Novichok In Salisbury: Secret Agents & Nerve Agents In Britain

[Krepostnoi]

My suspicion is that its not Putin himself behind this.

I don't share your suspicion at all...

The hue and cry against Russia overlooks -as many other claims against Russia in the last few years - that it is no longer a state on Western lines. It is not, it is more akin to a group of city states with on the one hand vestiges of the Communist federal structure and on the other land many criminal or semi criminal organisations that are out of control of the Government. And the US is somewhat to blame for this, because the rush by multinationals - mainly US companies such as Citibank - to grab all they could, and then subsequently withdraw when the found the Russians did not at all behave like a defeated enemy, has done tremendous damage.

... but I think you're on the money when it comes to both your points in that particular paragraph. If I was to quibble, I might contend that the dividing line between semi-criminal organisation and local (or even federal) government is not always easily visible.

And, certainly, parachuting monetarist economic advisors into Russia in the triumphalist frenzy following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the "end of history" effectively lost the peace when the cold war had been won.

 

[Cavynaut]

With respect, you're putting a rather bizarre spin on the Porton Down statement.
Their remit always was to identify the nerve agent itself - which they did as the Soviet product Novichok.
Porton Down was never tasked with identifying the perpetrator of the attack, hence your "Hmm..." (presumably with conspiratorial overtones) is misplaced.

With respect, that's desperate.

Are we now to debate what the phrase "came from" means?

 

[Min Bannister]

Except that its also pointed out other states could produce it. Its apparently not something particularly new or unique, and the required chemicals to make it are not restricted.

I don't know. Chemical engineering is really pretty difficult and even if you steal the recipie and sell it or you made it before and defected to another country, it doesn't mean you can make it again.

As an example, I have been having terrible difficulty getting a certain chemical I have been using for years. The specialist company that produces it has been unable to synthesize it for years now and they have a huge catalogue of other things they are managing to produce and they always managed to synthesize it in the past. I went to another company and they sent me something that has the hydroxyl groups pointing in the wrong direction (I am still arguing with them about this). And this is something that should be relatively straightforward.

I don't know how difficult it is to make or course but it is entirely feasible that it couldn't be made elsewhere as it doesn't necessarily matter which scientist has gone where with which knowledge. They still might not be able to make it.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

With respect, that's desperate.

Are we now to debate what the phrase "came from" means?

Why is it "desperate" to bring the thread back on track with what was really said?

The Porton Down statement was "It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured."

Your "Hmmm..." (and the Kremlin's ah-ha - so Porton Down can't say it's us!) is deflective spin.

 

[ramonmercado]

Novichok sounds like a Russian chocolate bar. With nougat & nuts - a bit like a Snickers.

It would be high quality though, with walnuts, they would advertise it with an oligarch style guy having it for dessert.

 

[Cochise]

Why is it "desperate" to bring the thread back on track with what was really said?

The Porton Down statement was "It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured."

Your "Hmmm..." (and the Kremlin's ah-ha - so Porton Down can't say it's us!) is deflective spin.

In a way it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the majority simply don't believe the Government (as can be seen by examining the comments in papers usually considered gung-ho). So whatever the truth May is revealed as completely unable to discharge the function of Prime Minister.

Has anyone explained why this professional grade deadly nerve agent hasn't actually killed anyone?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Has anyone explained why this professional grade deadly nerve agent hasn't actually killed anyone?

It might explain why the Russians no longer manufacture it.

 

[Frideswide]

Chemical engineering is really pretty difficult and even if you steal the recipie and sell it or you made it before and defected to another country, it doesn't mean you can make it again.

thank you! This has explianed a lot to me

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Are we now to debate what the phrase "came from" means?

In this case - yes. This is because the Porton Down statement has been misquoted / misconstrued in recent posts above.

