• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Novichok In Salisbury: Secret Agents & Nerve Agents In Britain

i've just found out that someone I thought was dead is living in Salisbury.
 
A Police officer is now in hospital but it does not make it plain if he has been contaminated.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Tell them to get the hell out of Salisbury before they end up dead.
Click to expand...

He's not impressed by the whole thing.

i am at the epicenter of it all,living and seeing what is really happening to our small community in Salisbury,and how what they are saying on our B.B.C 1 news time and I.T.V and even Salisbury news time,is all lies,compared to what we the community of the lil village that declares itself a city,when there is nothing but countryside around us,is still one of the great unsolved mysteries!!!The Torrie machine has gone into overdrive on the great big red herring,that they have thrown to the public arena, to make them think and believe in fairy tales .....
 
I'm no fan of Putin, but I still maintain that if he wanted someone dead, they'd be properly dead, either in the UK or anywhere else. I seriously doubt he'd leave the evidence slopping around the local countryside, either.
 
RyoHazuki said:
I'm no fan of Putin, but I still maintain that if he wanted someone dead, they'd be properly dead, either in the UK or anywhere else. I seriously doubt he'd leave the evidence slopping around the local countryside, either.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Whilst there is a pretty long list of assassination attempts from Moscow, many of which succeeded, there have been several botched attempts too.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/09/a-brief-history-of-attempted-russian-assassinations-by-poison/
 
Last edited:
Admittedly, her health wasn't good and the BBC report I'm listening to now states that Dawn Sturgess was described as being at greater risk than her partner, but that must not deflect from the facts that her death was caused by the Russian nerve agent. It is now officially a murder investigation and the diplomatic stakes have just been raised significantly.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Admittedly, her health wasn't good and the BBC report I'm listening to now states that Dawn Sturgess was described as being at greater risk than her partner, but that must not deflect from the facts that her death was caused by the Russian nerve agent. It is now officially a murder investigation and the diplomatic stakes have just been raised significantly.
Click to expand...

Was it caused by novichok?

Novichok kills within minutes but takes 5 hours for symptoms to develop, can be destroyed by a baby wipe but can survive in the wild for months.
 
Was the Novichok in the last case planted by the Russians to create confusion about who or which country is guilty in the first case? Rhetorical question.

Will probably never be proven.
 
Last edited:
Vardoger said:
Was the Novichok in the last case planted by the Russians to create confusion about who or which country is guilty in the first case? Rhetorical question.

Will probably never be proven.
Click to expand...

Maybe the tooth fairy dropped it. That's just as believable as the constantly changing narrative emerging from the "authorities".
 
Something that is getting skipped over or simplified by the news: 'novichok' is not 'a nerve agent' but rather a class of nerve agents. The particular agent used in this case was apparently 'A-234'. The name 'novichok' apparently refers to nothing more than the fact that they are (were) 'new' (can any Russian speakers confirm or deny?). I think using neither a translation nor the specific name of the agent, but rather this nonspecific but unmistakably Russian label represents a decision to capitalize on the exotic and scary aspects of the story, and latent russophobia in the UK.

I'm not saying that Russia didn't do it. I think they probably did do it.
 
James_H said:
Something that is getting skipped over or simplified by the news: 'novichok' is not 'a nerve agent' but rather a class of nerve agents. The particular agent used in this case was apparently 'A-234'. The name 'novichok' apparently refers to nothing more than the fact that they are (were) 'new' (can any Russian speakers confirm or deny?). I think using neither a translation nor the specific name of the agent, but rather this nonspecific but unmistakably Russian label represents a decision to capitalize on the exotic and scary aspects of the story, and latent russophobia in the UK.

I'm not saying that Russia didn't do it. I think they probably did do it.
Click to expand...

Struggling Russian learner here. (Where's Krepestnoi when you need him?)

`Novichok` is not a word in any of my dictionaries and I have not heard it used ourside of its current context. Some have translated the word as `newbie`, which sounds about right to me.

`Noviy` means `new`. A common question to ask on meeting a friend is:

`Kak noviy?` = literally `What's new?`

The word `chok` does not exist on its own as a Russian word.Certailny, it has nothing to do with chocolate ( the Russian word for which is `shzokolade`)! However, I imagine `chok` could function as a colloquial suffix,in the way that `nik` and `chik` do, to denote s smaller derivative of something larger.( Thus `apparatchik` = government lackey).

So I'm guessing the best translation would be `newbie`. I agree, furthermore, that it is a too casual, trivial sort of word to be in use to describe something with such tragic implications. However, I suspect that the current overuse of it is due as much to journalistic laziness as much as anything else. `A-234` would sound a lot more sinister to me. Journos, though, like catchy little neologisms that are easy to pronounce - and then they stick. (`Brexit` is another one).

