Metropolitan Police on “Chepiga” and “Mishkin”. 648


I have just received confirmation from the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau that both the European Arrest Warrant and Interpol Red Notice remain in the names of Boshirov and Petrov, with the caveat that both are probably aliases. Nothing has been issued in the name of Chepiga or Mishkin.

As for Bellingcat’s “conclusive and definitive evidence”, Scotland Yard repeated to me this afternoon that their earlier statement on Bellingcat’s allegations remains in force: “we are not going to comment on speculation about their identities.”

It is now a near certainty that Boshirov and Petrov are indeed fake identities. If the two were real people, it is inconceivable that by now their identities would not have been fully established with details of their history, lives, family and milieu. I do not apologise for exercising all due caution, rather than enthusiasm, about a narrative promoted to increase international tension with Russia, but am now convinced Petrov and Boshirov were not who they claimed.

But that is not to say that the information provided by NATO Photoshoppers’R’Us (Ukraine Branch) on alternative identities is genuine, either. I maintain the same rational scepticism exhibited by Scotland Yard on this, and it is a shame that the mainstream media neither does that, nor fairly reflects Scotland Yard’s position in their reporting.

Still less do I accept the British government’s narrative of the novichok poisoning, which remains full of wild surmise and apparent contradiction. No doubt further evidence will gradually emerge. The most dreadful thing about the whole saga is the death of poor Dawn Sturgess, and the most singular fact at present is that Boshirov and Petrov are only wanted in relation to the “attack on the Skripals”. There is no allegation against them by Scotland Yard or the Crown Prosecution Service over the far more serious matter of the death of Sturgess. That is a fascinating fact, massively under-reported.

I remain of the view that the best way forward would be for Putin to negotiate conditions under which Boshirov and Petrov might voluntarily come to the UK for trial. The conditions which I would suggest Russia propose are these:

1) A fully fair and open trial before a jury.
2) The entire trial to be fully public. No closed sessions nor secret evidence and no reporting restrictions.
3) No restrictions on witnesses who may be called, including the Skripals, Pablo Miller, Christopher Steele and other former and current members of the security services.
4) No restrictions on disclosure – all relevant material held by government must be given to the defence.

I strongly suspect that, if a trial would bring to public light something of the extent of the convoluted spy games that were being played out in Salisbury, we would find the British Government’s pretended thirst for justice would suddenly slam into reverse.

Sadly, it currently seems highly improbable that either justice will be served or the full truth be known.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

648 thoughts on “Metropolitan Police on “Chepiga” and “Mishkin”.

1 2 3 4 5
  • Yeah, Right

    I’d like to point out paragraph in Bellingcat’s latest article “revealing” the “true” identity of Petrov.

    It is so astonishingly brazen that I had to re-read it a few times to see if I were not missing something but, no, there it is as bold as brass.

    It relates to the all-important first photo of “Mishkin” which, obviously, it utterly crucial to Bellingcat’s case.

    The first sentence:
    “Instead, we were able to obtain a copy of Alexander Mishkin’s scanned passport pages, from a source with access to a scanned copy of the passport.”

    Note several things:
    a) Higgins hasn’t seen that passport. Ever. He has only seen the “scanned copy”.
    b) He is using a secret source whose trustworthiness we are unable to judge.
    c) We have no idea if Higgins approached this source, or vice versa, nor how many intermediaries there are between Bellingcat and this person.

    The next sentence:
    “The source requested complete anonymity due to safety concerns, and thus Bellingcat cannot share the position or history the source has that has enabled them to have access to this document.”

    On its face I have no problem with that. But, again, it doesn’t “compromise” anything to explain how Bellingcat came by this source. Again:
    a) Did Bellingcat approach this source?
    b) Did this source approach Bellingcat?
    c) Are there any intermediaries between Bellingcat and this source?

    Then, the most gob-smacking sentence:
    “However, we have validated the data visible in the passport in at least three other leaked databases that match the passport number, date of issue, name and issuing authority.”

    Where to begin?

    Perhaps by pointing out that we can’t judge the “matchfullness” of the passport number because someone (Bellingcat? Their mystery source? Some intermediary?) has rendered that number illegible.

    Or maybe by pointing out that verification-via-leaked-database is no verification at all, because the leaked databases are, themselves, not verifiable.

    (Trust us, because we trust this photocopy because we trust this secret database that provides the same number, a number which matches this other secret database that we trust, all of which are attested-to by this secret database that we see no reason to distrust)

    And if that isn’t enough, we get this gobbly-gook:
    “The photo on the passport scan does not appear in any other open sources, further minimizing the risk of а forged document.”

    Honestly, the chutzpah. Read it again:
    does. not. appear. in. any. other. open. sources.

    Eliot, dude, that photo doesn’t appear in ANY open-source.
    Not “any other” open-source, but in “no” open-source at all.
    Or have you forgotten how you came by that “scanned document”?

    Finally, this:
    “We have also confirmed the source’s profession and that his or her position (which is not linked to the government) provides access to this document.”

    Well, good for you.

    But on the face of it that reassurance is pointless unless we know that you really are talking to that person.

    As in, one more time, yet again:
    a) Did you approach him (or her)?
    b) Did he (or she) approach you?
    c) Are there any intermediaries between you and him/her?

    After all, Eliot Higgins may well have proof that there really is *a* person who is in a position to hand him the goodies he needs, but that isn’t necessarily proof that *the* person he is dealing with really is *that* person, and there is no proof at all if there are intermediaries between him and that source.

    • Radar O’Reilly

      Again YR, you are asking reasonable questions.

      Your skepticism is bolstered by a former spook Member of Parl here

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7484627/bellingcat-christo-grozev-novichok-assassins-targeted-by-russia/ (allegedly targeted years ago)

      The relevant quote is Tory MP and former Army intelligence officer Bob Seely, who hosted the investigators’ press conference this week in the House of Commons, told the programme: “The work Bellingcat are doing is remarkable, and I think they are a force for good.

      “They are modern day Sherlock Holmes’s, and their digital detective work is extraordinary.”

      They are modern day Sherlock Holmes

      = they are both a FICTIONAL DETECTIVE , who apparently had deep connections to the British secret services as his story arc developed, as surely the 90’s Russia-based Bob Seely IoW MP meant? from wackypedia:

      Relation to British Secret Service

      Although there is no hint in the original Sherlock Holmes canon that the Diogenes Club is anything but what it seems to be, several later writers developed and used the idea that the club was founded as a front for the British secret service. This may have its root in “The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans”, in which Mycroft Holmes is revealed to be the supreme and indispensable brain-trust behind the British government, who pieces together collective government secrets and offers advice on the best way to act.

      • Clarityn

        I’m surprised that you assume Bob Seeley is an ex-spook and a member of army intelligence corps because the Sun.co.uk says so. It also said Katie price was a Human rights activist and singer. I suppose the fact he is actually an ex-jounalist explains why he’s a fan of bellingcat. He probably says the same about the daily mail.

        • begob

          This from the Mail, so expect some pretty vicious propaganda by the end of the month:
          “A group of British politicians are about to be outed for their ties to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a Tory MP today said.

          Bob Seely said the list – which includes peers sitting in the House of Lords – could be exposed within weeks.”

          • Jo Dominich

            Begob – very interesting comments. I take it that, as Treason May’s Government is in complete and utter disarray unable to Govern this country responsibly and who is now attracting rigorous public criticism, this so called list will relate to Labour Party MPs only? What do they call ‘ties’? Jeremy Corbyn needs to get his shadow cabinet together and put together a really robust rebuttal of any claims. He needs to be decisive, confident and damning of the information. I suspect the reason the ‘list’ has not been published yet (I find it strange that the Mail wouldn’t publish it on receipt if it is that damning) is because the false information is being prepared probably by Belingcat. I hope the British public start getting some sound analytical skills such as the bloggers on this site.

    • Tom Welsh

      We should consider the possibility that none of those “secret” documents and sources actually exist. You don’t need a PhD in Philosophy to recognise that there is no practical difference between something you can never see, and for whose existence you must rely on a decidedly untrustworthy person’s word, and something that does not exist.

      • wild

        Wrong passport. Russians have two types of passport, one that Higgins presents is national ID, and not scanned by Border Agency.

        • MaryPau!

          A recent report in the Daily Mail said the British Embassy in Moscow had been “put under pressure,” to issue the visas. Anyone know any more about this claim?

          • Yeah, Right

            Well, that claim is a nonsense. The only reason why “pressure” would be applied is if you want to alert British intelligence.

            You may as well have them walk through the airport with a placard hung around their neck reading “GRU, times two!” as they ring a bell while loudly shouting “Make way! Russian spies comin’ thru! Make way!”

            If that report is true then you can be certain that these two dudes were sent as distractions, and nothing more.

        • Paul Greenwood

          How remarkable that Border Control knew who they were but has released either visa application nor passport data. All visas go through a joint Home Office/MI5-MI6 joint review process. I bet Special Branch was operating at Gatwick that day

    • Tom Welsh

      “It is so astonishingly brazen that I had to re-read it a few times to see if I were not missing something but, no, there it is as bold as brass”.

      That’s the central principle of the Big Lie technique.

      “The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil … therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big”.

      – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971; original version 1925), Vol. 1, chapter 10, p.231

    • neil

      So why doesn’t Russia just present Chepuga and Mission to the world and say, “See, people, they look nothing like those two guys who claimed to be tourists”? Would be very simple and a great propaganda coup for Putin to do so.

        • Mishko

          The UK and associates are using the media to douse the public with a ceaseless stream of FUD: Fearporn, Uncertainty, Doubt.
          To divert attention from the fact that they are utterly beholden to 3rd party interests? Or to virtue signal ? Why not both?

      • Jo Dominich

        Neil I don’t see why he should bother – he’s probably totally fed up with all this b-s

        • neil

          Why should he bother? Oh, I don’t know, to prove to the world that he’s not a liar and utterly humiliate Western politicians and anti-Russian media. Seems strange he doesn’t choose to do so. You’d think he’d jump at the chance.

      • Yeah, Right

        And the point would be…. what, Neil?

        It has now reached the point of such perversity that the MSM would simply shout: But! But! That isn’t Chepiga! He looks nothing like Bellingcat’s photo! And that’s not Mishkin! Do they take us for fools!

        If you start from the premise that those “passport photos” are fakes then it should be obvious that Putin can’t reveal the “real” Chepiga or Mishkin, certainly not to the satisfaction of those who are convinced that those photos are real.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Why does UK present Skripals to light of day so they can condemn those who tried to murder them ?

        • Neil McFarlane

          How do they know who tried to murder them? And if they do, what makes you so sure they have proof?

          • Jo Dominich

            Well, that is the big million dollar question isn’t it? The reason the UK Government don’t put them out there is because they are either dead, definitely being illegally detained or because the UK Government’s hands are so dirty they cannot take the risk?

    • Andrew H

      Yeah Right

      You would make a great defence lawyer. If I’m ever in the trouble with the law, you are going to be the first person I try to hire. It’s very admirable your ability to cast doubt on anything and prise open small cracks. (That’s genuine praise not sarcasm)

      “Or maybe by pointing out that verification-via-leaked-database is no verification at all, because the leaked databases are, themselves, not verifiable.”

      This is perhaps something Bellingcat could answer – when did they acquire these databases? If they have a large collection that they have had for some time then its harder to argue that they are being manipulated or fed information. Otherwise if they are going to some dark web site to buy information then it is certainly possible the sellers may not be genuine.

      • Yeah, Right

        “This is perhaps something Bellingcat could answer – when did they acquire these databases?”

        They would have “acquired” them when they opened their investigations, and not a moment sooner.

        Honestly, Andrew, do you really believe that Bellingcat is in the habit of vacuuming up torrent-loads of databases just in case These Might Come In Handy One Day?

        Really?

        I’d be interested to read what process you think they would have in place for deciding what should be downloaded because, heck, it might come in handy one day, versus all the dross that is best left to rot on those torrent servers.

        Or do you believe they scoop up everything that is on torrent – how matter how seemingly inconsequential – because, you know, better to be safe than sorry?

        They “acquire” databases as and when they need to acquire them, so a much better question to ask is this: “how do they acquire leaked databases?”

        Because I suspect very much that the true answer is: Not From Torrent Servers.

    • Igor P.P.

      “Or maybe by pointing out that verification-via-leaked-database is no verification at all, because the leaked databases are, themselves, not verifiable.”

      Even if the details database is verifiable it can lend no credibility to the passport copy. Because forger could have sourced the details from this same database.

      • Andrew H

        No, if the birth-date of Mishkin matches that of Petrov’s passport then these two people are one and the same regardless of any photographic evidence. Yes, you could argue that many people have the same birth dates as that of an actual GRU officer, but now you are really clutching at straws rather than looking at what is most probable.

        • Bayard

          “No, if the birth-date of Mishkin matches that of Petrov’s passport then these two people are one and the same regardless of any photographic evidence. ”

          That presupposes that neither passport has been forged, but wait, one passport must be a forgery, because otherwise M&P are different people, so if one is a forgery, then none of the details on it can be relied on, including the birthdate.

          • Andrew H

            If Petrov’s name or his birth date are incorrect then he is GRU. Regular people don’t travel on forged or doctored passports.
            if Mishkin has a forged passport based on copying some genuine random person called Petrov, then it is beyond unfortunate for Petrov if he is merely an innocent visitor to Salisbury on the same day, so let’s discount that.
            In order to spin that Petrov is an innocent civilian it requires that Mishkin’s passport information and all other information bearing Mishkin’s birth date was forged AFTER the Salisbury incident.
            Otherwise, the innocent civilian story which is very weak for other reasons doesn’t look remotely plausible. (it doesn’t anyhow)

            But I would agree that there are scenarios in which Petrov is not Mishkin, but they are both GRU agents in some complicated and unlikely plot. This would mean the GRU trying to set Bellingcat up to take a fall. Another reason for the UK to not endorse Bellingcat’s findings (because if anyone is able to doctor these databases and evidence it is the GRU). Again, the question of when Bellingcat acquired its data is relevant.

          • Yeah, Right

            Andrew, you appear not to understand the point that Bayard is making.