There are 3 categories of 'source' / 'came from' pertinent to this case:

(1) Manufacture - i.e., who created / produced the Novichok compound(s) used in this attack
(2) Supply - i.e., whose stock of said compound(s) it was from which the attacker(s) obtained the agent(s)
(3) Perpetrator - i.e., who delivered the agent(s) to the target(s)

The Porton Down statement, as quoted in the BBC article I first saw, specifically referred to (1) / manufacture.

Blessmycottonsocks quoted it as referring to (3) / perpetrator. I don't know whether the phrasing in someone's news text changed somehow or at some time to insinuate this, but I read the BBC article both before and after Blessmycottonsocks posted this variant, and it said 'manufacture' every time I read it.

Everybody's assuming (2) / supply has to be Russia.

As I pointed out in post #73, Novichok is documented as having been synthesized elsewhere than the Soviet Union / Russia (for research purposes). This undermines the presumption that if it's from the Novichok family it had to have originated in Russia.

The Porton Down statement goes on to vaguely claim 'the government' has additional data or information which presumably affords a more solid basis for identifying the manufacturing source based on their (Porton Down's) analysis. They thereby passed the buck and dodged any responsibility for identifying the manufacturing source.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Has anyone explained why this professional grade deadly nerve agent hasn't actually killed anyone?

No nerve agent is guaranteed to be 100% lethal at any level of exposure.

In terms of the typical circumstantial factors - e.g., concentration of the agent, level of exposure, delay until atropine can be administered to keep the victim breathing, availability of ICU facilities to support a disabled victim, etc., etc. - the Skripals seemed to have just barely missed death.

However, there's another factor that I've not seen mentioned. The Novichok family of nerve agents was developed so as to be used as binary components - i.e., at least two (relatively) less toxic precursors that mixed to form the ultimately toxic final agent only at the point of delivery (e.g., the explosion of a munition carrying both precursors).

As far as I know, all these precursors are considered part of the Novichok family.

I've been wondering if the Skripals were exposed to one of the Novichok precursors rather than the final 'mix', or whether it was a final mix that wasn't in the optimum proportions.

 

[kamalktk]

The Porton Down statement goes on to vaguely claim 'the government' has additional data or information which presumably affords a more solid basis for identifying the manufacturing source based on their (Porton Down's) analysis. They thereby passed the buck and dodged any responsibility for identifying the manufacturing source.

The government is not going to say something like 'we concluded it was Russia because we have a spy in the manufacturing facility named Dave, and Dave spikes the supply with chemical marker we can detect. It's giving away means and methods (and getting Dave killed).

 

[Cochise]

The government is not going to say something like 'we concluded it was Russia because we have a spy in the manufacturing facility named Dave, and Dave spikes the supply with chemical marker we can detect. It's giving away means and methods (and getting Dave killed).

Well its their choice. The population won't put up with that any more since Blair lied. Give us evidence or we will assume you are lying . And I'm absolutely certain they are.

Corbyn for once was absolutely right and the rush to condemn Russia just looks pathetic.

 

[Victory]

I think there is some lazy translation going on here - by "porridge" they almost certainly mean kasha - which is a word applied to a variety of preparations based around grains, oatmeal being just one of many. The Mail article does mention buckwheat - this can be found in the UK, but it does take some searching for (I'm partial to it myself, and only really remember finding it in some health-food stores). So, from that point of view, it's perhaps more understandable that they might ask an acquaintance to bring some back.

It is sold in my local Sainsburys, and in Jewish stores in London.

Perhaps not so easy to get in Salisbury though?

 

[Victory]

As to Putin's motive, perhaps it relates to Churchill's 1919 chemical weapons attack on the Bolsheviks?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
I doubt that is the motive of course.

After that, the Geneva convention banned gas weapons. That was a ban that even Hitler didn't break. The first break was Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, and subsequently against the Kurds. During the occupation of Iraq post 2003, the only WMD discovered was a mustard gas shell that had been mistakenly turned into a roadside IED. Since then the Asshat regime in Syria has repeatedly used chemical weapons against their enemies, and now the Putin regime has used a chemical weapon as an assassination tool in the UK.

