Mystery 'poison plot' sends Czech mayors into hiding(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Mystery 'poison plot' sends Czech mayors into hiding
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52500865
48 comments
So the Prague 6 district council decides to move the statue of a Soviet. Then the Russians get angry and send a man carrying a poison into the Russian embassy, the embassy next to the mayor of that district, for the plan to poison that mayor. The transport of the poison was detected, but there was no way to stop that transport?
My logic filter says no.
The article says the man was travelling on a diplomatic passport which means diplomatic immunity.
Is there diplomatic immunity to transport ricin ?
Can an diplomat carry nuclear weapons and just walk past security?
Can an diplomat carry nuclear weapons and just walk past security?
In theory, diplomatic immunity only covers official stuff necessary for the functioning of the embassy. But there is no easy way to check. And yes, diplomatic status has a history of abuse, including drug smuggling.
“Mystery” in the title seems a stretch.
“Russian” would seem like a reasonable replacement based on reading the article
“Russian” would seem like a reasonable replacement based on reading the article
"Russian former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury in 2018, by agents thought to have been sent by Russian intelligence."
I appreciate the cautious wording ("thought to") but is there actually any doubt about Russian intelligence having killed (edit: poisoned, not killed) Skripal? I mean especially after the Bellingcat report.
I appreciate the cautious wording ("thought to") but is there actually any doubt about Russian intelligence having killed (edit: poisoned, not killed) Skripal? I mean especially after the Bellingcat report.
That wording, as silly as it sounds, fulfills an important role in the fundamental integrity of journalism.
Try to imagine what journalism looks like if everyone just starts collapsing "mostly certain" into "certain". And how that can decay integrity over time.
The beauty of the way journalists write is that they aren't the ones making a judgement call. They just report what some other authority has concluded (or failed to).
Try to imagine what journalism looks like if everyone just starts collapsing "mostly certain" into "certain". And how that can decay integrity over time.
The beauty of the way journalists write is that they aren't the ones making a judgement call. They just report what some other authority has concluded (or failed to).
Actual practice: the journalists stick in a magic word, they're indemnified, everyone notices they use the magic word when it's obviously true and also when it's not obvious and so assumes it's just a legal device.
Precisely: it encourages the reader to make the judgement about what appears obvious.
Indeed, it does fulfill an important function; it makes journalists much harder to sue.
The beauty of this fiction that journalists are not making a judgment call in choosing who to quote, on what topic, when, is that it makes some trusting people think they’re in some sense impartial.
The internet has broken this fiction wide open. All kinds of authorities used to unthinking deference from their subjects are now having to deal with the fact that said subjects can now talk about them, with each other, in n public. See Martin Gurri, The Revolt of the Public. Newspapers may have shut down their comments sections but they haven’t shut down twitter, Facebook or other competing websites. So newspapers don’t get to control what the conversation is about any more and memory holing inconvenient principles is becoming more difficult. Twitter is the best thing to happen to accurate perception of the media ever. Unfiltered access to how journalists actually think, unimpeded by editors who want the public to trust them.
No wonder trust in the media has been dropping for the past two decades.
The beauty of this fiction that journalists are not making a judgment call in choosing who to quote, on what topic, when, is that it makes some trusting people think they’re in some sense impartial.
The internet has broken this fiction wide open. All kinds of authorities used to unthinking deference from their subjects are now having to deal with the fact that said subjects can now talk about them, with each other, in n public. See Martin Gurri, The Revolt of the Public. Newspapers may have shut down their comments sections but they haven’t shut down twitter, Facebook or other competing websites. So newspapers don’t get to control what the conversation is about any more and memory holing inconvenient principles is becoming more difficult. Twitter is the best thing to happen to accurate perception of the media ever. Unfiltered access to how journalists actually think, unimpeded by editors who want the public to trust them.
No wonder trust in the media has been dropping for the past two decades.
> Twitter is the best thing to happen to accurate perception of the media ever. Unfiltered access to how journalists actually think, unimpeded by editors who want the public to trust them
You think you have a more accurate perception thanks to Twitter. That's the product they've been selling since day one.