            Which to my mind is this:
            a) There are two passports out there, one for Petrov and one for Miskin.
            b) Bellingcat is claiming that Petrov *is* Miskin.
            c) QED: it must be true that – at the very least – one of those passports is a fake.

            So why do you necessarily accept that it is the “Petrov” passport that is a fake, and that the “Miskin” passport is genuine? Why can’t it be the reverse i.e. Petrov is who he says he is, and someone is attempting to stitch him up by forging a fake passport with his photo on it?

            Indeed, why does either of those passports have to be genuine? One must be a fake, sure, but why can’t they both be fake? After all, if your are an anti-Russian organization that believes “Petrov” to be a false persona but you have nothing to back up that belief, well, that’s easily fixed by just forging some evidence.

            And I take Bayard’s other main point (which, again, you appear to miss) that if someone *is* going to fake a passport then it makes sense for them to go through the same “leaked databases” that Eliot Higgins uses in order to construct these forgeries, precisely because they know that Higgins will seek his “confirmation” there.

            Wheels within wheels within wheels.

            You should read the Bellingcat article again, but this time take careful note of how Higgins deductive reasoning actually works.

            Do that and you notice an amazing habit: whenever he uses “open-source” he comes up empty, whereas every one of his lucky-breaks involves a dive into “leaked-databases” and “anonymous sources”.

            This happens so often that I simply don’t believe Higgins description of his “Identification Method”.

            I am convinced that the chronology is reversed i.e. Higgins *starts* with those forged passport documents in his hot little hands (curtesy of who-knows-who) and then has to come up with a semi-plausible excuse for how he got his hands on them using nothing but his own deductive skills and an extraordinarily powerful lucky-rabbits-foot.

            It’s all rubbish. Higgins is having his moment in the sun because the professionals don’t want to touch this “evidence” with a 10-foot pole. So they have outsourced it to Bellingcat, precisely because Eliot Higgins is even more shameless than them.

          • Andrew H

            Yeah Right

            You appear to be missing my point too.
            It all depends on when Bellingcat copied these leaked databases.
            If they were copied 3 years ago – there is no way that anyone could have updated them to change Mishkin’s birth date to match Petrov’s passport. How did they know Petrov was going to get on that plane?

            (that is not entirely true, because it would not surprise me if Russians, MI6, Mosad and CIA have each planted an employee in his growing business, but lets leave that one for now!)

            Also, I am not saying Bellngcat did copy these databases 3 years ago – their methods are not totally transparent and it isn’t clear whether they are collecting copies of databases over a long period of time, or it is more of a case when they need information going to some online database or broker asking for information on xyz.

          • Yeah, Right

            “It all depends on when Bellingcat copied these leaked databases.”

            I’m going to lay down a marker right now and say that Bellingcat did not go onto the Internet (dark or otherwise) to “copy these leaked databases”.

            Not once.
            Not ever.

            And “three years ago” is 2015.

            You might want to go back to 2015 to see what Bellingcat was doing.

            Because in 2015 all that Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins was doing was pouring over YouTube videos and FaceBook postings and corroborating those with satellite images pulled from Google Earth.

            There is no way – none whatsoever – that Higgins was going around collecting “leaked databases” back in 2015.

          • Andrew H

            Someone someplace mentioned that these were torrents.
            Assuming that is true (I make no claim in that regard)

            You cannot SEARCH a torrent, so they MUST have been copied.
            So your statement that they were NEVER copied NOT ONCE may not be correct.

            Its like mp3’s or whatever. Other people steal movies that they want to watch. I collect pdf’s of pirated books – what do you copy?

          • Andrew H

            And it doesn’t have to be 2015. It just has to be not later than when Petrov booked his flight – probably sometime 2018. After he booked his flight, you can argue that he was set up.

          • Yeah, Right

            “Someone someplace mentioned that these were torrents.
            Assuming that is true (I make no claim in that regard)”

            I think you are very wise to put that rider in, Andrew.
            But let’s accept for now the claim is that they are torrents.

            “You cannot SEARCH a torrent, so they MUST have been copied.”

            Agreed. Why do you assume that they were copied by Bellingcat?

            “So your statement that they were NEVER copied NOT ONCE may not be correct.”

            Read my statement again: I said that BELLINGCAT never copied any torrents, because I don’t believe that Bellingcat does any of the things that it claims it does.

            Here, a hypothetical:
            Source: Hey, Eliot, look at this photo!
            Higgins: OMG! That’s the man! Where did you get it?
            Source: A little birdie, Eliot. But trust me, he’s the real deal.
            Higgins: But how can I corroborate this?
            Source: Here, look in this database.
            Higgins: OMG! It has the same serial number! Where did you get it?
            Source: From a torrent, Eliot. But trust me, it’s the real deal.

            There is no guarantee anywhere in that Bellingcat article that Eliot Higgins and his staff were the people who went out into the dark Internet and found these “leaked databases”.

            We are simply expected to take on trust that Eliot Higgins found this data using his own resourcefulness, rather than being pointed to it by people who are leading him by his nose.

          • Andrew H

            You obviously have an axe to grind with Eliot which is interfering with being objective. [Objective being trying to find answers, rather than trying to defend the Russian state for the sake of defence.]

            Let me run this one by you see if we can get you thinking in a more plausible direction.

            Firstly, I don’t think these are torrents. Bellingcat only makes that specific claim with regard to phone directories. So yes, he has copied all phone directories onto his computer, where he would have found some info but not birth dates. Sames goes with public records like title transfers. The rest of these databases (those containing confidential info like passport details) fall more into the category of child-porn which are shared by paedophiles having house-parties. Mutual trust is established because they each share what they have in order to build up a collection. (lots of copying involved, i’m afraid). They also get to claim that their material is open-sourced (basically meaning they didn’t take the pictures themselves).

            Recollect the Insiders visit to Bellingcat? I bet he brought a flash drive with him and gave Bellngcat lots of new goodies for his collection which would have been trusted because they are sharing open-source databases. Also recollect that one of the Insider people skipped town? He’s a hacker.

          • Yeah, Right

            So which is it, Andrew?

            Does Eliot Higgins go out and get these “leaked databases” using his own resources and his own “established mutual trust”?

            Or does Eliot Higgins sit back and waits for the “Insider” to bring those databases to him on a USB stick?

            If it is the latter then Bellingcat has no way of vouching for the authenticity of anything it has published, other than to say: Everything we have came from the Insider, we trust them so you should too.

            “Recollect the Insiders visit to Bellingcat? I bet he brought a flash drive with him and gave Bellngcat lots of new goodies for his collection which would have been trusted because they are sharing open-source databases.”

            The word “sharing” is inappropriate, Andrew, because it implies that this is a two-way street. I would bet very good money that this is not the case i.e. that everything that Higgins publishes on this issue is given to him by the Insider, and Bellingcat is not acting as an “investigative” outfit at all but simply as a convenient cutout.

            This is very, very simple: if those “leaked databases” came to Higgins on a USB stick then he has no way of authenticating them. None. Whatsoever.

          • Yeah, Right

            “Bellingcat only makes that specific claim with regard to phone directories. So yes, he has copied all phone directories onto his computer, where he would have found some info but not birth dates. Sames goes with public records like title transfers.”

            I’m going to stop you right there and invite you to re-read Bellingcat’s article on Mishkin.

            You will notice that the only real “open source” anywhere in that article is this one:
            http://nomer-org.life/spb/lastName_МИШКИН_pagenumber_0.html

            So, you may be asking yourself: who is “nomr-org.life” ?

            A quick whois search tells me that it belongs to “Eastbiz Corp, 2964 Columbia St, Suite, Torrance, Ca 90503, USA”

            A quick search for “Eastbiz Corp” tells me it is a sports goods store (!!!) with a dodgy reputation for not supplying sporting goods.

            A quick search for “2964 Columbia St, Suite, Torrance, Ca 90503, USA” tells me that it is an office for a brewery (!!!) called “Scholb Premium Ales”

            A quick dip into Street View on Google Earth shows that, yep, sure enough, there is an office for Scholb Premium Ales.

            So using Bellingcat-tradecraft I can tell you that the ONE AND ONLY open-source that Eliot Higgins used in that article does not pass the sniff-test, seeing as how it is a database of St Petersburg phone numbers that is owned by a Californian sporting-goods store that hides itself down the back of a boutique brewery.

            It took me all of 5 minutes to find that out but, apparently, Eliot Higgins does not run the same ruler over his own actions that he so insists on running over everything else he turns his attention to.

            How odd.
            How very sloppy.

            You would almost think he was incompetent.

          • Andrew H

            Yeah Right: “So which is it, Andrew?”

            My overall position is that I am convinced Russia did it and B&P are not who they say they are, but paradoxically I am in part sceptical about Bellingcat’s identifications (so we agree on that last part). Also paradoxically to that I think Bellingcat have, ‘thus far’, kicked the GRU’s arse. As you yourself put it: “If this is a psych-op war then Russia is losing, and losing badly”. My main problem with Bellingcat is that they are small and appear naive to the possibility they are being played in what is clearly a high stakes game. That covers the big picture, now I’ll try to answer your actual question.

            I don’t think they are only acquiring data from the Insider. I think it is more likely they share information with multiple partners. All of these partners are highly unverifiable outfits. (again think porn ring). This could mean that Bellingcat would have had something to share with the Insider, or even if they didn’t have anything of value the Insider might have played along and pretended ‘just what we have been looking for’ as a trust building exercise. Try to understand that there can be many more sharers than those actually sourcing the material. Bellingcat is well positioned to be a middleman because it is well known.

            I also don’t agree with your basic assumption that Bellingcat are too incompetent to acquire these databases. Firstly, one of their ‘friends’ could have shown them where to go and secondly Bellingcat is well financed. The people that are walking out of government offices with USB sticks are not doing it for the love of anything but BitCoin. Similarly if I were in MI6 and wanted to share some info with Bellingcat I wouldn’t stick it in an email. Instead I’d stick it in some place on the net where Bellingcat crawls with a high price tag and at the same time add something to Bellingcat’s crowd funded campaign so that he has funds to buy (the money is mostly going in a circle, and sure Eliot creams off a but for his living expenses but its effective and allows Belliingcat to believe that they are not being fed). In other words even if you are buying this information on the dark web it is totally unverifiable.

            Another aspect to this that I see as a red flag is the fact on at least one of the screen shots there seems to be some search/viewer application. (along with the db comes a .exe). A more cautious researcher would have used notepad to open the database file and Ctrl-F to search it.

            As to whether the Petrov = Mishkin identification it comes down to when Bellingcat acquired the databases with Mishkin’s birth date. If any were acquired before 2018 the match is genuine, but if acquired recently from the Insider or other sources then there is an obvious risk they are being outplayed.

            As has been pointed out by others the UK has not officially endorsed this information.

          • Yeah, Right

            “My main problem with Bellingcat is that they are small and appear naive to the possibility they are being played in what is clearly a high stakes game.”

            They are not “naive”, Andrew. Higgins knows perfectly well that he is a front man for MI6, and that it is his job to peddle lies.

            He is a spook. An amateur spook, but a spook nonetheless.

            “I don’t think they are only acquiring data from the Insider.”

            I have no doubt that every scrap of information that Eliot Higgins has put into those articles has been spoon-fed to him by “The Insider – Russia”.

            “I also don’t agree with your basic assumption that Bellingcat are too incompetent to acquire these databases.”

            OK, you are just not listening. It isn’t that Bellingcat are “incompetent” but that they aren’t “independent”.
            They publish what they are told to publish. They have never published anything that is damaging to a western intelligence agency or a western military establishment, and they never, ever will.

            Eliot Higgins doesn’t “do” the “acquisition of databases”. What he does is this: he sits in his office and he waits for his superiors to come to him and tell him what to publish next. And then he publishes it.

            Honestly, Andrew, wake up.
            You are starting from the assumption that Eliot Higgins is a well-meaning and honest – albeit naive – person.
            He isn’t. He is the front man for an MI6 misinformation shop.
            He knows it.
            I know it.
            You are the only person who is being naive.

          • Andrew H

            Yeah right: “Honestly, Andrew, wake up.”

            I need to wake up? You live in a fantasy world.

            I guarantee you Eliot Higgins is as real as you are fake. I could just as well argue that you are a front man for the GRU (I don’t think you are by the way, but the evidence is far stronger than Eliot Higgins being a front man for MI6. Yes, he could be manipulated by them but he is not being directed by them). At times your grasp on the way the actual world works seems minimal.

          • Andrew H

            And the biggest problem I have with your latest crock, is that you started this thread with the suggestion that Bellingcat could have been given hacked/incorrect information from his sources (Insider or whatever), and now you just change it into he’s working for MI6 – in which case he could just have changed the data himself. Totally wasting my time here.

          • Yeah, Right

            “is that you started this thread with the suggestion that Bellingcat could have been given hacked/incorrect information from his sources (Insider or whatever), and now you just change it into he’s working for MI6 – in which case he could just have changed the data himself.”

            That Eliot Higgins runs a front organization for MI6 **and** he is now being set up with false information are not in any way incompatible with each other.

            Craig Murray had an entire post on that very topic, here:
            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/spy-games/

            Now I happen to know you’ve read that article, because I can see that you have posted comments below it. So why act all outraged now, Andrew?

          • Yeah, Right

            “I guarantee you Eliot Higgins is as real as you are fake.”
            “At times your grasp on the way the actual world works seems minimal.”

            *sigh*

            I will now ask you to go to http://www.bellingcat.com

            Sit down with a sheet of paper, and make two columns – one labelled “Articles critical of the West” and the other labelled “Articles critical of enemies of the West”.

            Now read through all the articles that Bellingcat has ever published, and so if each article can be put them in one or other of those two columns. Be generous towards Higgins, Andrew.

            Note: There will be plenty of articles that are neutral fluff (e.g. “New Infrastructure at the UAE’s al-Hamra Military Airfield”). Discard those, as they are just meaningless padding.

            What I am asking you to look for are articles that are critical debunking of “Western” claims, versus critical debunking of the claims of “Enemies of the West”.

            Come back to me when you have a total and we can discuss who amongst us has a better grasp of where Eliot Higgins gets his marching orders.

            Take your time. I’ll wait.