Some commentators are pluralising the word - writng `Novichoks` to indicate that there is more than one variant (as you rightly suggest). If they want to stay in Russian they should write `novichoki`.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
Struggling Russian learner here. (Where's Krepestnoi when you need him?)

`Novichok` is not a word in any of my dictionaries and I have not heard it used ourside of its current context. Some have translated the word as `newbie`, which sounds about right to me.

`Noviy` means `new`. A common question to ask on meeting a friend is:

`Kak noviy?` = literally `What's new?`

The word `chok` does not exist on its own as a Russian word.Certailny, it has nothing to do with chocolate ( the Russian word for which is `shzokolade`)! However, I imagine `chok` could function as a colloquial suffix,in the way that `nik` and `chik` do, to denote s smaller derivative of something larger.( Thus `apparatchik` = government lackey).

So I'm guessing the best translation would be `newbie`. I agree, furthermore, that it is a too casual, trivial sort of word to be in use to describe something with such tragic implications. However, I suspect that the current overuse of it is due as much to journalistic laziness as much as anything else. `A-234` would sound a lot more sinister to me. Journos, though, like catchy little neologisms that are easy to pronounce - and then they stick. (`Brexit` is another one).

Some commentators are pluralising the word - writng `Novichoks` to indicate that there is more than one variant (as you rightly suggest). If they want to stay in Russian they should write `novichoki`.
Click to expand...
Thanks Zeke!
 
RyoHazuki said:
I'm no fan of Putin, but I still maintain that if he wanted someone dead, they'd be properly dead, either in the UK or anywhere else. I seriously doubt he'd leave the evidence slopping around the local countryside, either.
Click to expand...

Firstly, there is something of a misconception about how professional spies are. Some are amazing in their professionalism and tradecraft. On the other hand, that sort of spy would probably be extremely suspicious of a mission where they were responsible for this sort of scatter-gun assassination method. A professional would more likely opt for a subtle toxin introduced into the victim's personal items that would disappear in their system leaving no evidence of its administration or the method employed, instead of a cold war nerve agent. This has amateur hour stamped all over it, and with it, all the attendant fails and bloopers. It is the sort of operation that a junior and expendable operative would be sent on to prove they weren't a f**k-up, because no professional would be involved.

The polonium assassination of Alexander Litvinenko was hardly what one would call "subtle" either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

I think this public attack on enemies of Putin living abroad is deliberately meant to sow fear in the ranks of the anti-Putin ex-patriot community and dissidents at home as well. It was a standard USSR tactic to simply deny any operation where there was evidence of their involvement and insist that they were being framed. There is nothing new here, merely a return to Soviet methodology, which is hardly surprising given that Putin is an ex-KGB apparatchik.

It is remotely possible that the whole Skripal nerve agent attack was actually performed by a Russian agent with a personal axe to grind with Sergei Skripal, but such people don't generally have access to a state sponsored chemical weapon with which to affect their revenge and have to settle for something less obvious and drastic. I just don't see that happening, do you?
:wii:
 
James_H said:
I see that some are already making a tenuous link between the poisonings and the World Cup...
Click to expand...

It's predictable. My own kneejerk reaction was too- as someone who lives in Russia and has been watching the preparations for the World Cup in the ferverent hope that the event will act as a bridge for Anglo-Russian relations - my reaction was the mirror image of this. The timing seemed just too convenient.

However, now that a tragedy has occured, I'm going to reserve judgement on the event until we get some clarity on it.

And clarity is what we need. I find it perplexing, for example, that the authorities are telling the people of Salisbury that they can go about their daily business even though it is thought that a contaminated item is lying around there somewhere (which they somehow missed three month ago). Yes, I know that some areas have been cordoned off, and that the public have been told not to pick anything up - but they don't know where this thing is. I mean at the very least a dog could find it - or worse playing children could. Or a bird could pick it up and deposit it onto someone's garden. Why is there not a state of emergency there?

I'll go with cock up over conspiracy for the time being though.
 
AlchoPwn said:
Firstly, there is something of a misconception about how professional spies are. Some are amazing in their professionalism and tradecraft. On the other hand, that sort of spy would probably be extremely suspicious of a mission where they were responsible for this sort of scatter-gun assassination method. A professional would more likely opt for a subtle toxin introduced into the victim's personal items that would disappear in their system leaving no evidence of its administration or the method employed, instead of a cold war nerve agent. This has amateur hour stamped all over it, and with it, all the attendant fails and bloopers. It is the sort of operation that a junior and expendable operative would be sent on to prove they weren't a f**k-up, because no professional would be involved.
Click to expand...

I'd add, extrapolating from my reading around the peripheries of the British Intelligence Services, they are also keen to 'farm out' a lot of work to third parties and organisations and act as mere facilitators. What you lose in skills and professionalism, you gain in deniability and traceability.