You think you have a more accurate perception thanks to Twitter. That's the product they've been selling since day one.
Its not just Twitter. Its the entire open Internet.
The exposure of corruption to the day of light occurs wherever free people are allowed to communicate, freely, for their own purposes.
Twitter is just a manifestation of the human template.
The exposure of corruption to the day of light occurs wherever free people are allowed to communicate, freely, for their own purposes.
Twitter is just a manifestation of the human template.
> The beauty of this fiction that journalists are not making a judgment call in choosing who to quote, on what topic,
What are you talking about? Careful language regarding certainty of a statement has got nothing to do with choice of interviewee or subject matter.
Of course journalists make judgement calls about what subjects to cover and of course this shapes news coverage.
You present this as some super-secret conspiracy, ‘broken wide open’ by the Internet. Did you really not know before then? Did you not read differing newspapers and spot that the choice of story and spin differed.
Historically , what is pejoratively described as the ‘Main Stream Media’ has hosted journalists who care deeply about quality of reporting and getting the story straight, fact-checking and making sure that quotes are obtained from opposing points of view.
It’s the internet and rolling news which has put a strain on the consensus.
What are you talking about? Careful language regarding certainty of a statement has got nothing to do with choice of interviewee or subject matter.
Of course journalists make judgement calls about what subjects to cover and of course this shapes news coverage.
You present this as some super-secret conspiracy, ‘broken wide open’ by the Internet. Did you really not know before then? Did you not read differing newspapers and spot that the choice of story and spin differed.
Historically , what is pejoratively described as the ‘Main Stream Media’ has hosted journalists who care deeply about quality of reporting and getting the story straight, fact-checking and making sure that quotes are obtained from opposing points of view.
It’s the internet and rolling news which has put a strain on the consensus.
It's selective and inconsistent. You are pretending it has some rigor to it, but it doesn't.
Like the word "controversial"
It's their way gatekeeping and telling you it's immoral - ie. "Sweden's controversial approach"
Or "some people say", which means "I'm saying"
They have many tricks.
It's their way gatekeeping and telling you it's immoral - ie. "Sweden's controversial approach"
Or "some people say", which means "I'm saying"
They have many tricks.
I agree with your main point, but Skripal and his daughter both survived the attack and are still alive.
I have two words for you: cui bono.
First hypothesis: Russian intelligence officers have attempted assassinate Skripals. What was the motive? All information held by Skripal has been long ago acquired by MI-6 and their US colleagues. Assassination will not prevent any leaks. Maybe he had some assets in Russia? They would not be handled by Skripal personally. Maybe he was a triple agent? What kind of information he could've possibly had? Maybe it was revenge and terrorizing potential future defectors? Well, motive fitting the Evil Empire indeed, the image which is carefully cultivated since the Cold War, especially considering the timing (3 months before the World Cup).
Ok, next question: why the attempt has failed? It could've been gross incompetence. Or sheer luck on Skripal's side? Quite possible, yes. But don't forget that every such explanation lowers probability of the hypothesis. But why poison (and with such loudly Russian name) and such tricky plan was used? If your goal is revenge, there are more practical way to execute someone, especially if you know where your target lives. And I highly doubt that he was under around-the-clock surveillance.
Second hypothesis: it was a clever false flag operation. Motive? Make Russia look extremely bad in western eyes. Timing is really good, not only you have the upcoming World Cup, but also it would allow you to divert populace attention from the Brexit debacle. And with Brexit US influence in Europe has took a hit, Russia was warming relations with Germany and France (situation around Nordstream 2 is the most prominent example), everyone got tired from the war in Eastern Ukraine, more and more voices urged removal of mutually damaging economic sanctions between Russia and EU. Why the Russian intelligence officers were involved? Skripal could've made contact with them and offer some information. Yes, it contradicts the point that it's unlikely he had one, but I guess in intelligence you shake all trees you have, even unlikely ones. Why those homeless people died? I admit don't have a good explanation to this one. A cynic could said that such operation without dead bodies could've had smaller impact in the information war or it could've been an unfortunate collateral damage.