          • Yeah, Right

            “Yes, he could be manipulated by them but he is not being directed by them”

            Eliot Higgins (not Bellingcat-the-organization, but Higgins himself) is directly paid by the Atlantic Council, which is a front organization for NATO. I have no doubt that the nominated “handlers” are MI6, even though they use the Atlantic Council as the cut-out.

            https://mobile.twitter.com/ElveTwelve/status/1050403238720262144

            If you have the Boss Man in your pocket then you can direct what the organization does.
            In this case, what it does is peddle misinformation that would make the professionals blush.

          • Andrew H

            You are confusing bias with “They publish what they are told to publish”.
            Bias is natural and it is perfectly normal and acceptable in the media/investigative world. There is no point in looking at what Bellingcat has published because they are allowed to be as biased as they want. They could even have a policy of only publishing articles that are in favour of Armageddon, official UK government policy or a deliberately anti Russian agenda. That is bias and it is quite acceptable. This does not mean MI6 or anyone else is providing direction on what to publish or that Bellingcat is knowingly receiving misinformation from MI6.

            Statements like:
            “Eliot Higgins doesn’t “do” the “acquisition of databases”. What he does is this: he sits in his office and he waits for his superiors to come to him and tell him what to publish next. And then he publishes it.”
            really undercut the perfectly valid point that you were originally making which was that Bellingcat has no way to verify the data they have obtained from sources. Yes, technically the two statements could be combined, but the former really just makes the second pointless, because he could equally be told by his superiors to fix the data and photo-shop the lot and then lie about it.

            Also if you are pushing Bellingcat is just an MI6 front [something I’d call a conspiracy theory: you have no actual evidence and there is really no reason to assume this], and Elliot Higgins is lying (because he says he his not being directed by MI6), then I can think that is the point where a lot of people just stop listening (including me).

          • Yeah, Right

            “You are confusing bias with “They publish what they are told to publish”.”

            So am I to take that to mean that you have not found a single Bellingcat article where they pull apart a “Western” intelligence operation or a “Western” military cock-up?

            Or am I to take that as meaning that you refuse to look to see if Bellingcat has ever carried out an investigation that is even slightly critical of either “Western” intelligence organizations or “Western” military organizations?

            “There is no point in looking at what Bellingcat has published because they are allowed to be as biased as they want.”

            Ah, OK, it is the latter. Thanks for confirming.

            As for your claim that Bellingcat can be as biased as it wants, sure, it can.. But it can’t do that **and** be paid for being biased **and** also claim to be independent.

            And this is a truth: Eliot Higgins has never, ever bitten the hand that feeds him.

            I have already presented you will a list of the hands that feed him, Andrew:
            https://mobile.twitter.com/ElveTwelve/status/1050403238720262144

            Eliot Higgins has never “investigated” a single organization on that list, which means that he has moved way, way beyond “allowable bias” and is firmly in the field of “play-for-pay”.

            “Also if you are pushing Bellingcat is just an MI6 front [something I’d call a conspiracy theory: you have no actual evidence and there is really no reason to assume this], and Elliot Higgins is lying (because he says he his not being directed by MI6), then I can think that is the point where a lot of people just stop listening (including me).”

            Oh, I’m well and truly over this too, Andrew, so this is the last thing I’m going to say to you on this topic:
            There will come a time when Eliot Higgins is “outed” as an MI6 asset (a WikiLeaks email, perhaps, or some injudicious bragging, whatever). It is inevitable that this will happen, because that’s exactly what Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat are: an MI6 asset, and an MI6 front.

            And when that happens I want you to sit back and reflect that there was a time when *you* called *me* naïve.

          • Andrew H

            What you have posted: https://mobile.twitter.com/ElveTwelve/status/1050403238720262144
            says nothing of merit.

            Firstly, this Yasha Levine is clearly not unbiased so let’s discount his words, then what is left is an answer from Eliot Higgins to an unknown question. I think it is normal to get paid for doing piece work and the fact that Eliot is willing to state the facts supports my argument that he appears to have integrity. The fact that he has partnered with the Atlantic Council does not in the least imply that MI6 is directing his activities. His Wikipedia page says nothing to suggest that Higgens is anything but an outstanding hard working professional.

            Right now you are standing waste deep in leech infested sewage and on this occasion I don’t particularly want to get in there with you. As they say innocent until proven guilty and I in particular don’t like potentially libellous personal attacks on individuals, especially when it comes to the professional class.

        • Paul Greenwood

          You are funny. There is no birth certificate for Charlie Chaplin in London yet he claimed to be English and born there. That opens up several possibilities. There are undocumented births in UK even today and others where the birth dates are not accurate – they are only reported by parent. In Scotland time of birth is recorded. I really don’t place too much credence on the notion that two people with same name cannot have same birthday especially in a country occupying 16% global surface land as in case of USSR

          • Andrew H

            Paul, land mass is irrelevant. You want to look at population. 144 million meaning approx for any day there are 4000 males with that birth date. Birth dates are easier to quantify than pictures of people because also amongst a population of 144 million people there are going to be many males that look similar or even the same, but I cannot give you a calculation on that and one persons view on similarity vary substantially. A birth date is easy – it’s either the same or it isn’t.

            The other advantage of using birth dates is that they only occupy a small amount of storage in a database (it is unlikely anybody has a hacked database of all passport or driver license photos because it would be enormous, but a database of passport or driver license details (serial number, name, birth date etc would be tiny).

            But it is not any two people with the same birth date. It is one GRU officer and one person who was in Salisbury on the day of the poisoning. Now the odds of that happening by coincidence are essentially zero.

    • Sharp Ears

      But hang on…….

      Why the U.S. Military is Woefully Unprepared for a Major Conventional Conflict
      https://southfront.org/why-the-u-s-military-is-woefully-unprepared-for-a-major-conventional-conflict/

      This analysis considers the review of the current US military power. The analysis is made by Brian Kalman from SouthFront Team. Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

      In the Department of Defense authored summary of the National Defense Strategy of the United States for 2018, Secretary James Mattis quite succinctly sets out the challenges and goals of the U.S. military in the immediate future. Importantly, he acknowledges that the U.S. had become far too focused on counter-insurgency over the past two decades, but he seems to miss the causation of this mission in the first place. U.S. foreign policy, and its reliance on military intervention to solve all perceived problems, regime change and imperialist adventurism, resulted in the need to occupy nations, or destroy them. This leads to the growth of insurgencies, and the strengthening of long simmering religious radicalism and anti-western sentiment in the Middle East and Central Asia. The U.S. military willfully threw itself headlong into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      /..

      • Jack P

        Yet there is no mention of THe USA’s “show of strength” in the seas off Norway which is widely reported today. Not a jot on the Nuclear embargo the US has imposed on China either. Looks like a pretty scant & myopic view of politics and defence to me.

        • Jo Dominich

          Jack P – I am in no doubt that right now, the USA are completely loose cannons, Trump has trashed NATO, Europe, China, Russia, Iran and so on and so forth. What the ‘show of strength’ in Norway is about is unclear. I don’t believe the nuclear embargo imposed on China is going to bother China one little bit. The decline of the USA as the world power has started and, once the petro dollar has been sunk by the Euro and the petro-yuan, which is coming, it will be a fairly rapid decline. Trump is a megalomaniac who truly is a wild, unstoppable loose cannon who doesn’t even have to answer to the USA parliamentary process it seems.

      • Graham Venvell

        How old is this article?
        It seems to have a lot of redundant “facts” in it. There also appears to be a degree of belief that the US publishes everything regarding Military Operations and procurement. Really? Only an idiot would think the US lays all it’s cards on the table.

          • Yeah, Right

            “Or 22 of its F-22 Raptors ravaged by a tropical storm in Florida”

            Which are, apparently, worth $7.5BILLION in today’s currency.

            I’ll let that sink in: the US military is apparently so incompetent that it has allowed $7.5BILLION of US taxpayers money to blow away in the breeze.

            I mean, honestly, every tinpot dictator in the Middle East knows that their airforce needs hardened hangers and underground bunkers for its aircraft. But the USAF uses hangars that have tin roofs and sheet metal for the walls.

            And the ludicrous thing is that nobody will lose their job over this.
            At least tinpot dictators do the right thing: they shoot generals who right-royally f**k up.

      • Clarityn

        Sharp Ears, are you saying the US is trying to start a war because they are unprepared? Believe that if you you want but peddling this out of date dross actually mask the reasons why posters like you want to obfuscate the narrative.

        • Yeah, Right

          “Sharp Ears, are you saying the US is trying to start a war because they are unprepared?”

          I believe the claim is that the decision-makers in the USA aren’t really aware of how unprepared the US military is with respect to taking on a peer-competitor.

          So they make moves that they believe to be bold and intimidating, not being aware that those moves are simply foolhardy and provocative.

          After all, there hasn’t been a heavyweight boxing champion who has stepped into a ring with the belief that they are going to lose. They all go in clinging to the knowledge that They Are The Champ!, never giving a thought that they are about to end up lying on the floor in a puddle of their own blood and urine.

    • Dungroanin

      SharpEars it may be that the warmongers are going to finally shit on another one of their proxy armies and foes (in a long line over the century) and move in on Saudi Arabia – always a primary target in the oil wars?

      The decades of dividing the oil states on religion lines means it unlikely that the arab countries would step into rescue the wahhabist state. Not unless some idiot US general tries to take Mecca!
      Egyptian army is under full control.
      Libya is destroyed. Syria won’t feel strong enough. Turkey is NATO. Qatar is too small, Iran.. wouldn’t risk all without a superpower to back it. Pakistan is too far, Afghanistan is self involved. India wouldn’t care much. That leaves Russia (who are to be kept busy in the Ukraine) and… CHINA. That depends on how much Xi is a banker tool.

      The Kashoggi incident would be the arch duke Ferdinand moment for the next great carve up and eager millions of our boys to be sent to war (keep peace i mean) – that’ll keep the darn socialist citizenery at bay for a few more years, what!

    • Yeah, Right

      So a Nimitz-class carrier is going to be tooling around off the Norwegian coast?

      A pointless gesture. If there was to be even a whiff of hostilities with Russia the first thing that would happen is that every US aircraft carrier would be pulled out of areas like…. the Norwegian coast.

      They are useless there because they would need to sail within 400 miles of Russia to launch a strike, and if a US super carrier sailed within 400 miles of Russian defences during a shooting war then you can be certain it won’t be sailing back out again.

      Plus the fact that the Super Hornet is no match for the Russian Su-35 and is a sitting duck to the S-400.

      And this also made me laugh: “Armed with 49 fast jets and escorted by a further nine US warships”

      Nimitz-class carriers are capable of fielding an air-group of 90 jets. So the Truman has less than half its design compliment of aircraft, and the aircraft it does have are obsolete in comparison with the latest Russian weapons.

      Apparently that obscenely bloated US military budget doesn’t translate into a peak operational effectiveness, if the Truman and its air wing is any indication. And, apparently, military minds in the USA aren’t aware of how vulnerable and ineffective the Truman is in the face of Russia’s weaponry designed specifically to sink it and its entire task force.

      Well, at least the Military/Industrial Complex is raking in the dough, so that’s something I suppose.

      • Jo Dominich

        Hello Yeah Right. You seemed to be a brilliant deductive and analytical thinker and I am learning a few things from your posts. Can I just as a question you might know the answer to? When FUKUSA bombed Syria after the false flag chemical weapons attack I read a couple of articles that said the USA had used £100m worth of ICB missiles and would have to replace them which would cost much more now? They also said the USA had a very limited ICB capacity in any event and this attack probably depleted that supply to nothing. Is there any truth in this?

        • Yeah, Right

          Tomahawks are still being produced by Raytheon so, no, I do not believe the US Navy is in any danger of running out of them.

          And a quick look suggests that the unit cost of a Tomahawk is just under $2million so, no, replacing them is not going to put much of a dent in the US defence budget.

  • Sharp Ears

    This is the best that May’s failing government can come up with.

    UK blocks replacement of diplomats after Novichok expulsions – Russian ambassador
    12 Oct, 2018 18:54
    https://www.rt.com/uk/441126-uk-expelled-diplomats-replacement/

    A reminder that the jerk Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt is now i/c. His latest tweets reveal his concerns.

    A visit to his old public school where he was head boy and congrats to Eugenie who was once an intern at the FCO. Really?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt?

    • Salford Lad

      The Skripal Affair was never meant to be decipherable, it was simply a psy-ops confection with the following objectives.

      1. To demonise and vilify Russia.

      2. To prepare and imprint in the public perception, the connection of Russia with Chemical Weapons. This was necessary for the later Douma chlorine attack fiasco and to justify the subsequent 105 missile attack by the US ,UK and French Forces.

      3 .Boshirov and Petrov were ‘Patsies’,and probably ‘unaware sleepers’, activated with a ‘free trip’ package to the UK, under guise of some drug peddling business. They wandered around Salisbury ,because their contact did not show up there. They were meant to leave a trail of CCTV appearances, to enforce the ‘ Russia dunnit’ meme.
      4. The Porton Down chemical warfare exercise in Salisbury that day is no coincidence.

      All of the above ,took time to prepare and co-ordinate, Time was a critical factor, because of the rapid progress of the Syrian Arab Armies in subduing the Jihadists in Aleppo.
      The resultant show by the Security Service actors in Salisbury and the Jihadist actors in Aleppo was hasty & amateurish and a typical FUBAR.
      PS. the parallels with the setting up of the ‘Patsy’ Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination are notable. The playbook does not change, only the actors.

      • King of Welsh Noir

        Salford Lad
        That’s pretty much how I see it, although I don’t think it was not meant to be ‘decipherable’. It was meant to be clear-cut but the job was so botched the narrative lacked all credibility. What do you think about the Skripals? Were they witting or unwitting participants?

        • Salford Lad

          All indications are that at least Sergei Skripal was part of the act. The hurry from Zizzi to an appointment indicates that. I am not sure what poison/drug was used ,but it was a lot stronger than expected for all the actors . FUBAR by people who look down on us as gullible idiots.

          • Tom Welsh

            We really have to be extremely critical, and assess the credibility of every witness and every asserted “fact”.

