Britain's response to Russia

bianchimoon

Given that the nerve agent attack is now pretty conclusive and not withstanding the Litvenyenko radiological attack, are we that indebted to Russia that the response will be relatively feeble ie. a few agents sent home and some cash assets seized ?
Personally I would prefer that we were part of a strong Europe at this time especially given the total lack of western world leadership, sad times

Matthewfalle

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

bianchimoon

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

Pross

They’re our best bet for a trade agreement so need to keep them sweet!

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

They’re our best bet for a trade agreement so need to keep them sweet!

And our gas supplies, plus loads a ‘ooligans have their summer hols booked, we’re stuffed!

Matthewfalle

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

bianchimoon

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

It’s Chelsea, no one gives a fork :roll: please don’t respond to this I couldn’t bear it

Matthewfalle

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

It’s Chelsea, no one gives a fork :roll: please don’t respond to this I couldn’t bear it

No, seriously, it’s a great idea. Shall we also ask HMG to finance it after we’ve seized it?

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

It'll keep you in a job I suppose?

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

It'll keep you in a job I suppose?

Hmmm, very very true but it might also mean I would have to do some work which I’m not too keen on. And the paperwork can be a nightmare.

Anyhow, how about his suggestion of HMG seizing Chelsea? That’s a grand idea, Wallace.

tangled_metal

Who cares if Chelsea is funded or not. It's Chelsea! Not an important club like Liverpool or Everton and those other clubs in that other city along the motorway from Liverpool.

pinno

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

It’s Chelsea, no one gives a fork :roll: please don’t respond to this I couldn’t bear it

It's a superb idea.

Perhaps some retaliatory kidnapping of various Russian... say diplomats and a battery and some jump leads thrown in. Imagine being the head of M16 now - glory days are back.

Pross

I'm not sure why we're even spending money investigating, the whole world knows who was behind it (apart from Trump who will no doubt say it's down to Muslim terrorists and wouldn't have happened if we were all armed). Even the Russian denials come across as 'of course it was us but you're not going to do anything about it', the tone of their denials is like the Iraqi guy saying the Yanks hadn't entered Baghdad while tanks were driving around behind him. The one Russian politician I heard said something like 'it's a warning to any other traitors, Britain is dangerous for your health so don't go there'.

orraloon

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

It’s Chelsea, no one gives a fork :roll: please don’t respond to this I couldn’t bear it

No, seriously, it’s a great idea. Shall we also ask HMG to finance it after we’ve seized it?

Seriously muddled thinking. They should be made to fund more UK loss making companies and to pump in enough money to keep the UK housing market (economy) for another decade.

Because if not Prince William won’t go and watch a football match.

capt_slog

Tangled Metal wrote:

Who cares if Chelsea is funded or not. It's Chelsea! Not an important club like Liverpool or Everton and those other clubs in that other city along the motorway from Liverpool.

"Important football club", now there's a contradiction of terms.

bianchimoon

I think we should ban those Russian dolls, they’re so full of themselves.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

Freezing assets of well off-Russians who have connections with Putin is precisely what has shown to be effective in the past.

It's not the same as communist requisitioning.

Edit: (though in fairness, Abramovic bought Chelsea mainly because he made enemies in Russia and so being high profile is a way to ward off threats to his life).

Pross

I don’t think the Russians are wetting themselves in fear at the thought of repercussions otherwise they wouldn’t have sanctioned this attack that is so obviously down to them. Let’s face in, they’ve annexed part of another country and shot down a civilian airliner with very little effective response from the rest of the world so bumping off a convicted traitor is small beer.

Oddly, novachok features in the Strike Back series I’m currently watching - I assumed it was a fictional agent!

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

Freezing assets of well off-Russians who have connections with Putin is precisely what has shown to be effective in the past.

It's not the same as communist requisitioning.

Edit: (though in fairness, Abramovic bought Chelsea mainly because he made enemies in Russia and so being high profile is a way to ward off threats to his life).

is there not a difference between freezing assets and seizing them?

capt_slog

Surrey Commuter wrote:

is there not a difference between freezing assets and seizing them?

Not sure, but to me 'freezing assets' suggests more of a temporary measure, as if they could get them back.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

Freezing assets of well off-Russians who have connections with Putin is precisely what has shown to be effective in the past.

It's not the same as communist requisitioning.

Edit: (though in fairness, Abramovic bought Chelsea mainly because he made enemies in Russia and so being high profile is a way to ward off threats to his life).

is there not a difference between freezing assets and seizing them?

Sure but I presume there was just a mix up in language. We're not all lawyers.

Matthewfalle

You can't go around freezing private citizen's assets for an alleged state committed act. Especially when the Russian citizen you are discussing owns half of London. Ridiculous suggestion. Nearly as ridiculous as suggesting that you want to seize assets.

And anyhow, do you honestly think Putin et al are the least bit worried about what Britain will - do - its a middle ranking country with no stability, an underfunded military, about to leave its biggest trading market with no plan to head into and can't even afford to support to support its internal requirements let alone pick a fight with anyone. Its biggest ally - the US - refuses to point blame at anyone (except for Tillerson, and he isn't President last time I looked). Its about as effective as the Gambia but without the sunshine.

They are talking about the UN making a statement. Whoopy do. Words.

Nothing will happen - a couple of diplomats will be asked to leave, they will come back in 6 months.

Plus ca change.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yeah. A big war will sort it.

Send in the jets!

THats a great idea.

What, you think a big war is a great idea? I know you tend to read only every other word in posts, but no one is advocating a big war. I was thinking more of seizing control of Chelsea FC off Vlad's mate, that'll show em.

So - you’re advocating State sponsored seizure of a private asset?

Another top suggestion. Well done.