As for the Bellingcat report, I hope you understand that it's hardly an independent source, right?
First hypothesis: Russian intelligence officers have attempted assassinate Skripals. What was the motive? All information held by Skripal has been long ago acquired by MI-6 and their US colleagues. Assassination will not prevent any leaks. Maybe he had some assets in Russia? They would not be handled by Skripal personally. Maybe he was a triple agent? What kind of information he could've possibly had? Maybe it was revenge and terrorizing potential future defectors? Well, motive fitting the Evil Empire indeed, the image which is carefully cultivated since the Cold War, especially considering the timing (3 months before the World Cup).
Ok, next question: why the attempt has failed? It could've been gross incompetence. Or sheer luck on Skripal's side? Quite possible, yes. But don't forget that every such explanation lowers probability of the hypothesis. But why poison (and with such loudly Russian name) and such tricky plan was used? If your goal is revenge, there are more practical way to execute someone, especially if you know where your target lives. And I highly doubt that he was under around-the-clock surveillance.
Second hypothesis: it was a clever false flag operation. Motive? Make Russia look extremely bad in western eyes. Timing is really good, not only you have the upcoming World Cup, but also it would allow you to divert populace attention from the Brexit debacle. And with Brexit US influence in Europe has took a hit, Russia was warming relations with Germany and France (situation around Nordstream 2 is the most prominent example), everyone got tired from the war in Eastern Ukraine, more and more voices urged removal of mutually damaging economic sanctions between Russia and EU. Why the Russian intelligence officers were involved? Skripal could've made contact with them and offer some information. Yes, it contradicts the point that it's unlikely he had one, but I guess in intelligence you shake all trees you have, even unlikely ones. Why those homeless people died? I admit don't have a good explanation to this one. A cynic could said that such operation without dead bodies could've had smaller impact in the information war or it could've been an unfortunate collateral damage.
As for the Bellingcat report, I hope you understand that it's hardly an independent source, right?
Well said.
I'm pleased that someone would counter the usual "Russia did it" narrative, although I note your inevitable downvotes.
I read HN for the informed tech commentary, and I had always assumed that people who are smart at tech, would also be smart/rational in non-tech as well. But honestly, when it comes to Russia or Trump, HN is just as much an echo chamber as reddit.
I'm pleased that someone would counter the usual "Russia did it" narrative, although I note your inevitable downvotes.
I read HN for the informed tech commentary, and I had always assumed that people who are smart at tech, would also be smart/rational in non-tech as well. But honestly, when it comes to Russia or Trump, HN is just as much an echo chamber as reddit.
Yes. There is.
That's for a judge and jury to decide, I guess?
We're talking about governments that dump tens of millions of dollars into ESP and LSD mind control research without so much as a black budget rounding error. I think in that context speculating on geopolitics using sources like Belingcat means fuck all.
We're talking about governments that dump tens of millions of dollars into ESP and LSD mind control research without so much as a black budget rounding error. I think in that context speculating on geopolitics using sources like Belingcat means fuck all.
Ah yes, the usual "deny everything", and when denial doesn't work anymore just say "ah but they deserved it", no? That's the standard procedure.
"Judge and jury for our friends, poisoned tea for our enemies."
"Judge and jury for our friends, poisoned tea for our enemies."
> Judge and jury for our friends, poisoned tea for our enemies.
I think you're extremely confused. The nation that poisons their enemies with tea doesn't have judges and juries. They have magistrates who serve at the pleasure of an executive that just extended (aka eliminated) term limits to keep himself in power. Judges and juries for everyone is what separates us from them.
You do realize that calling every internet comment an active measure desensitizes everyone and makes those active measures more effective, right? Case in point: American politics since McCain leaked the Steele report.
Edit: Nice to see you edited out your accusation.
I think you're extremely confused. The nation that poisons their enemies with tea doesn't have judges and juries. They have magistrates who serve at the pleasure of an executive that just extended (aka eliminated) term limits to keep himself in power. Judges and juries for everyone is what separates us from them.
You do realize that calling every internet comment an active measure desensitizes everyone and makes those active measures more effective, right? Case in point: American politics since McCain leaked the Steele report.