            I’d like to point out that hardly anyone knows anything certain about what happened to Sergei Skripal between his appearance in the pub and today. Was he poisoned? HMG says so, but Dr Davies’ letter to The Times implies not. All we know is that Mr Skripal has not been seen from that day to this, and HMG are putting out some obviously untrue stories about what befell him.

            Likewise Yulia (apart from her one stage-managed appearance).

            Nor does anyone (apart from whatever first-hand witnesses there may have been) know what happened to Dawn Sturgess.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I would like to know if the hospital first checked for fentanyl poisoning. It must see a lot of that and be very familiar with its effects. I would like to know the sequencing of testing the Skripals – I mean bloods will have been taken for screening for ???????

        • Tom Welsh

          I think Salford Lad’s right. You’re right too – it all depends on who is assessing “credibility”. Most of us in this forum are reasonably intelligent and educated, and take an interest in important affairs. We also mostly care about logic and facts.

          So the Skripal nonsense is “decipherable” – in the sense of “evidently cooked up” – to us, but passes muster with the MSM and “the broad masses”. Let’s face it, the average British citizen quite likes the idea that we’re constantly threatened by vicious, ruthless (but curiously ineffectual) enemies.

          • Jo Dominich

            Tom, you are right, our Governments do tend to like the theory ruthless foreign powers are targeting us. This is totally deluded thinking on our part – I can’t see any reason for anyone to target what is rapidly become a UK that is ineffectual on the world stage, is in economic decline and post-Brexit will be nothing more than a puppet for the USA.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Merkel has succeeded in isolating Germany with disastrous relations with Russia, USA, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Poland and increasingly fractious ones with UK, Netherlands, Denmark…………May has set out to isolate UK totally by using Trump Dossier reinforced with Anti-Russian diatribes, alienation from EU27 through gross ineptitude, irritating China through provocation with toy boats sailing in PLA Navy infested waters (HMS Amethyst ??) and a reputation for deceitfulness and manic irresponsibility coupled with adulation of Prince of The Desert MBS “dice and slice”

  • SH

    “The clock is ticking for Russia to explain whether it poisoned ex-spy Sergei Skripal” Mirror, 12 Mar, 2018
    (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/russia-dismisses-britains-circus-show-12175111)

    “… the best way forward would be for Putin to negotiate conditions …” Craig Murray, 12 Oct, 2018

    Seriously, Craig?

    And then reveal the identity of Dr Novichok, remember him? And 6-men strong assassination team strangely led by a woman?

    And then present Chepiga and Mishkin? Were they really Heroes? please elaborate
    And then promise not to produce more Novichok. And show the lab where it was produced. And account for all the stockpiles. Within 24 hours
    And then promise not to meddle in elections
    And then promise not to support Assad
    And stop abusing British World Cup fans
    And not to send another Beast from the East, which was the reason for the whole P&B mess

    I guess the clock is still ticking

    • Tom Welsh

      Alternatively, Mr Putin could do what I believe he has been doing – nothing at all. Why should he do anything, when no reason for him to act has been provided? Just a lot of vague, unproven, and often contradictory allegations.

      If HMG and their bosses in Washington wish to brainwash the British citizenry, what is that to Mr Putin or any patriotic Russian?

      • Jo Dominich

        Tom Welsh, excellent question. I should think Putin considers the UK to be nothing more than an aggravating flea!

        • Paul Greenwood

          Unfortunately, I think many outside the UK (myself included) regard the country as institutionally insane and hellbent on self-destruction. It is certainly not safe to leave UK in control of a nuclear arsenal. The sheer incompetence of conducting simple negotiations with non-hostile neighbours has revealed such an inability to negotiate or structure negotiating positions that it is hard to consider UK other than as a failed state

          • Jo Dominich

            Paul, I am so glad to read your comments with regard to our Government. You are lucky, you live outside of the UK I live in it. I often think we must be the laughing stock of the world at the moment. We have a seriously deluded, inept, liar of a Government who paid an Irish political party £1bn pounds for the sake of staying in power. It is Government solely interested in retaining power aided and abetted by a rabidly right wing, Murdoch led tabloid press that has become the official propaganda machine of the Government. It is so nice to hear someone else agree with my own views that our Government has been completely unable to negotiate a Brexit as you say, with non-hostile neighbours. Not only that the negotiating team has used the language of bullying, intimidation and aggression, in fact, I would call it the language of war rather than negotiation against our EU neighbours. I commend the EU negotiators for their forebearance, tolerance and sanity. I wonder why the EU just haven’t walked away from the negotiating table given our Government’s conduct. The Tory party has absolutely no idea how to govern the nation they just want to stay in power. It is truly embarrassing and you are right, I am not surprised other countries regard us as institutionally insane, we are. I cannot understand why the British public has been so brainwashed. If we were French we would be out there on the streets, demonstrating, and very loudly and in huge numbers. How on earth does this Government think they are going to enter into Trade Deals with other countries around the world when they are refusing to pay the required monies (all set out under the Treaty we signed to enter the EU) unless the EU change the foundations of the Market and are treating, as you say, non hostile neighbours with contempt, arrogance and with a colonial bullying strategy. I certainly wouldn’t – we must appear to be a nation that nobody is able to trust. Therefore, thanks to a misinformation campaign on the part of the Vote Leave camp which has now been widely discredited, we are walking away from the largest trading block in the world, losing the Japanese car industry and other large industries in this country just because Treason May cannot control her own Party and especially cannot control the DUP. She has now hit the wall and has no way out. The reason she hasn’t walked away from the EU negotiations is because she knows what a serious error of judgement has been made by her in the negotiations and is now desperate to retrieve something.

    • Bayard

      “https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-online-application-service-for-uk-visit-visas-launches-in-russia

      These were replaced when rules were tightened following the incident.”

      If that was the case then the page you link to would also have been revised to reflect this change. If the page is dated 2016, and it is, then 2016 was the last time they changed the rules.

  • Steve

    It now seems probable that the two Russians are security operatives and were in the UK to meet Skripal – but NOT to poison him. Other forces were probably involved to close down this meeting and prevent inconvenient information being made public !

      • Steve

        Of course everyone hates a ‘traitor’. However, most states try to turn them so they become useful assets. I don’t believe Russia is any different in that respect and since Skripal was clearly in bed with the US and UK it would make sense to maintain contact.
        BTW how’s the weather in Cheltenham today ?.

      • Yeah, Right

        “No of course the russian state doesn’t hate it’s traitors does it?”

        There is not a single state on Planet Earth who doesn’t hate traitors.
        You only need to look at the statute books to know that, but if that isn’t enough then ask yourself why everyone still knows the name of Benedict Arnold and Kim Philby.

        Traitors are scum in anyone’s language.

        So off course the Russian state hates Sergei Skripal i.e. he is a traitor, he is scum, and that’s why they slapped him in prison once they caught him.

        But there are rules to the game, and Vladimir Putin knows them better than anyone.
        a) If your traitor still knows secret stuff then shoot him, or let him rot in prison. Your choice.
        b) If your traitor has already told his handlers all he knows then his residual value approaches zero, so much so that the only thing he is good for is as a pawn in a spy-swap.
        c) If you *do* swap him (this is optional, you can let him rot in prison) then at that moment all sides are agreeing that his residual value has hit absolute zero.

        The side that is releasing him has just washed their hands of him (here, take the retched thing).
        The side that is receiving him has fulfilled their last obligation to him (we got you back, Son).

        He is now worthless, and certainly not worth hunting down and killing.

        Doing that violates The Rules Of The Game, so why would a professional like Putin be bothered?

        • Paul Greenwood

          Name any GRU Officer who defected to UK who has been assassinated by Russian Intelligence ?

          • Yeah, Right

            Name any traitor, anywhere, who has been assassinated after a spy-swap.

            Their identity is known, their spy-value is therefore zero, and so provided they stay retired then they are harmless to the country that swapped them.

            Continue to hate them, sure, why not.
            But there is no upside to killing them.

            All that would achieve is to convince everyone else that it is pointless to negotiate any future spy-swaps with you. So why foul your own reputation for something as pointless as revenge?

      • Jo Dominich

        Just like the UK Government doesn’t hate its whistleblowers and traitors would that be. The USA also?

  • Graham Venvell

    I take it as Craig has failed to mention Sergey Fedotov in this article that he is waiting for confirmation either by Bellingcat, which he now believes ahead of Reuters, or by the Police. I assume he is confident that this chump will have his details across the papers in the next couple of days, that’s why he is ignoring it for now, to save future embarrassment.
    I assume the Russian state is now rounding up the family and friends of Fedotov along with photographs of him with Putin.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-salisbury/russian-website-names-third-gru-officer-involved-in-salisbury-poisoning-idUSKCN1MK2GC

  • Paul Greenwood

    I suspect your 4 points are already unrealistic in that OPCW excluded Russian representatives from the information loop. In that the British Government has reneged on international treaty obligations with respect to consular access or even information with respect to citizens. I frankly do not think your views are realistic but you knew that anyway because the whole matter is more for Roland Freisler than any normal procedure. There is no prospect of a “fair trial” because no evidence has been laid before the purported defendants to make them defendants. Circumstantial evidence is not the basis for the CPS

  • John Morgan

    Well we know from previous cases Craig that the UK Courts frequently do not follow the just rules youve set out usaully citing ‘national security , of course.

  • SA

    I concur with the first part of this post and as some have said, they are consistent with what Craig has said before, that Petrov and Boshirov are aliases. But I really cannot for the life of me see that there is any mileage in suggesting the following:

    1) A fully fair and open trial before a jury..
    2) The entire trial to be fully public. No closed sessions nor secret evidence and no reporting restrictions.
    3) No restrictions on witnesses who may be called, including the Skripals, Pablo Miller, Christopher Steele and other former and current members of the security services.
    4) No restrictions on disclosure – all relevant material held by government must be given to the defence.

    Both the most hardened Putin bots or Westminster bots would find this hard to think of . This incident involves the security and secret services of two nations (maybe even more) and therefore an open trial would be unacceptable to both sides where dirty laundry (and there is bound to be lots of that) will be aired in public. Also it is now obvious that the revelations by Bellingcat, whatever thier veracity have compromised the possibility of finding an unbiased jury unless they are imported from outer space. It is this open trial by media that have characterised political cases that make them impossible to resolve in any amicable way. This is obviously deliberate. If there was a real will to find the perpetrators then the only way that this can be resolved is by cooperation with Russian authorities, however unpalatable that might be. After all the Skripal spy swap was done in a similar way with behind the scene negotiations.
    Unless the UK government has very solid evidence of Russian involvement which is publishable, it is difficult to believe the total culpability of Russia. There is of course a lot to hide on both sides but the original immediate accusations of Russia by high profile declarations, the unwillingness of UK authorities to cooperate, and the internal inconsistencies of the narrative means that the case is far from proven.

    • Graham Venvell

      I don’t think a trial is appropriate, these two failed “spies” were merely carrying out orders from the Russian State if you listen to the UK Govt indictment.This makes such a trial pointless and irrelevant. The next step will be one of diplomats or a third party acting as a mediator, as convicting these two or three chumps will merely exonerate the Russian military. Alternatively the UK could just launch cyber attacks and down Russian air and space craft.

    • begob

      Why not just keep it simple?

      It’s likely the only time nerve agent was out and about in Salisbury was to place it on the door handle, under strict controls, for the purposes of the OPCW sample taking. And it’s likely the Russians are largely sitting back (apart from getting a copy of the OPCW lab result) because their government and intelligence agencies had nothing to do with whatever went on in Salisbury.

      • Paul Greenwood

        So has Porton Down tested that hypothesis and smeared A234 on the door handle of Skripal’s residence to test the hypothesis (ever)? Or has it in fact removed the door and taken it to Porton Down ?

  • SA

    Following on my last post, it is a futile exercise to speculate on evidence and counter evidence here. It is right that Craig has not further analysed the Bellingcat hoax because hoaxes rely on being kept alive by attempts at debunking. Suffice it to say that the Bellingcat findings are not recognised by the police. This of course does not please some commentators here who believe that the Bellingcat case is slam dunk but we also have to bear in mind that some of these commentators have used a lot of pseudo scientific analyses and even used false accusations of the pair of ‘assasins’ being child molestors on the basis that they just look the part.

    • Graham Venvell

      And there you go insisting Bellingcat is a hoax, without solid evidence to label it as such, Conjecture would be appropriate but if you wish to call it a hoax provide solid evidence to prove it. “Suffice it to say that the Bellingcat findings are not recognised by the police” – the truth is the police have neither confirmed or denied the details or perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
      Either way, your mind seems closed to all but a few possibilities. It might be time for you to grow up. You seem oblivious to how the police and justice system operate here. They certainly will not jeopardise an investigation by releasing all but the absolute minimum to allow the investigation to progress.

      • uncle tungsten

        Thank you Graham. I will refrain from insisting that blundercat is a hoax. I will merely conclude that blundercat is a hoax. Thanks for all of the dissection and sharp analysis of Yeah, Right.

        Blundercat has been a hoax for some time and I see no reason for it to change strategy now. It pays well for Elliot.

        The various police forces are most likely to stick with their non-committal mantra as it suits them. After all while there is distraction from the demand to publish all the hours of cctv they have then the police agencies are ecstatic. The entire novihoax balloon would deflate instantly should the public set eyes on it.

      • SA

        Graham
        I am insisting on nothing. I arrived at this conclusion for two reasons:
        1. The ‘open source’ investigation’ open to everyone, is not really open source at all, as it is fed by a mole and this surely has to be accepted even by you.
        2. There are several people who have painstakingly debunked Bellingcat in thier previous investigations. I shall let you find that out for yourself, as I need the time meanwhile to grow up.
        3. It is quite easy to photoshop any photos these days, it is very widely acknowledged. If yoy therefore start your investigation with an unverified copy of a photoshopped photo, there is no need to look further, you will just confuse yourself.

        Now there there don’t get to upset about it, nothing personal.

      • Jo Dominich

        Graham, I am very aware of how the police and justice systems work here – and it is not good, justice is a dirty word and the protection of vested interests rule ok!

