Dastardly Deed

Dastardly Deed

There has been other occasions on which one might depict as a dastardly deed, a phrase that would seem to indicate that such a deed could be ascribed to juvenile books of fiction with an act that is not recognised as being a act reasonable given the circumstances, not being fair in the occasion and in selecting one side against the other deciding which is in the ‘right’ for when the deed took place. Dastardly is such a lame description almost verging on, seen from a certain perspective, with known understandable connotations, humorous. But and it has to be a BIG BUT the occurrence in March this year was indeed considerably more dastardly in every way imaginable with consequences considerable more disconcerting and within which one can glimpse an illustration of the shape of things to come.

This was the deliberate attempted to murder, or at the very least serious inflict lifelong disablement of two people Sergei Skripal and Yulia on 4^th march 2018 and the fact that one of them had been a Russian spy with residency right in the UK and the other his daughter on a visit to him, opened up a whole new vista of intrigue particular after the murder of Alexander Litvinenco in November 2006 by polonium 210 poison, with others past Russian deaths now lifted into the limelight of further investigation.

One can recap the whole event on day by day basis fluxing with the accusation of unsubstantiated illusive facts chucked out by the governments’ heads – Prime Minister T. May (Maybot), Defence secretary G. Williamson (young turk) and Foreign secretary B. Johnson (clown) to be meet with defensive counter facts by Russia. It was a pantomime performance that one could see was a knee jerk reaction to the wide overspill damage of the attempted (so far) murderous act without actually understanding, in any evidential depth, what had taken place, by what, by whom, etc and with the anodyne pronouncement of Williamson the obvious lack of the knowledge of due process that was required before slinging attack censures at Russia, built it can be said on the earlier polonium attack laid with more substance of proof in Russia’s lap. It was stupid position setting, which has seen both sides back into an un-illuminating corner.

In that The Salisbury Incident was a deliberate attack on a citizen of the UK, on its sovereign territory, was a deliberate act, there is no doubt. That it has caused such wide potential spread of unknown contagion; was an act of outright recklessness. With the limitation of no deaths yet and low numbers involved it does not fall into a precursor act of war. Had it affected of whole city of a million or more, would that do it? A couple of hundred or a few thousand might push the action ‘envelope’ however it is indisputable now with the start of UK’s independence sovereignty that no retaliatory action of real consequence would be possible other than with the ejecting of undesirable ‘diplomatic’ persons together with an avalanche of verbiage from associate friendly countries.  

    

The problem is that the substance presumed used was a novichok derivative, as described by Porton Down. It is a stable two part compound until combined and undetectable until used, it was developed 50 years ago by Russia and as part of an international agreement it like other items of chemical warfare, was supposed to have been destroyed, supervised by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who assess, test, report and monitor use on any development in the chemical weapon field. A difficult task to follow through with but it relies on willing participants that understand that it is in their own best interest to rein back on development and the potential use of such unpredictable non unidirectional chemical weapons. However since the “Red Line” of Obama was ignored over Syria, it is evident that something in the acceptability and use has changed, not necessarily by states with administrative control but with the ability to make and use of chemicals slipping in to the hands of those with less restraint of warring scruples

For the moment although it is comfortable for the UK to point the finger of blame at the Russian state and Putin, one may have cause to think that this direct link is unlikely. With the terrible nature of such weapons, the ease of use and the potential huge human damage they can cause; states may wish to give the impression that there is a path to controlling them even by some limited means of mutual discussion (just like Nucks) and it plays well to reassure a nervous population that such a weapon can be contained ‘responsibly’

In blaming Russia the assumption is that Putin has control of all the levers of state and he can have full knowledge and authorisation in sanctioning state assassinations. It is a false impression; such overall control is impossible in a country that is held together by this solidarity illusion of a strongman reliant on the oligarch controlling structures that he has allowed to flourish which in most areas of influence is corrupt and does what it wants providing it pays dues to the ‘godfather’ statute structure. It is known that with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a serious degradation in the control and location of percussion based weapons, radioactive and chemical material. It should not have been a surprise when some of it is used.

What is or should be of immediate and urgent interest is the ease at which such attack can take place. Just now the government has little idea of how or when the stuff got into the country (it suspects a route), does not know who has it, and seriously how much is in the UK nor, if there is a volume, where it is held! It is apparent that panic is driving investigative action and only latterly, late against agreed protocol, are inspectors of OPCW being called to validate what has being found. It is this panic that is evident in the extraordinary pronouncement being trailed out by the clown and turk to convince media consumption that there is absolutely substantive evidence as to who is responsible, Russia.

To many of the questions, it is likely that there are no irrefutable answers just yet other than to eventually identifying positively what the substance is, its contagion level, life span and antidote (no cure) however what is certain in the appalling situation is; it is hard to make and retain reliable friends but very easy to make enemies and this is not a time to stoke enmity without clear proof of blame. One can be certain that the use of highly toxic material to kill others on foreign soil is an extremely risky endeavour which despite Russia’s denial and Putin’s rejection of responsibility, will still be of serious apprehension to him and others in his circle; not to know who is behind this, where and how much is in the hands unknown people, or if and when another act might occur.

This is no dastardly deed to be grandstanding on with dicey statements laid out as facts as it will be a while before the truth is known, if ever but the ease in which such chaos can be caused to afflict a town centre does not bode well to pander to ignorance when the need is to gain hard information from whatever source and if that means treading softy with Russia to gain assistance in tracing sources, it has to be done for consequences can be terminally unpredictable.            

       

© Renot

193181804

I don't generally return to a past posting however one has been assessing media occurrences over the past few weeks related to this particular subject.

However despite all the artifice pantomime being played out by interested actors, over the attempt to find firm responsibility evidence, with which to continue accusing Putin and the Russian state for the novichok attack in the UK, uncertainty still rules. There is no irrefutable trail of proof that would pass a legal challenge, not that this is going to happen; there is the bullet, there is no gun, there is no finger print, there is no operative mind or hands but lots of speculative supposition and this has been a problem when it came to convincing countries to join with the UK in taking action against Russia.

Friendly countries, for obvious reasons, were reluctant to be as blindly ‘gung ho’ as the Turk and Clown, nor were they racing to support the Maybot who did not immediately appear to have a grip on the extravagant dynamics of the situation. Rightly they wanted to be given a proven evidence trail to nail onto Putin and his state or a lead to an independent player responsible for dishing out a lethal chemical assault, none was available.

This was the recalcitrant position up to the 2nd week of March, then in that week, in just one broadcast, it was announced by the BBC that a 4th person was being treated for novichok chemical poisoning. However since then there has been absolutely no further information on who, where, or condition of this 4th 'victim', nor was the announcement duplicated by any other outlet. Unlike the three poisoned already being given massive media exposure with regular update as to conditions, this 4th victim has been redacted.

It may be a fortuitous occurrences but this announcement soon corresponded with supportive actions from begged countries. One might think that this 4^th person was the proof offered to gain support, even better if it was of Russian origin but this was still though before the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had done any analysis or reported on the substance or potential source of novichok 235 and is still being investigated however that 4^th person if it existed has disappeared; might it be that it is hidden under media D notice?

An alternative view could be that this news item was either a slip up not meant to be released or is an example of the usual media false news reporting as is often the case now, with no retraction offered in any event; just forget it! One might wonder how in such an important event that such a mistake could be allowed to run without anyone challenging it for clarity but it happened.

104181920