Edit: Nice to see you edited out your accusation.
> I think you're extremely confused
I think you missed the irony in it.
You're not wrong about the 2nd point, it's part of what makes it effective; be oblivious and you'll believe everything or be cynical and believe nothing.
(And yes I edit my comments for typos, rewordings or when I think I was uncharitable regarding the original comment)
I think you missed the irony in it.
You're not wrong about the 2nd point, it's part of what makes it effective; be oblivious and you'll believe everything or be cynical and believe nothing.
(And yes I edit my comments for typos, rewordings or when I think I was uncharitable regarding the original comment)
[deleted]
[deleted]
The worst position to be in. A minor figure whose life isn't worth a war, wanted dead by Putin. I can't see how you guard against that. That will ruin your soul and sap your energy even if you do continually fend it off.
As a matter of national policy, you’ve got to incur a heavier price on Russia for this stuff, although it will be hard for the Czechs alone to do it.
Why? Because if becoming mayor means that you’re likely to be assassinated, then your country will be sapped of all political talent overnight. You can’t let a foreign nation hold your internal affairs hostage, much less with violence.
What exactly would count as a proportionate response is beyond my level of creativity, and is left as an exercise to the reader.
Why? Because if becoming mayor means that you’re likely to be assassinated, then your country will be sapped of all political talent overnight. You can’t let a foreign nation hold your internal affairs hostage, much less with violence.
What exactly would count as a proportionate response is beyond my level of creativity, and is left as an exercise to the reader.
Exactly, this is where the strength in numbers and economical power of the EU comes into play. EU commisions should contact the Russian foregin ministry and demand a full response immidiately.
EU needs Russian oil and gas they can't put up a serious fight
At the current hydrocarbon pricing, they can heat their homes with top grade gasoline. Western elites need to stop inventing excuses not to fight.
EU making itself energy independent whilst still buying from Russia would improve things mightily.
> What exactly would count as a proportionate response is beyond my level of creativity, and is left as an exercise to the reader.
Russia conducted acts of war on NATO soil multiple times. An equivalent response is warranted.
Crimea comes to mind.
Russia conducted acts of war on NATO soil multiple times. An equivalent response is warranted.
Crimea comes to mind.
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO.
Ukraine isn't, Britain is, Germany is, Austria is, Poland is, Czech is. Montenegro was about to ascend into it.
Crimea comes to mind.
This is the point I was refuting.
This is the point I was refuting.
Yes, it's not a NATO territory, but a soft target.
If you want to nullify the whatever little political capital Russian political establishment has left, there is no better target.
See how they (putinists) spin it: they say to Russians that all hardships you endure will be rewarded with a glorious military victory, and greatness.
Seeing Russia return to back muddied waters of nineties, when Chechen, and Tojikistan wars were on the news 24/7 will annihilate what little support they have from the population and elites.
The West needs to show Russians that their conscripts will be dying for nothing.
If you want to nullify the whatever little political capital Russian political establishment has left, there is no better target.
See how they (putinists) spin it: they say to Russians that all hardships you endure will be rewarded with a glorious military victory, and greatness.
Seeing Russia return to back muddied waters of nineties, when Chechen, and Tojikistan wars were on the news 24/7 will annihilate what little support they have from the population and elites.
The West needs to show Russians that their conscripts will be dying for nothing.
Yes, it's not a NATO territory
It would have helped your argument if it was factually correct.
It would have helped your argument if it was factually correct.
You know, Russians risked war for things way smaller.
The entire calculus of people in Kremlin is made on the idea that they know where the West will chicken out, and attack there.
This attack was a direct result of West allowing Russia to slowly eroding its bottom line.
It is the famous saying "First they came for..." except here we talk about fates of entire countries, and nations.
The entire calculus of people in Kremlin is made on the idea that they know where the West will chicken out, and attack there.
This attack was a direct result of West allowing Russia to slowly eroding its bottom line.
It is the famous saying "First they came for..." except here we talk about fates of entire countries, and nations.
[deleted]
throw3737(3)