        • Andrew H

          Perhaps Jo you would prefer to be tried in China? Which countries have a better justice system than the UK? Justice is never perfect, but I m curious to know where you think the grass grows greener.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Unfortunately I have seen too much of the judicial system to have your confidence, I do not see a better system elsewhere however. I am concerned at the significant levels of Freemasonry and the use of frequent and expensive CMCs to exclude evidence and restrict disclosure. You will recall how many purported rape trials have been deemed unsafe after the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the disclosure process

          • Jo Dominich

            Andrew H, through experience of years of working within the British Justice system and from working with our sub-standard, incompetent police force. British Justice is for the rich – it is for the few not the many so to speak. The police, quite frankly, from my 20years experience, couldn’t investigate a serious case if their life depended on it. Like the NHS, our police force is an inward looking organisation who does not have a focus on its core business rather, on itself, its pay and protecting its police and detectives. I have been in a police station in a professional capacity where I have witnessed a local magistrate, who the solicitor told me was 3 times over the legal alcohol limit, be let go by the police and allowed to get in his car and drive home. I have seen a CID officer turn up at my office, following a wealthy young man’s completely unprovoked assault on another young man which rendered the victim a stint of 4 weeks in hospital and who will live for the rest of his life with the consequences of the assault, make a request that the perpetrator be given a Supported Caution because the perpetrator is a local junior boxing champion and it would ruin his career to be put into Court. And so on and so forth. We have to disabuse ourselves of the idea that British Justice is a shining example of truth and a model system, it is far from it. There are far better systems out there which are based on a magistrate investigation model such as operates in a lot of Europe that is involved with meaningful and impartial investigation. That doesn’t happen here.

      • Yeah, Right

        Graham, Bellingcat is a front organization whose sole purpose is to allow MI6 to promulgate misinformation that is so threadbare that it would make even those professional liars blush.

        I know that upsets you, but it is nonetheless true.

        There is not a single professional intelligence agency in the world – not one, not anywhere – that is not aware that Bellingcat exists for the singular purpose of allowing misinformation to be published at arms-length from those who have created it.

        Again, I know you will quibble about that, but it is true: Bellingcat is a front organization for MI6, and Eliot Higgins knows full well that his job is to peddle untruths.

        And since it is undeniably true that everyone has now outsourced the Skripal saga to Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat then we can be certain of only one thing: the “authorities” are now so bereft of evidence that they are reduced to Making This S**t Up, So Eliot Higgins, Come On Down!!!

        Higgins doesn’t care that it is all made-up s**t: he’s fanged himself a good gig, it pays well, and jumping up on centre stage certainly gets him out of his basement.

  • nevermind

    That jury will be hard to find as this narrative fairy tale with consequences has been peddled to all and sundry for a year and a half now.

    Should the PM be called to give witness? As to her staunch statement of acccusations within 24 hrs.? What she knew when and what this was based on.

    I’d like to suggest to seek the jury in NAURU. A refugee jury who, after prociding a valuable service, regradless of outcome, will be settled here and helped to readjust to live. The only problem with that idea is that many have developed deep deprecions with suicides on an inevitable rise in the holding camps.
    children have no hope of ever having a future outside the camp existence and Australia is peeved to have to respond to damning criticism by the UN, NGOs and MSF doctors and psychologists.

    Thanks for revising your past assumptions.

    • Tom Welsh

      As I think Craig suggested long ago, the PM should be publicly challenged to repeat her Parliamentary statements outside those hallowed halls. Then she could be sued for slander.

      I don’t think she will – do you?

  • Graham Venvell

    I don’t think a trial is appropriate, these two failed “spies” were merely carrying out orders from the Russian State if you listen to the UK Govt indictment.This makes such a trial pointless and irrelevant. The next step will be one of diplomats or a third party acting as a mediator, as convicting these two or three chumps will merely exonerate the Russian military. Alternatively the UK could just launch cyber attacks and down Russian air and space craft.

    • SA

      “I don’t think a trial is appropriate, these two failed “spies” were merely carrying out orders from the Russian State if you listen to the UK Govt indictment.”

      There we go again. You have possession of all the facts and made a pronouncement already and told us what should be done! A chance of a fair trial? Seems like the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle.

      • Graham Venvell

        You seem to lack objectiveness, the word “spies” is in inverted commas and the UK Govt indictment is exactly that. You obviously see an indictment as a condemnation. You should see it as an opportunity.
        They could have a fair trial abroad if it were appropriate, which it isn’t.

        • uncle tungsten

          Sigh. Graham they would have no chance of getting a fair trial in england. Or Saudi Arabia for that matter. So why persist. I disagree with Craig on this point as well. There is no such thing as a fair justice system in the UK. There is a justice system with a shocking history of miscarriage and kowtow to the englander state apparatus. There are of course occasions when justice appears to be done but this case has all the elements of a fix. They would be fools to even entertain it especially given the blind eye warmongering of the englander state apparatus.

    • Andrew H

      I agree, and since a trial is not appropriate, this really explains why the UK’s policy is to maximise embarrassment to the GRU and costs by exposing agents and keep them on their back foot reviewing security problems at home. There is no way to bring the actual culprits to justice and their may not be any one person that could be blamed even if all the information was known. So what the UK is doing seems a reasonable strategy.

      • Jo Dominich

        Andrew H, or the simple probability of course, as Yeah Right said earlier, that Petrov is who he says he actually is also Bishorov. Why is this a problem?

        • Andrew H

          For so many reasons, it’s not even remotely within the realms of possibility. If you don’t understand this then its not my purpose in life to explain to you. Why don’t you just follow the discussion between me and Yeah Right above who I accept more as my intellectual equal – you are too Russian and would prefer to sit in a Turkish jail.

          • Jo Dominich

            Andrew H, Oh I do follow all the comments on here with great interest. Well, I take it as a compliment that you think I am ‘too Russian’ as right now, it is better than being a British citizen given the unholy mess this country is in with a totally corrupt government at it’s helm.

            If there was some proper criticism and analysis by the MSM or an investigative journalist with integrity that challenged the whopping big lie that is Skripal perpetrated by this Government and now this sideline issue of Petrov and Boshirov then there might be some hint the truth might emerge. The fact is, it never will because our Government’s hands has serious dirt all over them regarding this. So, we have lie, on lie, on lie, on lie. If there was even one shred of evidence the Government had to prove any of their statements, I would say they wouldn’t hesitate for one moment to put all of it out there – but they don’t and they won’t – because the truth is, they are corrupt, they have had a massive hand or if not been the orchestrators of the Skripal incident and are relying on a collusive MSM to continue to promote their lies. It is immaterial to me whether you see me as your inferior intellectual equal – I am a believer in truth – I cannot abide mendacity of any kind let alone of a type made by our Government. Let’s get one fact that is evidenced, on this site the majority of people believed the Skripal affair was so that the Government could (I) Set up an anti-Russian narrative and hysteria; (ii) to set up a situation in Syria which would enable them to launch an attack on Syria and blame it on the Russians and (c) to divert attention away from the monumental mess they were making of Brexit. Well, fact, it all happened that way didn’t it? Syria was duly attacked, sanctions were imposed on Russia and Brexit dropped out of the Press. These are all evidenced facts. What is not evidenced at all, in any way, is the Government’s pathetic fairy tale it has built up in relation to the Skripals. Lies, every word of it, even this story about the two Russians allegedly in Salisbury at the same time. Whoever they are is completely immaterial, all I know is that, once again, when this Government couldn’t be making a more serious mess of Brexit which will have serious consequences for this Country, out they trot, some 8th months later, nonsense put out by Belingcat which is completely unverifiable. If you are happy to be lied to by your Government which, let’s face it, brought us very very close to a hot war or a major international war all for the sake of our Government gross incompetence in international matters to be masked and kept from public sight, then I think your belief is seriously flawed. So, UK Government – not one single shred of evidence provided to support any of their fairy tale – Russia, totally innocent of any of this as the UK Government has breached international law, diplomatic protocols, tampered with evidence and refused to engage in diplomatic dialogue despite repeated requests from the Russian Federation for this to happen. Give me Putin as our Head of State any day, he seems to be the only rational, intelligent Statesman in all of this and at least, he is focussed on doing the best possible for his nation which is more than our Government is.

  • Sharp Ears

    Mostly retweets supportive of his rot and an odd one of his one. He has moved on to Khashoggi.
    Eliot Higgins 2 hrs ago
    Missing Saudi journalist’s Apple watch may have transmitted audio evidence, Turkish paper reports @CNNI

    https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins?

    • Tom Welsh

      “He has moved on to Khashoggi”.

      That is precisely his MO. Make sensational accusations, provide a host of doctored (or misattributed or completely fabricated) videos and stills to support them, get quoted a lot, then move on swiftly to another mass of unsupported innuendo.

  • intp1

    I think we know very little. and what with human nature’s zeal for filling in gaps no matter how extensive, we get a lot of “I believe..”.
    I cant remember who I am paraphrasing but I may believe in God, all others must bring data.
    What we do know is that if the Russian Govt. had an interest in attacking the Skripals, they are unlikely to an astronomic degree to be stupid enough to use nerve agent, a Soviet related agent at that. They would not send men openly travelling together, on camera, near the target and extract them together via public, commercial means. To attack someone they had in custody for many years, was fully de-briefed and then delivered them to MI6 where they would again be fully de-briefed before being forgotten about. All to give them an entirely predictable major pain of a PR hit. Intelligence agencies are technically capable of framing anyone for anything these days.
    I read somewhere that it is actually illegal to extradite a Russian citizen to the West, therefore Putin would need to swerve around that and take a major domestic PR blow to himself to do so. That is a fantasy which will never happen and all parties know it. It is why wild, un-supported claims are leaked, because they will never be presented in a trial involving any kind of defence and they know it. In any case, who would be convicted on the leaks to date? Secret evidence would need to be presented in a secret trial that would never be acceptable for extradition. We will never have the opportunity to know but Cui Bono? and it is not the Russian state.
    .

    • Tom Welsh

      Exactly. But it was done then, and it would be done again. Believe that the Russian authorities are well aware of the Lockerbie kangaroo court, and exactly how it falsified the truth.

      For those who can remember events more than a week ago, it’s interesting that the Lockerbie atrocity took place on 21st December 1988, just a little over six months after USS Vincennes deliberately shot down Iran Air 655 on its scheduled flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai.

      The Iranian aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board, including 66 children, were killed.
      The airliner destroyed at Lockerbie was a Boeing 747-121 and all 243 passengers and 16 crew were killed.

      What a curious coincidence.

      At first the US government and other Western authorities did indeed lay the blame at Iran’s door. But then the political winds changed; it became necessary curry favour with Iran, while Colonel Gadaffi became unpopular.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/was-it-libya-or-did-iran-take-revenge-for-the-vincennes-5366650.html

    • Graham Venvell

      Not very plausible at all. This relies on conjecture and that the Police & Security services broadcast every shred of evidence they hold. This is not the case, they withhold evidence for any trial or diplomatic deal.

  • roddy

    I think this whole affair will now just wither away. The British will drop it as they will not want any more scrutiny but will be be able to refer to it to continue the bad Russian Bear story from time to time. The Russians will not want any more scrutiny either as they cant seem to provide any evidence the the Salisbury two being normal tourists etc. There will never be a court case of any substance.

    And so there we are, we will never likely hear the truth about the whole affair and it will become another conspiracy theory. I still cannot think of any possible reasons why the Russians would try to murder an old ex-agent a few months before the World Cup. And to do it in such a openly amateur way just seem reckless to the point of madness. The British government explanation of the Salisbury incident is, as Craig says, a complete work of fiction in the great tradition of a Brian Rix bedroom farce. The only thing that can be taken from this is, yet again, the total immorality of both the British and Russian Governments and the lying and compliant media circuses that surround them.

    Now all the best conspiracy theories usually have the death of an innocent somewhere in the story line, and eventually one came along. Poor Dawn Sturgess and her family are the real victims, unwittingly caught up in this espionage game that seems to treat intercontinental murder as the legitimate way to deal with embarrassing ‘problems’.

    • Tom Welsh

      “The only thing that can be taken from this is, yet again, the total immorality of both the British and Russian Governments and the lying and compliant media circuses that surround them”.

      Well, there you go emulating Craig with his attitude of “whether they do anything bad or not, the Russians are just automatically and intrinsically bad”.

      In the Skripal case, all the lying compliant media circuses have been in the West. Apart from showing a certain natural curiosity and surprise, the Russians have kept a dignified silence.

      • roddy

        I would be happy to agree with you if the ‘dignified silence’ of the Russians could be broken with some facts and evidence that the two ‘agents’ were just ordinary citizens with family,homes, friends etc – it wouldn’t be hard to do after all. Until then, I’m afraid, I will have to put the Russians in the same bracket as the British – compulsive liars!

        I am not taking sides here. I would just like to hear the truth. I don’t know what you want to hear, but if you just believe the Russian dictatorship without question you are on the wrong forum I think.

        • Tom Welsh

          You fail to grasp the absolutely basic point that innocent people are never obliged to defend themselves against malicious, unsubstantiated slander.

          I could – but I don’t – accuse you of the most shocking crimes, then demand that you prove your innocence. But that is not how any decent justice system works – even the British one.

          The USA and, increasingly, the UK are infested by a nasty kind of pseudo-legal character assassination. The perpetrators usually take the trouble to find out precisely how far they can go – often with the active help of state organs and the media.

          This reaches its very worst against foreign states, as it is harder for them to defend themselves convincingly. (The recent allegation that China keeps millions of Uyghurs in prison camps is just one of dozens of examples).

          Lastly, I do not “believe the Russian dictatorship without question” – not least because there is no “Russian dictatorship”. Here, too, verbiage is actively used to conceal meaning, not to convey it. Mr Putin is by no means a dictator – his popularity ratings are always much higher than any Western politician, and not because of any skullduggery but simply because he is a much better person and has accomplished far more for the Russian people.

          In a sense, every present-day president or prime minister is a dictator. We should notice it more, but for the carefully arranged elections that are supposed to make the whole business somehow “democratic”. But it doesn’t. The fact that, every few years, the people are allowed a choice between a small handful of preselected representatives of the elites means absolutely nothing. Even Donald Trump, who broke the system and whose “unauthorised” election has the great and the good foaming with rage, carries out almost identical policies.

