|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 20 2018 03:38 Plansix wrote:
View it as a test to see what he can get away with. He wants to see how the blow back take form.
Why not just take credit if it's so undeniably obvious this was Putin's doing. Wouldn't the real test be bragging about it. If there's no way he didn't do it, who is he supposed to be convincing by not admitting it? Unless of course there's a reasonable possibility this isn't his doing. But if there's more than enough evidence to be sure this was Russia/Putin (as it seems many are), what difference does it make if he admits it or not?
On March 20 2018 03:40 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:37 Zaros wrote:
Even Boris said on Andrew Marr that if Putin thought the nerve agent was stolen and the attack carried out by rogue elements in Russia or a 3rd party he could have privately communicated this to the British government, he did not do so. What would be the point of privately communicating it if someone like Boris would just tell everyone what they said? To stop them falsely blaming your country and rallying international support for potential sanctions?
Why would you do it privately, and how would you know they didn't?
|
My favourite 5D chess theory is Russia didn't do it, but is letting Britain blame them so they won't appear culpable for future egregious things.
That being said, I think they probably did it BUT I think we should wait to be sure they did it before we do anything.
|
United States42906 Posts
On March 20 2018 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is the idea that Putin made it obviously trace back to himself because he underestimated the blowback or correctly estimated it would fall in his favor?
Figured it would work in his favour. Same as the polonium assassination. You’ve got to remember that this is far from the first Russian expat to be murdered in the UK using means which can easily be traced to the Russian state. Far from being a reach, it’s pretty much the default.
|
On March 20 2018 03:56 kollin wrote:
My favourite 5D chess theory is Russia didn't do it, but is letting Britain blame them so they won't appear culpable for future egregious things.
That being said, I think they probably did it BUT I think we should wait to be sure they did it before we do anything.
I think most people think it looks pretty obviously like Russia did it, I think the confusion is exactly why they would make it so obvious yet deny something they left a heap of unnecessarily obvious evidence of. If the point was to kill someone and make it obvious it was putin to intelligence agencies but not the public they could have done a million other things.
On March 20 2018 04:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is the idea that Putin made it obviously trace back to himself because he underestimated the blowback or correctly estimated it would fall in his favor? Figured it would work in his favour. Same as the polonium assassination. You’ve got to remember that this is far from the first Russian expat to be murdered in the UK using means which can easily be traced to the Russian state. Far from being a reach, it’s pretty much the default.
Who (meaning nations) would change how they feel/reacted to this if Putin admitted it was by his hand, and why would it change?
|
United States42906 Posts
On March 20 2018 03:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:38 Plansix wrote:
View it as a test to see what he can get away with. He wants to see how the blow back take form. Why not just take credit if it's so undeniably obvious this was Putin's doing. Wouldn't the real test be bragging about it. If there's no way he didn't do it, who is he supposed to be convincing by not admitting it? Unless of course there's a reasonable possibility this isn't his doing. But if there's more than enough evidence to be sure this was Russia/Putin (as it seems many are), what difference does it make if he admits it or not? Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:40 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2018 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:37 Zaros wrote:
Even Boris said on Andrew Marr that if Putin thought the nerve agent was stolen and the attack carried out by rogue elements in Russia or a 3rd party he could have privately communicated this to the British government, he did not do so. What would be the point of privately communicating it if someone like Boris would just tell everyone what they said? To stop them falsely blaming your country and rallying international support for potential sanctions? Why would you do it privately, and how would you know they didn't?
For the same reason the US spies on NATO members privately. For the same reason Israel denies having nukes. It’s completely normal for a nation to have an official and unofficial stance on issues. Israel wants its geopolitical rivals to know it has nukes but doesn’t want the hassle of admitting it. Public secrets make good policy. This is a public secret.
Everyone they want to know to stay loyal and keep quiet knows, there’s no upside to admitting it, only downsides.
|
On March 20 2018 04:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:38 Plansix wrote:
View it as a test to see what he can get away with. He wants to see how the blow back take form. Why not just take credit if it's so undeniably obvious this was Putin's doing. Wouldn't the real test be bragging about it. If there's no way he didn't do it, who is he supposed to be convincing by not admitting it? Unless of course there's a reasonable possibility this isn't his doing. But if there's more than enough evidence to be sure this was Russia/Putin (as it seems many are), what difference does it make if he admits it or not? On March 20 2018 03:40 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2018 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:37 Zaros wrote:
Even Boris said on Andrew Marr that if Putin thought the nerve agent was stolen and the attack carried out by rogue elements in Russia or a 3rd party he could have privately communicated this to the British government, he did not do so. What would be the point of privately communicating it if someone like Boris would just tell everyone what they said? To stop them falsely blaming your country and rallying international support for potential sanctions? Why would you do it privately, and how would you know they didn't? For the same reason the US spies on NATO members privately. For the same reason Israel denies having nukes. It’s completely normal for a nation to have an official and unofficial stance on issues. Israel wants its geopolitical rivals to know it has nukes but doesn’t want the hassle of admitting it. Public secrets make good policy. This is a public secret.