Geneva Convention 1925

Subsequent gas use breached it numerous times

1920's Rif War in Morocco by Spain.

1928 Italians used mustard gas in Libya.

1935 Italians used it again in second Ethiopian War.

1939 Japanese used it against Chinese troops.

1941 Germany used Zyklon B in Holocaust.

1940's German Chemical Unit used gas and toxic smoke against Russians in Crimea.

1960's Gas used in Yemen civil war

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about espionage and covert murder using nerve gas. This has nothing to do with military intervention and I personally think we don't bomb the Middle East enough given the insanely inhuman and vicious history of Islam. I make no apologies for this opinion as I have taken the time to become well informed on the matter, and I can say with certainty that the worst genocides in human history are all Islamic in origin, including US slavery and the Spanish genocides in the New World.

As to Putin's motive, perhaps it relates to Churchill's 1919 chemical weapons attack on the Bolsheviks?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
I doubt that is the motive of course.

After that, the Geneva convention banned gas weapons. That was a ban that even Hitler didn't break. The first break was Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, and subsequently against the Kurds. During the occupation of Iraq post 2003, the only WMD discovered was a mustard gas shell that had been mistakenly turned into a roadside IED. Since then the Asshat regime in Syria has repeatedly used chemical weapons against their enemies, and now the Putin regime has used a chemical weapon as an assassination tool in the UK.

It's best to treat any Guardian articles such as this with a degree of caution, as they have a particular agenda to promote and have been rather economical with their selected quotations in this case.
Churchill's speech, partly quoted in the Guardian article as " I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." omits the important parts "by means of lachrymatory gas" and "the moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum."

In other words, Churchill was advocating using an early version of tear gas, instead of live ammunition, in order to prevent unnecessary deaths.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Geneva Convention 1925. Subsequent gas use breached it numerous times. 1920's Rif War in Morocco by Spain. 1928 Italians used mustard gas in Libya. 1935 Italians used it again in second Ethiopian War. 1939 Japanese used it against Chinese troops. 1941 Germany used Zyklon B in Holocaust. 1940's German Chemical Unit used gas and toxic smoke against Russians in Crimea. 1960's Gas used in Yemen civil war

Thanks for that Victory. Apart from the Holocaust and the toxic smoke in Crimea, I was unaware of the continued use of chemical weapons in breach of the Geneva Convention after 1925. I have since checked what you wrote here and you are quite correct.

 

[Cavynaut]

So here we go again. Yesterday it couldn't be stated for certain that the nerve agent originated/ was deployed from (or any other such semantic obfuscation.)...today we are told that the precise laboratory in which the components were synthesized can be pinpointed.

I'm reminded of a line from an old song,

"The sun's not yellow, it's chicken".

Like Cochise, I was a believer in the dodgy dossier. I learnt my lesson. Maybe it's that which is the root of my maddening unbelief.

 

[hunck]

So here we go again. Yesterday it couldn't be stated for certain that the nerve agent originated/ was deployed from (or any other such semantic obfuscation.)...today we are told that the precise laboratory in which the components were synthesized can be pinpointed.

Like Cochise, I was a believer in the dodgy dossier. I learnt my lesson. Maybe it's that which is the root of my maddening unbelief.

Are we? I haven't seen this - where did you read it?

I never believed the dodgy dossier - that always sounded like bollox.

 

[Cavynaut]

Are we? I haven't seen this - where did you read it?

I never believed the dodgy dossier - that always sounded like bollox.

Radio 4 this morning. It's also on the Guardian site. Sorry I can't post links...I'm using a Kindle Fire and I can't work out how to do so.

 

[hunck]

Radio 4 this morning. It's also on the Guardian site. Sorry I can't post links...I'm using a Kindle Fire and I can't work out how to do so.