          • Jo Dominich

            Tom, you are so right in all that you say. I started to watch the BBC documentary that was written up as charting how President Assad of Syria moved from being a mild mannered eye surgeon to a ruthless, murderous dictator. Well, I have been in Syria. Assad enjoys huge popularity amongst the Syrian people. He is not, and has never been, a monstrous ruthless dictator. Syria was a stable country before the USA and UK started the civil war. This narrative about ruthless dictators seems only to occur when the USA has a vested interest in acquiring oil rights, invading a country to implement ‘regime change’ or because the countries were intending to move trade in oil away from the dollar to the Euro. Pinochet was a ruthless dictator entirely and wholly supported by the USA – but strangely he was never labelled as that even being invited to tea by another ruthless dictator – Margaret Thatcher

        • Jo Dominich

          Roddy, the only compulsive liars here are Belingcat and the UK Government. Why should the Russian Federation make any response to wild accusations and allegations when not one single piece of bona fide evidence has been submitted to them by the Uk for comment and response? I strongly suspect the UK is trying to bait Russia into a response in the hope they slip up and can then by demonised again. Putin and Russia re classier than that – they haven’t fallen for it yet – the onus is on the UK Government to provide proper, documented, viable evidence to support their elaborate work of fiction – to date, they have spectacularly failed to do so.

        • Maureen

          Are you similarly waiting for a rush of people to jump in crying “Thats not Ruslan Borishov, I know that guy,his kids go to my school, his name is Colonel Chepiga!”
          Or,” that fellow calling himself Alexander Petrov, I live next door to him , thats Dr Mishkin!”
          Thats not happening either
          The only identifications have been unverified by anonymous people

          • Yeah, Right

            Maureen,
            Has it ever occurred to ask why – according to Bellingcat – the ranks of GRU seem to be drawn entirely from pissant little villages in the far far-east of the Russian Federeation?

            No born-and-bred Moscovites.
            Never a cultured upbringing in St Petersburg.

            Nope. All born and raised in just the sort of fly-speck countryside where you *aren’t* going to get neighbours jumping up and down to debunk Bellingcat.

            How odd, and almost too convenient for Eliot Higgins.

    • Deb O'Nair

      “The British will drop it as they will not want any more scrutiny but will be be able to refer to it to continue the bad Russian Bear story from time to time.”

      Indeed, which is why the ‘narrative’ has been outsourced to spook-front Bellingcat.

  • MaryPau!

    So what we actually know about these two men is that they were Russians, decorated for military service, currently or maybe formerly employed by the Russian Security Services, who travelled regularly around Europe under false names and showed up in Salisbury on the weekend the Skripals were poisoned. Would that be enough to put them on trial for poisoning the Skripals? Surely it just makes them “persons of interest” to the UK police in relation to the case.? Do we know the actual grounds of the European AW and Interpol Red Notice?

    • wild

      We don’t know they were military servicemen. Nothing that happened says military grade poison was used. Hence they could be military or could be completely civilian, like ordinary hitmen hired by a stray oligarch.

      • Mary Paul

        Yes I agree we do not know for certain they were servicemen. I have my doubts about the Boshiroff photos but am pretty convinced by the Petrov ones. I am inclined to believe they have been involved at some time in the past with the Russian military and the security services although there is no evidence this is current. I made no reference to any use of military grade poisons.

        • wild

          Photos are not the issue or me. I am taking an issue with suggestion any military types were involved at all. Nothing suggests “colonels” or “captains” were required.

    • Yeah, Right

      “Would that be enough to put them on trial for poisoning the Skripals?”

      The traces of poison in their hotel room would be enough evidence to put them on trial.

      Mind you, the fact that the Police did not – at any time – ever cordon off that room, enter it with full-on hazmat suits or very, very, very carefully remove some items from that room suggests to me that the police claim is a load of bollocks.

  • Rod

    … The most dreadful thing about the whole saga is the death of poor Dawn Sturgess …

    Some time previously a contributor to this blog wrote that Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley may well have suffered from the affects of an overdose of some other substance, that the Novichok agent was not the cause of her death and Mr Rowley’s hospitalisation, tragically resulting in her demise and this narrative was seized upon by those who wish to promote the current government account.

    There certainly has been a tangled web woven since this whole charade began in March and so it continues in the absence of the main actors in this piece of theatre. The Skripals’ and the police officer have disappeared like the morning mist off a cow’s arse in May and no one is able to say where they are now.

    Sergei Skripal appears to have been a traitor to his own country, and probably a bandit to boot, who sold information to the west for nothing more than personal gain; hence his arrest and detainment by the Russian authorities for several years.

    The police sergeant must have family here in this country, and near relatives, do they know of his whereabouts ?

    To my mind all the concern about who Petrov and Boshirov truly are is more obfuscation designed to throw the British people more away from the real reasons to why this has become an issue and the whole saga is likely to have been a hoax for indeterminable reasons from the beginning. Who knows and cares what their real names are, in the final analysis it’s irrelevant, for we will probably never know.

    In all this Mr Murray makes a very valid point that neither Scotland Yard nor the CPS seem to be pursuing these two individuals over the death of Ms Sturgess. Again, to my mind the authorities seem more concerned about the attempt on the life of a convicted traitor than the lives of two British born citizens.

      • Andyoldlabour

        @Graham Grenvell,

        So, in all the cases (14 I believe), the police found no evidence of foul play, but despite this, Lord Blair and Amber Rudd want the cases to be opened again – SO THAT THEY CAN ACCUSE RUSSIA OF FOUL PLAY IN ALL OF THEM.
        Is it any wonder that many people no longer believe anything our police or politicians say?
        How do you know when a politician is lying?
        Their lips are moving.

        • Clarityn

          Andyoldlabour, why would the police publish anything? They certainly won’t do it be because conspiracy theorists want them to. I think you can’t comprehend the concept of secrecy. Politicians say a lot of things, perhaps you should ignore them and listen to the facts the police release on occasion instead. Only a fool will take a politicians words at face value.

  • Josh

    Craig is maintaining a childlike belief in the fact that somehow the Met and Scotland Yard have remained immune from the intelligence services and government pressure to treat this as a national security threat and hence follow the line. Because if you work your way backward from all the things we have learned, and how much of this story was concocted, we have to conclude that the conspiracy is not just partial with some of the government actors involved, no, all of them are involved. Note the following:
    We know that
    – PM May and Johnson accused Russia before any investigation had started;
    – There is much more CCTV footage of B&R than is being released; -> Met are involved;
    – The footage that has been released has been time-stamp doctored; -> Met are involved;
    – Any release of official information coincided with chemical weapons talk in the Syria conflict; -> coordination (gov & intel)
    – Key witnesses in the Skripal event are not available for questioning -> intel & Met
    – There is no fingerprint or DNA evidence linking B&R to the crime -> Met & Scotland Yard
    – The OPCW evidence is not transparent, and has been hidden on demand of the UK government
    – The UK gov’t has flaunted every international law for joint criminal investigation and is hiding any evidence
    We conclude from the absence of evidence, and the obvious PR noise and fingerpointing without shown proof, that there is
    a lot going on behind the scenes that cannot see the light of day, and that the meager pickings of not-even-circumstantial evidence point to some pretty bad things on behalf of the government. For me there is no doubt that the UK government organized the Novichok from Porton Down, that it wasn’t used on the Skripals, and that it most likely was only used to throw off the OPCW investigation.
    Whether Sturgess was an accident or semi-deliberate, as we now know MI5 is allowed to murder people on home soil.

    • JB

      I agree in essence with what you write Josh.
      – This is too big an affair with international consequences to be the project of just a segment of the UK establishment. It’s part of a war against Russia (and China) waged by every means, except weapons, for now. Although sometimes weapons are also used (Syria, in particular via Israel).
      – The two (BP) may, or may not be Russian spies. That is still unknown, but, of course, possible, or even probable. We just do not know.
      – I don’t understand why Craig thinks that if their given identities were genuine that would have been fully established by now. Why, and how, by whom? And who would believe it after all the speculation and lack of evidence. That’s the whole point of the spectacle from day one, as I have already mentioned here. After everything, how do you believe anything? That is the name of the game.
      This has, actually, become very uninteresting. No whistleblowers are coming forward, no credible evidence is being offered, Skripal and daughter have disappeared from public view, as well as the policeman- it’s a waste of precious time.
      If these, elected and unelected, humanoids who are running this planet do not destroy it we may read about what happened in 20, 30 or 50 years when documents are declassified and everyone involved is safely out of reach of any sort of accountability. Unless there is a radical change.

      • Jo Dominich

        JB added to which, there is a deplorable lack of independent investigative journalism in either the MSM or the independent press.

      • Josh

        JB, thanks for your reply. I do not believe that these guys are Russian spies. They are low-level haphazard business opportunists. What I also gained from the interview – this is my instinct, but it is based on working with Russians for 20 years while also living there for much of that time – that they – at least Borishov – is naively ‘liberal’. I think he, and possibly also Petrov, were a bit enamoured with the West, much more than the average Russian. They are absolutely stunned to have been used in this way. It may be because they are gay, it may be because they have many Western friends/customers. Let’s not discount the fact that they REALLY thought going to the UK embassy might clear things up. They were also absolutely shocked at the interrogation-like interview with Simonyan of RT. They wanted to find a friend. They found an almost-enemy.
        What is the difference between Bellingcat and, let’s say, the National Enquirer/the Sun/Daily Express? When you look at it from either a Russia gov’t standpoint, or from B&P’s standpoint, it’s the same: a lot of bs hyped up for a while that serves no purpose. Both the Russian government and private citizens as B&P now fully understand that to engage Bellingcat or its discussion is to lose and feed the beast more. Craig fell into the Bellingcat trap: show pics. Discuss pics. Minimize evidentiary trail.
        Those that really want to find out should look at Elena Evdokimova’s twitter. As well as the blogmire.

        • JB

          Josh,
          I take seriously what you say because you can hear them in their ow language. That is very important, since it gives you a better sense of these persons. I also respect your belief that the two are not spies. But the point I keep trying to emphasise in these discussions is – it is your belief. Belief is different than knowledge, and what we are all, in essence, saying here is, we need to know the facts.
          The facts that we do know are so scant and shaky that we are forced to just believe. That’s exactly what those directing this operation want – for most of us to just believe them (or not). But no evidence is being presented. So we are not to KNOW anything, simply trust and believeTHEM. It’s just UK official assertions, and Belllingcat, which has, how bold of them, taken on the Russians! Wow! The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, when you look at it from a distance.
          – The Russians have stated, over and over again, including recently through the Kremlin spokesperson (I posted the link here) that they can not engage before they are provided with some facts, and that they do not think that they should be responding to media allegations (no disrespect to the media).
          – As has been repeated here – we do not even know what really happened to the Skripals!!! Let alone who did it to them (concrete individuals), whatever was done to them.
          – I am unable, based on everything up to now, to exclude that B+P are Russian spies. But even if they are, that does not mean, in the absence of evidence, that they were there, on that day, in connection with the Skripal events. Why speculate on what the myriad possibilities are? We have no way of knowing, until facts are produced, verifiable facts.
          – I wonder how many other Russians were in S. on that day, or came on that day. Just for the heck of it. On the other hand, there must be a reason why the UK drivers of this thing chose B+P, and even charged them (knowing they will never be tried). If you want to go into the nitty-gritty, you don’t charge persons about whom you only know their aliases. So you know they’re GRU, or whatever, but don’t know their names? How does that make any sense at all? And, if you somehow do charge them knowing only their false identities, you must, it is a requirement, know some basic facts about them that are always made public when an indictment is announced. Here, there is nothing. Nothing. So Bellingcat steps into the picture. It’s just nauseating and very disrespectful of us all.
          – So Craig says – it’s UK-Russia spy games. It may well be, but that still doesn’t mean B+P had anything to do with whatever was done to the Skripals. And we still do not know that very basic fact that triggered this whole appalling affair !!!
          – The only thing that we do know, in my view, is that the Russian authorities had nothing to do with it. Why, because it was not in their interest to harm the Skripals, and certainly not at that very moment.
          The Russian authorities would be totally, completely, clinically insane to do something like that and expose the country and themselves to a certain, devastating reaction by the West, where, as we are all witnessing, there is an eclipse of reason. I see no evidence of insanity in the Russian leadership. On the contrary, I am amazed, and grateful, at how calm, unconfrontational and constructive they have been under the unprecedented pressure put on them for years by the West. It is only thanks to their stance that there is no war- yet.
          – My point is, after this long post: I don’t want to believe, I want to KNOW, because I have a right to know. Because, without knowledge, we are always at the mercy of someone or other, instead of being the agents of our individual and collective lives, our present and our future.

    • Andyoldlabour

      @Josh,
      Good post, really good points.
      In this article in the Evening Standard from the 8th March, it states quite clearly that 21 people had been treated as a result of the incident – something we now know is a complete lie.

      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/russian-spy-nerve-agent-plot-tributes-paid-to-courageous-officer-nick-bailey-left-recovering-in-a3785546.html

      We also know that DS Nick Bailey was along with other officers the first to arrive at the Skripal house, and that despite wearing police issue gloves was contaminated with what was on the door knob – according to this article.

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gloves-failed-to-shield-sergeant-from-novichok-htdzvs6dt

  • Tarla

    The official UK ‘intelligence’ is not going to be put in the dock for any ‘misinformation’ released. They’ve partly learnt the lesson from Blair’s ‘we’ve received intelligence’ sexed up 45 minutes WMD and the subsequent Chilcott inquiry. They are not going to be so bold to claim much. That is why they’ve put it out to tender for Bellingcat to run with it. It’s a different type of Operation Mass Appeal, not conducted by ‘our very own’ intelligence but by an ‘independent actor’. It’s the same result operation mass appeal that Putin ‘did it’.
    As someone’s already said transfer Irish=guilt for now Putin=guilt. There is no way that any Russian, the state deemed to have ‘played a part’, would get a fair trial in this country. The UK government have said the most plausible explanation is that Putin ‘order it’. If that’s the case why isn’t there an arrest warrant for Putin? Seeing that he ordered it.
    The whole episode has now turned to look at the photos, look at the photos. This is to lead people away from still looking at what really happened in March. The ‘novichok’ on the door handle- do me a favour. The OPCW found ‘pure novichok’ on the door handle 20 odd days later after wind and rain had landed on an untented front door- again do me a favour. The smoke and mirrors have again been put in place by the look at the photos, look at the photos.
    Something isn’t right with this whole Skripal pantomime. And the ‘evidence’ has deliberately been put out there to pull a fast one, ike the Niyarah testimony’ and the sexed up WMD lies, to muddy the water.
    This is part of the anti Russian warmongers arsenal to increase military spending and to suck up to elements in the US.

