That Corbyn fella...

Whatever your views on Russia and our own government, the use of a nerve agent to attack British residents should be condemned without hesitation.

I'm sure he said more, but isn't this a full condemnation?

Corbyn called the incident “an appalling act of violence”, saying on Wednesday: “Nerve agents are abominable if used in any war. It is utterly reckless to use them in a civilian environment.”

Corbyn then also repeated a standard point that he makes all the time, which is an appeal to international law and international institutions:

In the Commons, Corbyn stressed the need to gather evidence and abide by international law, underlining the role of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), based in The Hague.

He said: “If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies?”

Now, I have no idea what international law actually exists on these issues, but I do agree it's important that these issues be treated in an internationalist way. Obviously, international institutions led by the UN have been weakened at least since the Iraq war (but in smaller ways undoubtedly for much longer), but one country like Britain alone couldn't stand up to Russia, and any sabre-rattling is pointless. There is still at least a hope that consensus in the international community could make a difference.

Then (assuming the reporting here is accurate, I have no wish to watch this in its usual excruciating rubbishness) we get another instance of not answering the question:

Corbyn then asked: “How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack, to run its own tests?”

May attacked Corbyn, saying the Russians had already been given the chance to explain where the nerve agent had come from and that the government had sought consensus.

And then we get some usual suspects being splitters (again), attacking Corbyn, seemingly over points made by Seumas Milne outside the chamber. Really quite boring and predictable, and about as stupid as Hilary Benn's speech about airstrikes on Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/14/jeremy-corbyn-under-fire-over-response-to-pms-russia-statement

Isn’t that the problem though, Corbyn (but mainly his advisors) have chosen to score cheap political points rather than condemn it.

Which cheap political points?

As I quoted above, I do think Corbyn condemned it.

Oh asking for a explanation from Russia is more than sensible. Even if that stuff was stolen it's still very serious.

It's more the tone and the threatening from May that can backfire, I think.

Corbyn then asked: “How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack, to run its own tests?”

Take a wild guess, what do you think the Russian government's tests would say?

That's part of why I don't understand why she seemingly didn't answer the question. Or maybe she did and it hasn't been reported.

#notansweringthequestion

I'm sure honesty and transparency would prevail. Lol.

it’s clear that the substance used was produced by the Russian authorities.

It’s clear it looks like it was made in Moscow (is the public line I believe). The CIA could do that. #tinfoilhat

Seriously though, I don’t understand who in Russia benefits from this attack.

Perhaps May should have spoken relatively softly, avoided accusation of state involvement without more evidence ..... and kicked all known fsb agents out anyway.

Elections in Russia are coming up, could be a way to score points by appearing strong on foreign policy, going after traitors etc. One of the public news readers in Russia made some thinly veiled threats to traitors when the attack first hit the news. Could be some political motivation behind it, either Russia sending a signal or someone else trying to get Russia blamed. Why else use an agent that can be identified as produced by Russia and is likely only accessible to a small group of people?

Maybe Corbyn is not very vocal because in this situation there is not much he can do to attack the Government. He cannot call for a softer response because he would look weak on Russia and he cannot call for a stronger response because there is not much more the UK can do without more evidence, official backing from international institutions etc.

I always thought that expelling a small
number diplomats is an easy thing for Governments to do that looks good in the press but has no big effect.

Russia sending a signal

To potential defectors ... this seems likely. There are more subtle ways to off someone than weapons grade rustica piccante.

Diplomats = agents. The actual diplomats are allowed to stay.

Corbyn condemned the attack unequivocally and it's hardly surprising he didn't join in with the chest-thumping.

Despite all the parliamentary braying May has played this poorly, as it was clear from the outset that Russia would ignore her deadline. And given the "consequences" for Russia, it's hard to argue it has strengthened our position.

It may be obvious to all and sundry that Russia are responsible for this, but the smart thing to do would have been to work with the UN et al: acting unilaterally has only served to demonstrate how toothless we are.

You'd need to be wearing very thick, Dambusters-tinted glasses not to see the merit in Corbyn's caution and insistence that we play it by the (international) book.

Good post. Rad to the power of Schick.

Nia Griffith MP on R4 just now, distancing herself from Seamus Milne's wierd comments comparing the Salisbury case to Iraq WMD, and clarifying Labour leadership's position, i.e unequivocal condemnation of Russian actions, which is good.

"And then we get some usual suspects being splitters (again), attacking Corby"

Corby spent 13 years as a splitter while Labour was in Government, he should hardly be surprised that MPs now feel less bound by his party line.

Yeah, but he was right.
Or at least he split down lines of principle or policy, not just lines of let's be a dick to the guy in charge because we don't like him/think he's a communist.

What? Like his opposition to the invasion of Iraq? Where he was proven entirely correct?

We live in a world where leaders that call for us to respect the rule of law and due process are accused of being enemies of the state. What a time to be etc.

You have to assume that Corbyn will have been privvy to the information that has led Macron to amend his previously hesitant position (i.e. in the sentence that begins 'La France partage le constat...').

I suspect that JC is now even less likely to become PM.....

Even Trump...

Seriously though, I don’t understand who in Russia benefits from this attack.

The whole system as it currently stands.

Obviously we can only guess at the exact reasons. But on a very general level, ruthless violence against enemies of the state is a pretty standard method of coercion.

I really don't see what is hard to understand here. Just have a read of accounts, or talk people who've worked out there. It's a bit like Ken's bit on RT from the other page, "Putin isn't sitting in his office plotting who to kill" (paraphrasing). Of course he doesn't literally spend his time in an evil genius cave plotting the downfall of the West. However, NATO and the EU represent a direct challenge to him by existing as powerful blocs and as such they will be undermined where possible. Equally any opposition whether it be Ologarchs, Hermitige Capital, or reporters will ultimately get there comeuppance.

I understand it may cement the Russian public’s world view in a way that mildly helps Putin, but he doesn’t need this does he?

Russia's economy is tiny, relative to it's size, life expectancy is risible, inequality is rife.

Putin benefits from anything that allows him to point to external agents being responsible for this - in some ways the sanctions imposed on Russia help him here, as he doesn't need an excuse for the poor performance of the Russian economy.

Being able to send such an unequivocal message to potential defectors/spies - literally, I will kill you anyway I can, wherever you go - whilst at the same time bringing increased international pressure to bear on his own country is -crazily- a win/win for him, especially with elections next week.

Why kill a spy who committed treason and got away with it?

From my limited understanding the fact that they didn't die almost immediately makes it sound like it was slightly bungled. So my guess would be the others were a mistake or collateral damage.

I doubt this has helped the global position of Russia, but it will have had an internal impact - as a distraction, reinforcement of the status quo, etc.

Also there is inevitably a blurring of lines between active policy and fostering a culture that carries out reprisals without always needing direction. By way of eg, look at Hitler's involvement in the holocaust. Just because there isn't strong evidence of direct orders doesn't remove his role.

This piece looks at the question of actions directed by Putin, actions encouraged but not explicitly sanctioned and moonlighting by the Russian security system.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-02-28/putin-s-problem-are-freelancing-profiteers-building-a-mob-state

A measured and thorough appraisal of the sitution from Corbyn here, most of which I agree with

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

Apart from this
"However, that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a “new cold war” of escalating arms spending,"
Defence spending has been cut under the tories. Army and Navy are as small as they have ever been. I also think it's absurd hyperbole to talk about Mcarthyism in this context.

Have we had this, yet?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/doubts-about-novichoks/5632095