Freezing assets of well off-Russians who have connections with Putin is precisely what has shown to be effective in the past.

It's not the same as communist requisitioning.

Edit: (though in fairness, Abramovic bought Chelsea mainly because he made enemies in Russia and so being high profile is a way to ward off threats to his life).

is there not a difference between freezing assets and seizing them?

Sure but I presume there was just a mix up in language. We're not all lawyers.

Its nothing to do with being a lawyer or not - its basic English. If you don't know what it means don't type it.

rick_chasey

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

You can't go around freezing private citizen's assets for an alleged state committed act. Especially when the Russian citizen you are discussing owns half of London. Ridiculous suggestion.

And anyhow, do you honestly think Putin et al are the least bit worried about what Britain will - do - its a middle ranking country with no stability, an underfunded military, about to leave its biggest trading market with no plan to head into and can't even afford to support to support its internal requirements let alone pick a fight with anyone. Its biggest ally - the US - refuses to point blame at anyone (except for Tillerson, and he isn't President last time I looked). Its about as effective as the Gambia but without the sunshine.

They are talking about the UN making a statement. Whoopy do. Words.

Nothing will happen - a couple of diplomats will be asked to leave, they will come back in 6 months.

Plus ca change.

With mamba away sulking are you and Blakey competing to see who can be the most pessimistic?

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

You can't go around freezing private citizen's assets for an alleged state committed act. Especially when the Russian citizen you are discussing owns half of London. Ridiculous suggestion. Nearly as ridiculous as suggesting that you want to seize assets.

And anyhow, do you honestly think Putin et al are the least bit worried about what Britain will - do - its a middle ranking country with no stability, an underfunded military, about to leave its biggest trading market with no plan to head into and can't even afford to support to support its internal requirements let alone pick a fight with anyone. Its biggest ally - the US - refuses to point blame at anyone (except for Tillerson, and he isn't President last time I looked). Its about as effective as the Gambia but without the sunshine.

They are talking about the UN making a statement. Whoopy do. Words.

Nothing will happen - a couple of diplomats will be asked to leave, they will come back in 6 months.

Plus ca change.

you need to cheer up a bit and stop being so pessimistic or you will never get anything done. You are forgetting that we are the 5th largest economy in the world and the the quality of the British fighting man is second to none. I think you will find that the Russian Bear is going to get a scare when the post-Brexit British Lion regains it's roar

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

You can't go around freezing private citizen's assets for an alleged state committed act. Especially when the Russian citizen you are discussing owns half of London. Ridiculous suggestion. Nearly as ridiculous as suggesting that you want to seize assets.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/p ... 23331.aspx

tangled_metal

Of course you can seize / freeze assets of you're a state and the assets are in your jurisdiction and there's legislation giving your officials the right to do so. But then I'm not a legal eagle. I just know the first seizure legislation I recall was the one where the state could seize the assets of criminals such as drug dealers. I'm sure they'll legislate if need be to give themselves cover domestically.

Interesting piece on R4 on my drive into work. Apparently someone who knows about these things said that UK has expertise in tracking and dealing with terrorism. Apparently it's an asset of our country that is shared with our allies but Interestingly we share with Russia too. That sharing had value to them. The person speaking said that withdrawing this will have more effect than expelling a few diplomats.

I have no idea how true that is or who was being interviewed (I was half asleep driving into work). I believe other states such as USA and European states value it and gchq is certainly an asset. It's just whether Russia does get UK help against terrorism. I guess they have Islamic terrorism in their sphere of control, chechnia for example was / is an issue.

Anyhow it's all irrelevant. Things will get forgotten like the polonium guy, until something like this happens again. The one difference between then and now is we are not in a condition of improving Russian relationship. Back then UK was, along with the west, improving relations with Russia. They were seemingly moving in a positive direction. So a few token expulsions on each side and back to improving relations.

Now we're in a worse state wrt Russian relations with the west. Different political climate so nothing to lose if they go into this with more severe response.

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Of course you can seize / freeze assets of you're a state and the assets are in your jurisdiction and there's legislation giving your officials the right to do so. But then I'm not a legal eagle. I just know the first seizure legislation I recall was the one where the state could seize the assets of criminals such as drug dealers. I'm sure they'll legislate if need be to give themselves cover domestically.

Interesting piece on R4 on my drive into work. Apparently someone who knows about these things said that UK has expertise in tracking and dealing with terrorism. Apparently it's an asset of our country that is shared with our allies but Interestingly we share with Russia too. That sharing had value to them. The person speaking said that withdrawing this will have more effect than expelling a few diplomats.

I have no idea how true that is or who was being interviewed (I was half asleep driving into work). I believe other states such as USA and European states value it and gchq is certainly an asset. It's just whether Russia does get UK help against terrorism. I guess they have Islamic terrorism in their sphere of control, chechnia for example was / is an issue.

Anyhow it's all irrelevant. Things will get forgotten like the polonium guy, until something like this happens again. The one difference between then and now is we are not in a condition of improving Russian relationship. Back then UK was, along with the west, improving relations with Russia. They were seemingly moving in a positive direction. So a few token expulsions on each side and back to improving relations.

Now we're in a worse state wrt Russian relations with the west. Different political climate so nothing to lose if they go into this with more severe response.

It might be worth checking but I think the Chechnyans are freedom fighters. Either way they are mad fockers and it is best to leave them alone

bianchimoon

Lavrov claimed Britain has an obligation to share forensic data under the Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia also summoned the British ambassador, Laurie Bristow, following the allegations, Interfax reported.

“Before delivering ultimatums to report to the British government within 24 hours,” Lavrov said at a news conference in Moscow, “it is better to comply with your own obligations under international law — in this case the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

The Russians do Irony well