  • Stephen Beet

    Well, of course, they will not come for trial, because Russia does not extradite people, quite rightly. They would not get a fair trail and the whole thing would be a sham. So, I think it is not even worth discussing this possibility. There is no evidence to connect any Russian citizens with the Skripal fiasco. Whether these people were in Salisbury on ‘other business’ would also be classified on both sides.

    The most important thing to do is to expose the British story as false, which is quite easy. Victoria Skripal, in her important new conference, which was unreported in the West, blamed the West and challenged the press to find out where the Skripals were, She asked:
    “Why is my uncle not contacting people?  Why can’t he contact his mother?  Why do the press not try to find them?  Why cannot I visit them?  I called the hospital with an interpreter.  We were linked with an official who said he would send some documents.  But we have heard nothing for months.   I don’t know how to contact Julia.  Her numbers no longer exist. I do not believe these two men who are blamed have any connection.   Do you think intelligence officers would do something so conspicuous? “

    • Andrew H

      Its probably a hard decision for Yulia not to contact her family. However, any contact with them creates opportunity for leverage from the Russian state. If you imagine Russia as the mob, then it becomes an understandable precaution.

      Suggest you read this:

      https://www.wikihow.com/Disappear-Completely

      Disconnecting ties from family and friends is the first and hardest step.

      • Yeah, Right

        “Its probably a hard decision for Yulia not to contact her family.”

        All rather suggests that this is her decision, which I doubt very much.

        “However, any contact with them creates opportunity for leverage from the Russian state.”

        How, exactly?

        “If you imagine Russia as the mob, then it becomes an understandable precaution.”

        And if you imagine Russia as a fluffy teddy-bear then it doesn’t look nearly as threatening as Andrew says it is.

        Russia isn’t a mob, Andrew.
        Russia isn’t run by mobsters.

        In the 1980’s, sure, that’s an arguable case.
        But not now. The clown show that is Washington looks way, way more lawless than the hard men who inhabit the Kremlin.

  • Oliver Behrend

    I am really surprised. Boshirov and Petrov are false names, you think? Because they apparently wish to hide some details of their lives ? That´s too poor. Didn´t you read the Express quoting `sources´ and a surprisingly deserted Russian codenamned `Apollo´ by saying:
    “He was then shown CCTV images of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, the aliases used by two GRU agents sought by New Scotland Yard on attempted murder changes. …
    He was able to identify these men as GRU operatives, which corroborated our own information,” added the source. Crucially, he also provided their true identities.” (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1014954/Salisbury-poisoning-MI6-Russian-agent-novichok-Sergei-Skripal-Yulia-Skripal)
    Don´t you know that Margarita Simonjan, the editor in chief of RT, who does not sympathize with them at all said in an interview she had been shown their passports ? And remember that Vladimir Putin publically said they knew the men and urged them to concact the media ? Sacrificing his own men with false passports ? Does anyone think Putin is stupid or even insane ?
    Despite that you trust somewhat in Eliott Harris and his fabrication factory ? Look at this article in THE MIRROR> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/salisbury-novichok-suspect-spotted-picture-13351013#comments-section and therein the first comment:
    1000to10kk
    ”Fake news again and here is why. Just take a look at the 3rd picture from the bottom. Picture with a red circle around the photo. On that photo you can clearly see his surname and its spell…(CHELIGA) and not…(CHEPIGA), it´s an L instead of a P… You can see the difference with naked eye. Bad fake real bad fake.”
    Since you understand Russian – have a closer look.
    Then, you propose the two should stand trial in the U.K. on condition that … Do you really think that anyone could force a government or the courts to respect the conditions you set ? At the same time: do you really think Putin could sent the two to the U.K. ? Look at article 61 of the constitution of the Russian Federation: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm.
    You are quoting an Interpol Red Notice. Where is it ? I did what John Helmer already has done: I typed the names in, all four. Result: zero. Try, as anyone can do: https://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted
    I don´t know whether or not the alleged arrest warrant really exists. If it does exist, it´s completely illegal. Because this is or would be an action of the government, not that of a judge. And since all the allegation against the men are completely baseless. Erdogan has acted in this way.
    Please, rethink.

    • Andrew H

      Oliver Behrend: “Don´t you know that Margarita Simonjan, the editor in chief of RT, said she had been shown their passports ? “

      What are you driving at here?: Presumably these passports are the same ones they used to get into the UK. Must be authentic and proves B&P are exactly who they say they are. Right?

    • Jo Dominich

      Oliver, good comments. The question I had is at the start of Craig’s article where he states the Met Police confirmed the names as Petrov and Boshirov but on the proviso they were probably false identities. Legally speaking, I don’t think you can issue any kind of warrant international or otherwise, using names that are false identities, they have to be issued in the person’s actual name. I have seen arrest warrants for paedophiles whose real name is given but an addendum is added as follows “it is known x has used the following aliases (name list) and maybe others that are not known”.

      • Yeah, Right

        “Legally speaking, I don’t think you can issue any kind of warrant international or otherwise, using names that are false identities, they have to be issued in the person’s actual name.”

        Legally speaking, I think you will find that the UK Prosecutor’s Office issues European Arrest Warrant on application from…. the UK Prosecutor’s Office.

        And since they issue that EAW to themselves then I would suggest that they are perfectly willing to accept any name on those warrants.

        Obviously so, since they are unlikely to question their own paperwork.

        An Interpol Red Notice is another thing altogether, since Interpol has to satisfy itself that the application is correct before issuing that notice.

        I’m rather surprised that Craig says the Met confirms that a Red Notice is current.

        Such a Red Notice has to be notified to all the police forces without exception, including Russian law enforcement. And the Russians say that there is no Red Notice outstanding for Boshirov and Petrov, even under those names.

        Craig might want to bypass the Met Police and go straight to Interpol with his queries.
        He might get a different answer, or no answer at all. But he really should at least try.

  • George C

    Dear Craig, I am glad that you now accept that Boshirov and Petrov were false identities. This actually makes the story a bit easier to understand. They are probably two GRU officers, highly decorated, and they were in Salisbury at the time of the poisoning, or nearly at the time. That leaves two options: 1) A highly idiotic attempt by the GRU to poison Mr Skripal. The main weakness in this plot could be the early departure of assassins, i.e. they couldn’t know if they had done any damage, let alone killed the target. But the plot is possible. 2) A brilliant set-up to incriminate Russia. The weakness of this plot is its sheer brilliance, i.e. how to you lure two heroes of Russia in the vicinity? Compare this with the Babchenko plot for creativity. Another weakness is that Russia is not not explaining what happened, but the true purpose of their visit to Salisbury is likely to be embarrassing to.
    I also think that a trial is the best way to find out what happened, but I can’t see an interest on either side.

    • Blunderbuss

      Even if Boshirov and Petrov are false identities that does not mean that Chepiga and Mishkin are the true identities. The fact that both Chepiga and Mishkin are alleged to have been decorated by Putin looks like a clumsy attempt to incriminate Putin. Boshirov and Petrov might be Smith and Jones but there is no evidence they are GRU agents.

    • Andrew H

      As has been pointed out above no trial can make the GRU accountable. They are an organisation not individuals. An organisation like BP can be held accountable with fines, but how do you hold a secret intelligence service accountable? (GRU, MI6, CIA or any other)

  • Gary Littlejohn

    Luke Harding and Critical Thinking
    Today (13th October 2018) the Guardian staff writer Luke Harding has published an article on how to respond to the war on truth and critical thinking. Yet he starts it by uncritically repeating the official narrative on various topics without a hint of there being many reasonable questions on most of these. This is most problematic in his uncritical approach to the material produced by the Bellingcat website.
    https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/oct/13/reporting-on-trump-and-putin-amid-the-war-on-truth

    This apparent emphasis on critical thinking is deeply ironic since I used to teach an undergraduate course on Critical Thinking and he is one of the Guardian staff who I have always thought would fail it. One only needs to see the YouTube video where he cannot respond to simple questions from an American about the evidence supporting his claims in the book Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump to Win the White House to realise that he simply cannot cope with rigorous thinking. At the end he was reduced to saying that he spoke Russian, as if that somehow meant that the lack of evidence did not matter.

    Harding argues that without a basic consensus about facts, science law and politics get corroded and our democracy becomes degraded. “Climate change? A hoax! Collusion? Fake news! Russian hacking of the US election? It could have been anybody!” This last point ignores the basic fact about the ‘Russian hacking’ story, namely that Wikileaks has always claimed that the Democratic National Committee [DNC] servers were not hacked. Craig Murray (in a position to know) substantiates this claim, and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group have made a forensic computer analysis and come to the conclusion that the data transfer was too rapid for it to be a hack: the data had to have been transferred to a device attached to the computers. In other words, it was a leak. For those who do not know, VIPS consists of former US intelligence staff that had operated at high levels in various government agencies, including the CIA. Their patriotism and expertise are not challenged. Instead, their results are simply ignored. Harding may not even have heard of them.
    Now I used to teach that ‘argument by authority’ is not a very strong form of argument, but in this case VIPS are reporting results from detailed ongoing analysis, and in fact some secondary details of their analysis have been changed in the light of their later work, which shows that they are not simply pushing a pre-determined conclusion. Yet these changes do not affect their overall conclusion.
    Harding argues that one can distinguish truth by good method, but that consists of more than simply visiting the scene of the action. It depends on clarity and coherence of analysis, including an understanding of how to acquire, evaluate and process evidence. Background knowledge also helps, and in the case of Edward Snowden’s revelations, none of the journalists covering this story seemed to know that the same type of evidence had been leaked before by the former NSA analyst Wayne Madsen.
    https://www.waynemadsenreport.com/categories/20070929
    Whereas Snowden had been engaged at a comparatively junior level, and was able to smuggle out data because security protocols were not being followed, Madsen had been seconded to the NSA from the US naval intelligence, and had helped to design the NSA IT systems, thus operating at a much higher level within the organisation. He found that the government simply ignoring his claims was the most effective way to suppress his information.
    With regard to the Panama Papers, while the revelations were indeed noteworthy and the journalistic collaboration was laudable, it seems that no one inquired much about the source of this leak or its possible motivation. In particular, they did not seem to be aware of that fact that Suddeutsche Zeitung had been founded soon after WW2 by the CIA and that the latter might still have good connections with that newspaper. As to the motive, well, the US had just changed the law to enable some mid-Western states to establish their own tax havens, and disclosure of competitors’ activities probably drove some funds towards such newly-established tax havens.
    The stories on Trump’s Russian connections are falling apart as the Muller investigation fails to produce any tangibly damaging results, such that people are being prosecuted for crimes that have nothing to do with Russia. Pro-EU activities in Ukraine simply do not cut it as promoting Russian interests.
    On climate change, there is in fact a serious debate to be had about that, and the very real doubts about the prevailing narrative have nothing to do with anyone’s particular political position: the whole narrative of anthropogenic global warming depends at the quantum level on the validity of Planck’s Constant. This claims that black bodies (such as carbon) always emit heat at the same rate, regardless of the conditions in the surrounding environment. Yet Planck had uncritically accepted Kirschoff’s experimental results and had incorporated Kirschoff’s resulting equation into the equation of Planck’s Constant. It has recently been demonstrated that in fact Kirschoff’s mid-19th century results were contaminated by the presence of soot (a form of carbon) from his candles and are consequently wrong. So carbon can and does emit heat at a greater rate when the surrounding atmosphere is cooler. Engineering textbooks have incorporated this knowledge for years, but theoretical physicists have not noticed. The additional heat loss is indeed present in the uppermost levels of the Earth’s atmosphere, as is shown by satellite data. So the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect is 40 per cent weaker than is assumed in global warming computer models. The recent warning from the UN is based on the false assumptions of such models, and in fact one can find fairly accurate monthly temperature maps at the NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] website. The maps that the media picks up are the percentile change maps, whereas the absolute temperature maps are what the media should really be looking at. Recent time series data shows that the computer models are increasingly diverging from the actual data.
    Consequently, the ‘facts’ of so-called climate change are in dispute but this dispute is legitimate scientific debate. As with the other aspects of the official narrative that Harding adheres to, the alternative position is not something that he fully understands.

    • Dungroanin

      Excellent.
      It appears that I shall have to revisit Planck’s work – it was a long time ago since first year theoretical physics.

      But i think you really shouldn’t spend much time on the junior spook Harding’s critical thinking which is probably related to a short plank or two.