I'm not sure I understand, doesn't it just undermine your credibility when everyone knows what you publicly say is a lie?
|
United States42906 Posts
On March 20 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 04:08 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2018 03:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:38 Plansix wrote:
View it as a test to see what he can get away with. He wants to see how the blow back take form. Why not just take credit if it's so undeniably obvious this was Putin's doing. Wouldn't the real test be bragging about it. If there's no way he didn't do it, who is he supposed to be convincing by not admitting it? Unless of course there's a reasonable possibility this isn't his doing. But if there's more than enough evidence to be sure this was Russia/Putin (as it seems many are), what difference does it make if he admits it or not? On March 20 2018 03:40 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2018 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2018 03:37 Zaros wrote:
Even Boris said on Andrew Marr that if Putin thought the nerve agent was stolen and the attack carried out by rogue elements in Russia or a 3rd party he could have privately communicated this to the British government, he did not do so. What would be the point of privately communicating it if someone like Boris would just tell everyone what they said? To stop them falsely blaming your country and rallying international support for potential sanctions? Why would you do it privately, and how would you know they didn't? For the same reason the US spies on NATO members privately. For the same reason Israel denies having nukes. It’s completely normal for a nation to have an official and unofficial stance on issues. Israel wants its geopolitical rivals to know it has nukes but doesn’t want the hassle of admitting it. Public secrets make good policy. This is a public secret. I'm not sure I understand, doesn't it just undermine your credibility when everyone knows what you publicly say is a lie?
No? Everyone knows the game. Everyone knows it’s a lie. But once you admit to it then everyone has to respond to it. Hell, everyone knows their party gerrymanders. Every party denies doing it. Nobody cares about the denial because nobody believes it.
|
Russia has been perfecting hybrid warfare like this for a while now. They invaded Ukraine, the Clinton mails, the murders in the UK, MH 17 etc. By using a combination of private contractors and government agencies Russia can create enough distance to make it very difficult to prove that the Russian state is behind it.
The reason they deny it makes a lot of sense for multiple reasons. It sows devision in the countries they target (mostly the west). Someone like Trump will use any evidence he gets to deflect the blame from Russia. Corbyn's response to this crisis is a prime example that shows why it's useful to keep denying something.
In addition it gives nations friendly to Russia an excuse to stay on the sidelines. Getting nations to sanction Russia (or loosen cooperation) is a lot easier when Russia admits to invading foreign countries and shooting down passenger airplanes.
Probably more importantly though is that the propaganda is targeted at Russians. It gives Putin a way to create an "us vs them" mentality and use nationalism to gain support. It creates room for a narrative where Russia is being targeted by the West instead of Russia attacking a foreign nation.
|
On March 20 2018 03:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:38 Plansix wrote:
View it as a test to see what he can get away with. He wants to see how the blow back take form. Why not just take credit if it's so undeniably obvious this was Putin's doing. Wouldn't the real test be bragging about it. If there's no way he didn't do it, who is he supposed to be convincing by not admitting it? Unless of course there's a reasonable possibility this isn't his doing. But if there's more than enough evidence to be sure this was Russia/Putin (as it seems many are), what difference does it make if he admits it or not?
Someone like Putin has to think what will happen if his party loses power when he's 80-90, does he really want to eat a cyanide pill in the Hague for taking credit for it?
|
So everyone (save those who noted their reluctance) is sure Putin is directly responsible for this, and denying it in expectation that it's a net benefit for him to make it this obvious and deny it.
It also seems everyone is sure it's going to have the desired net positive effect for Putin and no one's going to be able to do anything to make it not a net benefit?
that a fair read?
|
I think the chemical attack was less about strengthening the "us vs them mentality" and more about making Russians feel proud because their "amazing" spies can do shit like this and nobody can prove it was them.
|
5930 Posts
Putin's whole handling of a whole lot of things hinges on plausible deniability. You've got Russian "volunteers" fighting in Ukraine with some pretty serious Russian military hardware, you've got "patriotic hackers" hacking United States government networks, "non-government actors" like Natalia Veselnitskaya running around meeting with foreign government officials talking about "adoption".
There's a degree of possibility that Putin didn't directly call for the death of this spy, like I doubt he directly called for the death of Russian journalists. But I don't think that distinction really matters, at the end of the day murdering some anti-corruption Russian journalist or murdering some "traitor" with radioactive material or nerve gas was made on behalf of the Russian power apparatus and that power apparatus seems to be centered around Putin.
|
On March 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
So everyone (save those who noted their reluctance) is sure Putin is directly responsible for this, and denying it in expectation that it's a net benefit for him to make it this obvious and deny it.
