"die in a grizzly and obvious assassination"

I think the point is very much to send a message to current serving Russian intelligence officers to think very carefully before betraying their country.

This is apparently hard to grasp for some (HN is the only site on the internet I frequent where the Russian security services of all people seem to be given the benefit of the doubt)

It is hard to grasp because it is a stupid theory. If they wanted him dead, they had him in prison and could have killed him. They thought he was more valuable free after a spy swap.

If they spy swap then poison him, next time they won't get a spy swap - nobody is going to spy swap with a country that then assassinates the swapped spy. They will have gained nothing and lost an option. They will be worse off.

It is possible that the Russians are stupid, and are happy to be worse off having made a point. Stranger things have happened. But it is also possible, and indeed quite likely, they are not stupid and there is something else going on.

This is silly. Things change in 10 years. More to the point there is a mountain of evidence that the Russians did it, including two very obvious suspects who gave a far-from-credible denial on TV.

I think it’s because US / UK security services are just as ruthless and bloody, they just cover it up better. I doubt anyone here disputes the extreme moral failure of Russian state security. It’s just that we should be much more skeptical of countries that are just as bloody and flippant in their lack of concern for human life or decency, like US & UK.

Who has the UK assassinated in the last 20 years? The western intelligence services are awful too but no one does it quite like the russians

Not sure about the UK, but didn't the US recently publically assassinate a high official of another state (an Iranian general)?

As (insert expletive here) that was, it was more of an Act of War than just an assasination. So totally different, though I think it was immoral, strategically unsound, and stupid. Also loathable and with no regard for innocent lives.

An act of war implies the existence of a war. The USA is not at war with either Iran or Irak, so not sure how this could qualify (except that, had the roles been reversed, it would have definitely been seen as an act that can START a war).

You seem to have hit on a very important point: American's don't realize that, while their country is the #1 cause of terror and war around the world, its not 'legally at war', and therefore - laws of war that traditionally the public would understand, are simply not applicable.

This is another atrocity being committed on the general public by the military industrial criminal state. Doublethink and newspeak have been very skillfully applied to ensure a lack of culpability - however, to those of us who have had to dig innocent loved ones out from under America's piles of burning rubble, it is very, very clear that the American people are responsible for this mess, whether they understand their own laws or not.

Does the UK participate in any drone programs?

Yes, but that's a different kind of operation (they're run by the military).

The correct answer to my question is (if you go 40 rather than 20 years) that the bodies are very much buried in Northern Ireland (although the FRU was part of the British Army)

The drone assassinations by the UK are extrajudicial killings, not military operations.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britains-secret-as...

So those are different assasinations?

The military and intelligence services are rather fuzzy though, aren't they? The CIA uses drones, they regularly employ SEAL teams.

The CIA storing brown people in black sites is heinous but there is a certain logic to the operation, as opposed to bumping off defectors which is purely "political". Drone strikes are an ugly solution to an awful situation (this administration is pushing the boundary's of "solution" but still - Trump bombs more than Obama & Bush combined IIRC + Soulemani )

The Russians have always been much better at espionage than the west, that's why they're bolder with these public hits.

It is indeed fuzzy

The destruction of Jewish businesses on Kristallnacht 'made a lot of sense' to many Germans at the time. Are you so sure you want to use this particular point to pivot your argument?

There is NO logic to violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor any of the myriad laws against extrajudicial killing, rendition and torture. It defies logic, unless the real intent is to foment the conditions ripe for yet more, endless war.

I think drone strikes were a stupid solution the first time they killed a bunch of people who just happened to stand next to the intended target. Then they went downhill from there. (Edit: for instance going after someone based on very questionable intel.)

Also I think espionage is (and I think I agree, the Soviets were better at infiltration probably) orthogonal to bold public hits. The public hits are an intimidation tactic.

As disgusting as what the US/UK does, it leans more towards cloak and dagger, rather than "look at as, we can kill anywhere and no-one will give a fuck about your, or if they do, they won't dare do anything to help you".

Edit: yes, I guess the US has similar optics in countries it operates killing drones as Russia has in Europe. Except probably worse.

The US regularly murders people by drone without caring whether or not there is collateral damage, and without any reaction.

It’s truly just an extrajudicial assassination list, whitewashed by “western first world” government propaganda.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britains-secret-as...

I love it when you chaps do that little one-two of agreeing with each other. It’s so persuasive.

“I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009.

Sent by Putin or sent by rogue FSB agents?

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory that the FSB have historically enjoyed an unusually high level of autonomy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekism

To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get? They aren't exactly quiet about what might happen to someone who doesn't play ball.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-mus...

Skripal was swapped for 10 illegals (the illegals, from 2010). Bringing them back was a propaganda win, they sort of got away with it, and the west got Skripal back in return.

> To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get?

If they can get anyone, any time ... why pick someone irrelevant? Why not get someone where it is in their interests for them to die?

That is a really bad motive. All they are doing is tipping their operational methods and compromising the identity of their assassins. Plus it costs money and is risky.

Either the Russians are really stupid or there is some aspect of the story that isn't public. What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there.

Skripal was one of the west's crown jewels (that we know about at least), obvious target. This is about sending a message to potential future-skripals.

And the brazenness of it fits with what I have said - We can get away with this anywhere, you are not safe.

Spies have been killing people for millenia, and the KGB (now FSB) and GRU are particularly good at it. John Barron's book on the KGB from the 70s literally had a list of a few hundred known KGB officers at the back before the index, they all know each other to at least some degree (They'll suss you out the moment you are deployed to a foreign embassy).

> What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there.

Like what? Maybe they poisoned themselves with Novichok for a laugh, but it's unlikely. Remember that a lot of Russian money passes through the British ruling party and London so it's not really in their interest to ratfuck

It also makes it nearly impossible to do a spy swap in the future. Putin gets to do that once.

I don't think individual FSB agents whom skripal blew the cover of give a fuck about this but I'm certain Putin does.