  • Jo Dominich

    I do not believe the Russian Federation had anything to do with the Skripal’s attempted murder or that these two people were in Salisbury to do this. The UK Government’s story is such a load of b-s I haven’t yet been able to determine one shred of evidence or truth about it. It still holds for me that Salisbury was a set up for the false flag chemical attack in Syria which lead to the NATO bombing of it. It was also put out by the UK Government just at a time when the shambles they were making of Brexit was beginning to be embarrassing (and it still is and, once again, Skripal is conveniently trotted out. I doubt that Bellingcat’s information has any, if little integrity. It’s all becoming a bit of a farce – what are Bellingcat saying that Putin sent two of his top men to assassinate some stupid old man in Salisbury – I don’t think so. Skripal was involved in some seriously dodgy dealings with seriously dodgy individuals and linked to the Steele Dossier. He also appeared to have an abundance of money to the extent he could afford two houses on a British State Pension. Also, the Sturgess death whilst a tragedy cannot be attributed to Novichock or anything else – attempts to do that by the British Government must have made the UK look like a laughing stock to the rest of the world. We were told Salisbury had been decontaminated. I strongly suspect her death was due to either natural causes or an infection caused by her lifestyle. It is all rather fantastical. If I were Putin, I wouldn’t dignify any further information or allegations with a response – to date, there isn’t a discernible shred of truth or bona fide for any of it – just an excuse for more and more anti-Russia propaganda. My view is the USA and Europe are paranoid that Russia is becoming a strong player on the world stage but an intelligent strong player. He is forging links with China and the Eastern countries around him (cue the very successful Eastern Economic Forum) this week. He is applying intelligence to the world political stage which cannot be said about President Trump. The only serious threat to the world is Donald Trump – go back to Snowdon, it is the USA who are using the NSC to hack the telephones of world heads of state, hack defence systems, cause instability to influence elections (currently being seen in some Latin American countries) and who are creating in I—-l a monstrous fascist state with a licence to indiscriminately assassinate Palestinians. The decline of the petro-dollar has started, China has just sold off billions of dollars of USA debt it is holding which I believe, and this is only my opinion. has caused the massive impact on the stock markets this week. Putin doesn’t have to have worthless old spies assassinated – he is marching forward doing what is best for his country He is forging intelligent and sensible but highly productive relationships with China, Turkey and Eastern countries bordering Russia. Trump meanwhile, with his war cabinet of Bolton and Pompeo are the ones using aggression and threats and invading countries and threatening Iran. Not Putin. Let’s face it, there will be a No Deal Brexit – that leaves, as President De Gaulle correctly forecast, the UK being the lap dog of the USA – what it will most certainly not be is a world power – that honour is rapidly being passed on to China who are overtaking the USA on the world stage. We will not have Europe to support us given our Government’s appalling language and conduct towards EU negotiator’s. So, I doubt very much whether Putin is remotely interested in the UK as anything other than a spent country that has no meaningful power once it leaves the EU. I am pretty damned sure he isn’t that interested in our incompetent and really sorry excuse we are currently calling a Government. Napoleon said ‘Let China sleep for when it awakes it will rule the world’. Hey presto, the fulfilment of that statement is well under way. Trump has condemned himself and the USA to be a power in rapid decline due to his ridiculous trade wars, war rhetoric and sanctions which, as Putin said, are really restrictions on world trade but means he doesn’t have to be accountable to the World Trade Organisation.

    So, Boshirov, Mishkin, Chepig and Petrov are just a humorous side show put on by the British Government to deflect away from the disaster that is Brexit. Belingcat are not in any way a reliable organisation where information is concerned. Putin just needs to sit tight and say nothing to any further allegations. He’s doing ok and so is the Russian Federation under his leadership. To put it in a nutshell, that is precisely what the USA, UK and some European cannot stomach.

  • MaryPau!

    Who poisoned the Skripals ( I do believe they were poisoned with something,) How and Why? Similarly with Rowley and Sturgess?. Since the Skripals were found on a park bench in Salisbury we have been fed a steady drip feed of partial information, manipulated information, conflicting information and false information by a variety of official and quasi official sources, when not being kept in the dark by D notices.

    Despite reading reams of stuff over the last year I am none the wise. I do not buy
    the idea it is all a larger plot to wind us up about Russia. We need Russian energy, we deplore Russian expansionism and activities in the Middle east. But apart from oil and gas, Russia is pretty remote from most peoples’ lives here. We have no trade links to speak of, Russia is not a tourist destination and outside of London, the oligarchs based there do not impinge on the rest of the country. Radical Islam and the looming Brexit impact are much higher profile. I remain mystified.

      • SH

        Not necessarily. It could be used as internal politics tool as well.

        In US the anti-Russia hysteria was used rather successfully against Trump before and after the elections.

        Less directly, in UK, Corbyn was blamed for being Putin’s useful idiot for questioning May’s “evidence”. I believe it affected his popularity a bit. The anti-Russian sentiment among citizenry can be used to target sane opposition politicians and attract voters to the hawkish “protectors”

      • Igor P.P.

        It’s too slapdash to be that, I think. An urgent preparation for war that didn’t happen (Syria), or an urgent move by UK/US secret services move to stop Skripal(s) from doing something are more probable.

    • Yeah, Right

      Here’s my two-cents worth.

      Way, way back when the Trump Dirty Dossier was first reported and Christopher Steele was outed as its author I kept thinking to myself: how did Steele contact all those anonymous Russian-based sources when he is persona-non-grata, and why would anyone in Russia actually agree to talk to such a non-person?

      It seems to me a no-brainer that his “sources” weren’t in Russia at all, but were ex-pats in Britain who would be willing to make some s**t up for him.

      After all, from Steele’s PoV what did it matter: Trump was unelectable anyway so who is going to look too closely at his collection of pay-for-play fairy tales.

      Except Trump was elected, and that would have put the cat amongst the pigeons. Retribution becomes inevitable, deniability became imperative, and loose-ends will end up being very dangerous to your health.

      Anyway…. fast forward to May and the first report of a Russian ex-spook being poisoned in Salisbury.

      My immediate reaction: well, OK, that tells me who was the principal source of “information” for Steele’s Dossier i.e. it was Sergei Skripal The only question remaining in my mind was if this was done by Americans who wanted revenge, or if it was done by Brits trying to get rid of loose ends.

      Only later did I read confirmation that Sergei Skripal was linked to Pablo Miller, and through him to Orbis and Steele and, well, heck, nothing since then has changed my mind.

      Sergei Skripal was the author of the salacious nonsense of the Trump Dossier, and it was that association that lead to him being a marked man.

      All the rest – the only-made-in-Russia nonsense, the two-suspicious-tourists wandering around Salisbury nonsense, the is-he-Boshirov-or-is-he-Chipiga nonsense, all of it – are all attempts to divert attention from the most fundamental question of any crime: M.O.T.I.V.E.

      Q: Who has reason to want to kill an ex-spook-turned-traitor who is living out his remaining days as a fat, unwell pensioner in a sleepy town in England?
      A: Nobody. There is bugger-all motive for anyone to pay any attention to him, let alone want him dead.

      Q: Who has reason to want to kill an unscrupulous old man who wrote scurrilous lies in a dossier intended to interfere in the election process for the most powerful position on Planet Earth?
      A: Are you kidding? The list is as long as your arm.

      Plenty of people in the Trump Administration would want revenge.
      Plenty of people in Orbis – from Steele/Miller on down – would want to rid themselves of this man.
      Plenty of people in UK intelligence would want to ensure there is no way to link *them* to that dossier.

      Q: If Skripal did author much of the Trump Dirty Dossier is there anyone who *won’t* want him dead?
      A: Yeah, the Russians. Their best bet would be to flip Skripal, because the damage that they could do with just one Sergei Skripal Press Conference would be explosive.

      I am still undecided about Boshirov and Petrov.

      But if they *were* GRU then they would have been in Salisbury to meet with Skripal and put an offer to him: come to Moscow, tell all you know about the Dossier, and all will be forgiven.

      That is why their timing coincided with Yulia’s arrival i.e. she was already briefed to vouch for them.

      And if anyone got wind of that mission then….. panic stations! panic stations! panic stations!

      • Andrew H

        Yeah Right: “…, or if it was done by Brits trying to get rid of loose ends”

        To get rid of loose ends? Seriously? They sure botched this – there are now more loose ends than a turd factory could produce in a year. Expect many more dead bodies.

        If you just wanted someone dead you will kill them efficiently. There is a long tradition of special deaths for traitors (see for example Guy Fawkes)

        • Yeah, Right

          “To get rid of loose ends? Seriously? They sure botched this”

          I’m just looking again to see if I mentioned the possibility that *if* the Russians were trying to flip Skripal *then* that would provoke a panicked reaction from those who stand to lose by having ol’ Sergei hold a Moscow Press Conference alongside a beaming Vladimir Putin.

          Looking… yeah, there it is, no less than three times in a row for emphasis.

          “They sure botched this”

          They sure did. Panic does tend to do that.

        • Yeah, Right

          “Expect many more dead bodies.”

          On that note: has anyone seen Pablo Miller or Christopher Steele lately?

        • Yeah, Right

          “If you just wanted someone dead you will kill them efficiently.”

          A thought experiment:
          a) Sergei Skripal authored the most salacious sections of the Trump Dirty Dossier on commission from Christopher Steele, sharing a jug of bitter with his ol’ pal Pablo Miller as they both laugh uproariously at the absurdity of it all.
          b) Holy S**t! Trump just got elected!!! We’re in trouble now ‘n’ no mistaking it.
          c) OK, OK, OK, if we all keep quiet and Chris lies low then maybe it’ll all blow over.
          d) Sergei Skripal: Hello daughter, so nice of you to visit!
          e) Yulia Skripal: Daddy, the GRU approached me. They want you back to Moscow to rat out Orbis. There are two men. If you are feeding ducks they will take that as the signal that you are interested in their offer.
          f) Big Black Van: Did you hear that? Did I hear that right? We’re all f**ked! Quick, get Pablo on the blower!!!

          That’s pretty much all it would take.

          But they only have 24 hours to make the hit *and* they have to carry it out in such a way that someone else gets the blame.

          There was no “Novichok” on the door handle.
          The Skripal’s were attacked at that park bench.

          This had nothing to do with “revenge” against an old ex-spy, and everything to do with stopping Sergei Skripal from ratting out the people who set him the task of viciously slandering a man who is now The President of the United States of America.

          • Andrew H

            “There was no “Novichok” on the door handle.”
            “The Skripal’s were attacked at that park bench.”

            At times you put forward some sensible arguments, but not today.

            If you suggesting there was no Novichok then that would mean conspirators include hospital, police and innumerable other persons. You would think a hospital should be able to tell the difference between a bump on the head and poisoning by nerve agent.

            Otherwise, if someone panicked and needed to make a hit in 24 hours I don’t think Novichok would be the first thing that would spring to mind.

            Blaming Russia would have been easy. All suspicious deaths of Russians are assumed to be by Russians. We don’t care and the police have enough other unsolved crimes to deal with to not look beyond the end of their noses. Its too time consuming to try to figure out every Russia on Russia killing.

            You know its nonsense, so why even suggest it.

          • Yeah, Right

            “If you suggesting there was no Novichok then” …. then I would like to suggest that you stop verballing me, Andrew. It’s not nice and it makes you our for a fool.

            I said there was no Novichok ON THE DOOR HANDLE.
            I said that the Skripal’s were attacked AT THE PARK BENCH.

            Here’s a deal: you stop your nasty habit of putting words in my mouth and I will continue to resist the temptation of doing the same thing to you.

            Agreed?

          • Andrew H

            I know what you said, but you didn’t specify if the attack at the park bench involved Novichok and you still have not. If you re-read my response, you will see that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs start with IF and OTHERWISE. This is a conditional and following the IF there is a premise which is the part not known to me. I’m pretty sure if I’d started with the 3rd paragraph (the one that assumes Novichok being involved) you would have come back to me saying you didn’t say that they were attacked by Novichok. I am not a mind-reader and using a conditional statement seems a reasonable way to provide a response to something that is ambiguous without putting words in your mouth. Now it might be obvious to both you and me that it is complete nonsense to suggest that there was no Novichok, but the reality is there are others still playing that theory and I can’t know your position.

            Lets’ try it again… (it doesn’t change much)

            Yeah Right:
            “There was no “Novichok” on the door handle.”
            “The Skripal’s were attacked at that park bench.”

            ASSUMING the attack at the park bench is with Novichok and committed by MI6
            THEN
            If someone panicked and needed to make a hit in 24 hours I don’t think Novichok would be the first thing that would spring to mind.

            You know it’s nonsense, so why even suggest it?

            Blaming Russia would have been easy. All suspicious deaths of Russians are assumed to be by Russians. We don’t care and the police have enough other unsolved crimes to deal with to not look beyond the end of their noses. Its too time consuming to try to figure out every Russia on Russia killing.

            OTHERWISE if the initial assumption is incorrect can you please clarify what you do mean.

          • Yeah, Right

            “If someone panicked and needed to make a hit in 24 hours I don’t think Novichok would be the first thing that would spring to mind.”

            It’s inventive, I will grant you that.

            But it’s also a weapon “of a type developed by Russia”, which is very important if you want to ensure that nobody looks anywhere else for a motive for this attack.

            “Blaming Russia would have been easy.”

            Indeed true.

            But so would the Russian reply: it wasn’t us, look to Orbis and the Trump Dossier for your suspects.

            That’s why the use of a weapon “of a type developed in Russia” is so important.

            “All suspicious deaths of Russians are assumed to be by Russians.”

            Oh, please. There is no critical thinking whatsoever in that statement.

            If Sergei Skripal had been pumped full of bullets in his home then the finger of blame could easily be pointed at the Russians, sure, it could. But, again, the Russians could equally-easily reply with “we didn’t do it. Look into Orbis and you’ll find the motive for this attack”.

            IF Skripal were pumped full of bullets then that retort can’t simply be ignored. It would be worth considering.
            But BECAUSE Skripal was attacked by a weapon “of a type developed in Russia” then nobody even listens to anything the Russians said.

            That why it was so important to use a “Novichok” – not that it is an efficient way of killing an old man (it certainly isn’t, not compared to two bullets to the chest and a third to the head) but because it is a weapon “of a type developed in Russia”.

            Choosing a weapon “of a type developed in Russia” is guaranteed to drown out any other story except “No Need To Look Elsewhere, The Russians Did It!”

            How can you not see that, Andrew?

      • ainosunshine

        Yes, YR. Those are the outlines of the best narrative I, too, have been able to imagine, to fit what few “facts” seem known. Also, perhaps, Skripal had indicated a desire to return home. And did he realize he could have become “marked” in the west? Or sought protection from Britain, who needed an excuse to disappear him? Was he negotiating with both sides?

        But then I am stumped by how or why Dawn Sturgess becomes part of the story months later.

        So much more hidden than revealed.

        • Yeah, Right

          “But then I am stumped by how or why Dawn Sturgess becomes part of the story months later.”

          I have no idea. But note that the Met still isn’t making the slightest attempt to add her death to the charge-sheet.

  • Harry Ryder

    Trouble is, if they do get a trial and it turns out to be unfair, anyone who points out that it was unfair will either be ignored or denigrated as a crank/conspiracy theorist.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.