A great number of people have worked for the security services without ever joining them.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
I find it perplexing, for example, that the authorities are telling the people of Salisbury that they can go about their daily business even though it is thought that a contaminated item is lying around there somewhere (which they somehow missed three month ago). Yes, I know that some areas have been cordoned off, and that the public have been told not to pick anything up - but they don't know where this thing is. I mean at the very least a dog could find it - or worse playing children could. Or a bird could pick it up and deposit it onto someone's garden. Why is there not a state of emergency there?
Click to expand...

That's no riddle at all.

Projecting an air of confidence in order to dampen public fears is a commonplace of government. And in this case the worst that could happen is that another (seemingly) innocent bystander will be killed. Terrible for that individual and those around him, no doubt, but a mere misfortune for government.

A third tragedy in a series is never as shocking as the first or second. The first appalls by its very occurrence; the second shocks by repetition and the implied threat of reiteration; a third tragedy brings little more beyond the confirmation of a pattern.

If the government's theatric insouciance proves ill-founded, the government and security services need only nod in the direction of Russia again and declare that this is yet another consequence of the original atrocity.
 
Yithian said:
That's no riddle at all.

Projecting an air of confidence in order to dampen public fears is a commonplace of government. And in this case the worst that could happen is that another (seemingly) innocent bystander will be killed. Terrible for that individual and those around him, no doubt, but a mere misfortune for government.

A third tragedy in a series is never as shocking as the first or second. The first appalls by its very occurrence; the second shocks by repetition and the implied threat of reiteration; a third tragedy brings little more beyond the confirmation of the pattern. If the government's theatric insouciance proves ill-founded, the government and security services need only nod in the direction of Russia again and declare that this is yet another consequence of the original atrocity.
Click to expand...

My God, that's cynical! I'm sure that's a speech lifted from Yes, Minister!

I would like to think that you're wrong.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
I would like to think that you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I should like to think so, too.

But I'm afraid I don't.

Given the shocking alternatives (Evacuate Salisbury? Conduct an inch-by-inch decontamination operation? Warn the public that more deaths are very possible and there's little they can do beyond warn?), the option I sketched above will be chosen as it has the fewest drawbacks.

Cross fingers, roll dice, hope that the last victim dropped it in a deep puddle.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
Struggling Russian learner here. (Where's Krepestnoi when you need him?)

`Novichok` is not a word in any of my dictionaries and I have not heard it used ourside of its current context. Some have translated the word as `newbie`, which sounds about right to me.

`Noviy` means `new`. A common question to ask on meeting a friend is:

`Kak noviy?` = literally `What's new?`

The word `chok` does not exist on its own as a Russian word.Certailny, it has nothing to do with chocolate ( the Russian word for which is `shzokolade`)! However, I imagine `chok` could function as a colloquial suffix,in the way that `nik` and `chik` do, to denote s smaller derivative of something larger.( Thus `apparatchik` = government lackey).

So I'm guessing the best translation would be `newbie`. I agree, furthermore, that it is a too casual, trivial sort of word to be in use to describe something with such tragic implications. However, I suspect that the current overuse of it is due as much to journalistic laziness as much as anything else. `A-234` would sound a lot more sinister to me. Journos, though, like catchy little neologisms that are easy to pronounce - and then they stick. (`Brexit` is another one).

Some commentators are pluralising the word - writng `Novichoks` to indicate that there is more than one variant (as you rightly suggest). If they want to stay in Russian they should write `novichoki`.
Click to expand...
That pretty much matches my parsing of the word: take the adjective novyi and add a diminutive suffix: -chok. The resulting word is often deployed to mean "newbie", but by itself really just means "something/one new". Much like Russian takes the word "koleso", and loses the final o in favour of the diminutive suffix -ka. The resulting word koliaska (there is an evolution of the middle vowel sound, as well) literally just means "a little wheel", but in practice is applied to denote both prams and motorcycle sidecars - i.e the same word takes on polysemous meanings.

You wouldn't try and translate koliaska with the same English word in all contexts: clearly a pram is not a sidecar, nor is a sidecar a pram. Indeed, in translation, you should really be bound by target language usage rather than source language words. So "newbie" might well be the best rendering if you are talking about, say, gaming, but you'd probably need a phrase like "new compound" in the context of poisons. For that reason, just transliterating the name novichok seems like a decent strategy to me, from which it follows that novichoks would be the plural, for the same reason that we don't talk about ordering "two double vodky, please" at the Troll's Head. (But don't get me started on the subject of "two gins and tonic"...)
 
all publicity's good publicity unfortunately - I bet sales to hilarious japers are on the up as we speak ("guess what I've bought, Dave, ha ha ha"). it's a bit much though isn't it, a bit too soon when that poor woman is hardly cold? Perhaps they were printing the labels before that, let's hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top