support of Turkey, who are (more or less) a US ally. And this is the thing Putin has said to be against, and this is part of the context behind the attack on the airbase. (Probably among a dozen other things.)

Now you can make all sorts of ifs and buts around the issue of just how much US is actually supporting ethnic cleansing of Kurds, but considering it's pretty common in the area to think that's what they're doing, it kind of becomes hard to argue that Russians are bad guys for attacking a US airbase when that's part of the context.

I mean, the Assad regime might be mass murdering bastards (still using chemical weapons occasionally btw, although that doesn't really make news anymore), but they're still better than the Jihadists.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt the Russians are too afraid to manufacture evidence or roll out members of the "mafia" for trial.

That would be only fitting given the upper government and organized crime are very likely inextricably linked. Probably a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and frame another political rival while serving his head up on a platter to the UK.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Itse

How does "supporting ethnic cleansings" compare with "killing journalists" in your books?

Turkey along with their Islamist militia allies are currently attacking essentially-Kurdish-controlled areas in Northern Syria and openly threatening them with ethnic and sectarian cleansings. And they've alreadly probably started doing this. You might have noticed that this same attack on Afrin is also mentioned on the story about Russian mercenaries attacking a US airbase. This is the what Putin has criticized the US for.

Now, US involvement in Turkish operations is indirect, but it's pretty definite. They are selling arms to Turkey which the Turks are then directly handing over to the "Arab militias" doing much of their groundwork, and there's nothing about this that's much of a secret.

Personally, I find it interesting that the western media has suddenly gone to calling these militias working with Turkey "Arabs"... more than a little vague, which in itself should already tell you what they are. They are of course Islamist extremist militias, some of them literally former ISIS guys under a new flag.

So, let's reiterate.

US is (indirectly but knowingly) arming Islamist extremists actively in the process of committing ethnic and sectarian cleansings with the support of Turkey, who are (more or less) a US ally. And this is the thing Putin has said to be against, and this is part of the context behind the attack on the airbase. (Probably among a dozen other things.)

Now you can make all sorts of ifs and buts around the issue of just how much US is actually supporting ethnic cleansing of Kurds, but considering it's pretty common in the area to think that's what they're doing, it kind of becomes hard to argue that Russians are bad guys for attacking a US airbase when that's part of the context.

I mean, the Assad regime might be mass murdering bastards (still using chemical weapons occasionally btw, although that doesn't really make news anymore), but they're still better than the Jihadists.

I fail to see how this is really relevant to the discussion about Russians being jerks, other than providing Trump style distraction. OK the US is capable of bad things, but this is about as relevant as the potato on my counter in regards to condemning recent Russian assassinations.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

How does "supporting ethnic cleansings" compare with "killing journalists" in your books?

Turkey along with their Islamist militia allies are currently attacking essentially-Kurdish-controlled areas in Northern Syria and openly threatening them with ethnic and sectarian cleansings. And they've alreadly probably started doing this. You might have noticed that this same attack on Afrin is also mentioned on the story about Russian mercenaries attacking a US airbase. This is the what Putin has criticized the US for.

Now, US involvement in Turkish operations is indirect, but it's pretty definite. They are selling arms to Turkey which the Turks are then directly handing over to the "Arab militias" doing much of their groundwork, and there's nothing about this that's much of a secret.

Personally, I find it interesting that the western media has suddenly gone to calling these militias working with Turkey "Arabs"... more than a little vague, which in itself should already tell you what they are. They are of course Islamist extremist militias, some of them literally former ISIS guys under a new flag.

So, let's reiterate.

US is (indirectly but knowingly) arming Islamist extremists actively in the process of committing ethnic and sectarian cleansings with the support of Turkey, who are (more or less) a US ally. And this is the thing Putin has said to be against, and this is part of the context behind the attack on the airbase. (Probably among a dozen other things.)

Now you can make all sorts of ifs and buts around the issue of just how much US is actually supporting ethnic cleansing of Kurds, but considering it's pretty common in the area to think that's what they're doing, it kind of becomes hard to argue that Russians are bad guys for attacking a US airbase when that's part of the context.

I mean, the Assad regime might be mass murdering bastards (still using chemical weapons occasionally btw, although that doesn't really make news anymore), but they're still better than the Jihadists.

Russia supports Assad because of a military base, not because Putin gives a #### about ethnic cleansing. I mean Russia is literally in Ukraine helping ethnic Russians force out Ukrainians. So is that really the road you want to go down?

I find it hilarious that someone from Finland tries to defend Russian antics. Guess who's next after the Baltics if they decide to go further?