I just had a look - can't find it on the Guardian.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I just had a look - can't find it on the Guardian.

There's a set of dots which, if connected, indicate The Guardian was relying on today's Times.

As far as I can tell, the Times has claimed 'security sources' advised them the location of a Russian lab that manufactured the Novichok agent(s) had been 'pinpointed', and that's the extent of the reporting on this.

Reading more deeply within and between the lines, it would seem this 'pinpointing' relied on a combination of the analysis report from Porton Down plus information from other (presumably defense / intelligence) sources.

 

[hunck]

As kamalktk said above, there may be details which can't be divulged for security reasons.

 

[ramonmercado]

As kamalktk said above, there may be details which can't be divulged for security reasons.

But the very fact that they are stating they know the Russian Lab where the nerve agent would put any MI6 asset at risk.

At the very least any such intelligence should be examined by the Supreme Court to see if the Learned Lord & Ladies are satisfied as to it's veracity.

 

[Cochise]

How do they know their spy hasn't been turned and is working for Putin to make the UK a laughing stock? It's something Putin would do.

 

[Cavynaut]

I just had a look - can't find it on the Guardian.

It was on the "Live" politics lead and I can't find it anymore. Either that or I'm making it up as I go along.

 

[titch]

How do they know their spy hasn't been turned and is working for Putin to make the UK a laughing stock? It's something Putin would do.

Putin has no need to make the UK a laughing stock , we have Boris after all.

 

[Cavynaut]

As kamalktk said above, there may be details which can't be divulged for security reasons.

They've already claiming that.

It's bull. What it means is "Forget sources, we have reputations to protect."

 

[McAvennie]

And now we have Yulia on the phone to her relative telling her everything is fine and she will be coming home soon!?

It’s just a ridiculous joke now. Just come clean, the spinning to cover the initial lies now will just be even more embarrassing.

 

[Analis]

Analis
As for Putin, his tolerance of Assad's awful barrel bombing of civilians tells all that both are cruel leaders.

What difference is there between a so-called « barrel bomb » and an other kind of bomb, except that it is less effective. And no, they were not used on 'civilians', but on armed rebels, in areas usually already cleansed of civilians (by the same rebels).

Are you on Putin's payroll?

It doesn't deserve an answer.

 

[Analis]

Or...
That's exactly why he would do it, because "nuts to do it before World Cup" give deniability, eg 'why would I do that, we have the World Cup coming up?'. Other ex-spies still get the message.

Now you do sound and think like a true conspiracist. Good...

The government is not going to say something like 'we concluded it was Russia because we have a spy in the manufacturing facility named Dave, and Dave spikes the supply with chemical marker we can detect. It's giving away means and methods (and getting Dave killed).

But why should we believe that they have a spy who informed them of a manifacturing facility ? Until they come with proof, it remains a gratuitous speculation. All the arguments of the "they won't disclose their evidence to protect their source/technology/methods" kind fail in regard of the fact that in the perspective of a world crisis, the public interest to be informed of what would justify such a confrontation is greater than the necessity to protect their sources or their methods.

It's best to treat any Guardian articles such as this with a degree of caution, as they have a particular agenda to promote and have been rather economical with their selected quotations in this case.
Churchill's speech, partly quoted in the Guardian article as " I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." omits the important parts "by means of lachrymatory gas" and "the moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum."

In other words, Churchill was advocating using an early version of tear gas, instead of live ammunition, in order to prevent unnecessary deaths.

There is no clear distinction between tear gas and asphyxiating gas. Tear gas used to control manifestations (usually CS) is in fact potentially lethal, and many deaths and permanent wounds do result from its use, even in open space. It is a really toxical agent, and was used by the US Army in Vietnam to asphyxiate combattants entrenched in caves. The argument that the moral effect would help to minimize loss of life was often used by advocates of chemical weapons.
At the time of Churchill's speech, the British did use poison gas on Kurds in Iraq, along with napalm.