It also seems everyone is sure it's going to have the desired net positive effect for Putin and no one's going to be able to do anything to make it not a net benefit?
that a fair read?
Sort of, there is no plausible option that doesn't involve Putin giving his approval for this to happen. I don't know why him denying it is worth anything to you, we are used to Putin denying every controversial Russian action abroad. If you think he's above appearances, ask yourself why he forced Crimean MPs to vote on annexation in a building occupied by armed troops, with no 3rd parties allowed inside, with all outside communication cut off, and then claim it was a democratic choice?
Because he plays the bullshit game and there is nothing to gain by admitting it was taken by force even though it's obvious to everyone, especially to Russian people, just like the topic at hand. But I wouldn't personally claim this assassination is sure to have a net positive effect for him, it's difficult to quantify. I see it as a move made more out of principle than one for gain.
|
On March 20 2018 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is the idea that Putin made it obviously trace back to himself because he underestimated the blowback or correctly estimated it would fall in his favor?
He has been testing the West for a while now. The response has been timid or not existent.
He (correctly) assumed the same would be true now. Nothing he cares about happened (some minor sanctions that he can use to stoke his people against the West).
GH as for why not openly admit it. Look at this very discussion. Look at the people doubting it was him (including you). How can you see this and not see the point of not openly admitting he did it.
|
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Britain and the European Union agreed on Monday to a transition period to avoid a “cliff edge” Brexit next year — though only after London accepted a potential solution for Northern Ireland’s land border that may face stiff opposition at home.
The pound surged on confirmation that Britain would remain effectively a non-voting EU member for 21 months until the end of 2020. Some business leaders, however, echoed a warning from EU negotiator Michel Barnier that the deal is legally binding only if London agrees the whole withdrawal treaty by next March
[...].
Everyone got what they voted for. And they all lived happily ever after.
The people that voted for Brexit that is. Not sure this is what they actually wanted though.
|
On March 20 2018 07:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is the idea that Putin made it obviously trace back to himself because he underestimated the blowback or correctly estimated it would fall in his favor? He has been testing the West for a while now. The response has been timid or not existent. He (correctly) assumed the same would be true now. Nothing he cares about happened (some minor sanctions that he can use to stoke his people against the West). GH as for why not openly admit it. Look at this very discussion. Look at the people doubting it was him (including you). How can you see this and not see the point of not openly admitting he did it.
The thing with this attack is that there's no obvious reason for it. Putin is and has always been a rational actor, and he takes actions that improve Russia's overall global positioning. While the sanctions imposed after the Crimea annexation have been bad for the economy, that was an obvious long-term risk-reward calculation; the sanctions won't last forever, and Russia's not giving up Crimea, which gives them better access to the Black Sea, and that comes with enormous benefits.
Litvanenko had been spreading a lot of anti-Russia stuff and propogating both rumours Putin didn't like and was implying he was a paedophile; I'm pretty sure he gave that order himself, with whatever passes for joy in his cold dead heart.
Shkripal though... he wasn't doing anything.
People are reticent to say Russia did it because nobody has even come close to establishing a motive. The best guess we've got is it helped him in the election.. that he was guaranteed to win anyway for various reasons (banning of his best challenger and his enormous popularity being the two best).
That and this is a bad time for Britain to be flexing its non-existent muscles, so we really ought to be cautious about antagonising a nation we could make a deal with down the line (I mean, what's the point of being outside the EU if we're going to end up not talking to all the people the EU won't talk with?).
|
The motive is to show the world he can do it.
To show 'traitors' that they are not safe
To project strength, to remind the world that Russia should be feared and respected.
|
"Run to the West and I will still fuck you and your daughter up". Seems a pretty strong message to his underlings to me.
Meanwhile Teresa May has her Cabinet able to dictate the jobs they want to her because she is weaksauce (not advocating that assassination is a good leadership tool, but I bet there is nobody in Putin's circle that would try a fraction of the shit that Teresa's is up to).
|
On March 20 2018 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The motive is to show the world he can do it.
To show 'traitors' that they are not safe
To project strength, to remind the world that Russia should be feared and respected.
It's a weak motive. He's proved that several times already.
And take the quotes off traitors; they literally are traitors. Shkripal came here as part of a spy exchange.
|
On March 21 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The motive is to show the world he can do it.
To show 'traitors' that they are not safe
To project strength, to remind the world that Russia should be feared and respected.
It's a weak motive. He's proved that several times already. And take the quotes off traitors; they literally are traitors. Shkripal came here as part of a spy exchange.
This assumes that Putin or whoever authorized the killing agrees that definition of traitor. There was no real reason to torture Sergei Magnitsky to death for representing William Browder in Russian court. They could have just stolen all the money from William Browder's company and left his attorney alive. But they didn't and that lead to the Magnitsky Act, so the Russian oligarch's surprise. I think it is risky to assume that any oligarchy operates as rational actor on the world stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
