The security consultant who has worked for the company that compiled the controversial dossier on Donald Trump was close to the Russian double agent poisoned last weekend, it has been claimed.
Give it a few days and we’ll start finding out this guy was tied in with Clintons, and the story will disappear in a puff of smoke with only conspiracy theorists mentioning his name ever again. With good reason: associates of the Clintons winding up dead is hardly newsworthy, is it? Might as well run a report every time it rains in Wales.
Slightly more seriously, I’m going to buck the trend again. On the one hand I’m in agreement with some of my commenters: Britain should not allow Russian agents (assuming it was them) to go around murdering people willy-nilly with polonium and nerve gas on its soil. For starters, the possibility of collateral damage is great; the policeman who first handled the couple is critically ill in hospital, and this is appalling.
But a spy being killed by the Russians? Okay, the chap worked for us so he’s on our side. But the Russians don’t see it that way, and understandably so. To them, he’s a filthy traitor. Did the information he passed on to the British result in any Russians being killed or imprisoned? It’s hard to imagine his treachery was harmless. So let’s flip this around. Would we be outraged if MI6 had arranged for Kim Philby or Guy Burgess to be knocked off in Moscow once they’d betrayed the west and fled to the Soviet Union? On the contrary, I’d consider it a duty of the British government to try.
The outrage here isn’t really that Russia tried to kill a former spy. The outrage is that the British government let a former double agent wander around Salisbury oblivious to the fact someone still wanted him dead. I don’t think they even gave him a new identity, let alone a security detail. Who was in charge of this? Or is there a gentleman’s agreement that Russia has breached whereby spies who’ve been handed back in a swap are off-limits for retribution? Britain has a duty to protect those who cross over to work for them, as well as the public at large. This duty goes beyond expecting the Russians not to play dirty, and they’ve been negligent. How did someone even get a nerve agent into the country? Isn’t that a scenario they should be guarding against? Perhaps the security services should spend less time hounding British citizens for saying hurtful things on the internet and start doing the job they’re supposed to. We can be sure the Russians are doing theirs.
UPDATE
From the Moscow Times (H/T Tim Johnson):
Skripal was not just any spy, though, but a former insider, a GRU officer who allegedly blew the cover of some 300 Russian agents.
There’s 300 suspects right there. It is quite possible this had nothing to do with the Russian government at all. Let’s just say that had Bowe Bergdahl been Russian instead of American, he’d likely be found dead and the government with a clean pair of hands.
MI6 have spent the last twenty years looking elsewhere. Russia was put on the back seat and left alone. Me thinks that prioritise are shifting again. The wheel turns and life goes on. (For some).
Good spin though. Why the he’ll can’t paid journalists put an intelligent article together like yourself. I am frequently surprised by unpaid bloggers outdoing journalists.
It’s fairly basic. Anyone, Russians incuded, legally in the state is entitled to protection by the state.
On matters secretive: Years ago, a bloke I knew brought back to this country a copy of the book “Spycatcher” by Peter Wright, which was banned for sale in the UK as it criticised our glorious intelligence service.
I was loaned the book (having, of course, objected most strenuously that our lords and masters have every right to ban such treasonous nonsense) and — reluctantly — felt obliged to read it before returning it and emphasising how terrible such an act of, er, smuggling was. I recall very little of the book except that Wright claimed that MI5 were so cack-handed they would send a car to watch the Russian embassy with two men in it, on the very proper basis that two men sat in a car could not get up to any hanky-panky.
Wright made the point that a man and a woman in a car would attract far less attention from the Russkies and look completely normal in western society whereas with two men it would look like they were, possibly, watching the building. Naturally, common sense ruled and the two men carried on sitting and watching. I imagine of course the Soviets never noticed a thing.
Would we be outraged if MI6 had arranged for Kim Philby or Guy Burgess to be knocked off in Moscow once they’d betrayed the west and fled to the Soviet Union? On the contrary, I’d consider it a duty of the British government to try.
Actually, I think it would be seen as quite ungentlemanly to kill, extrajudicially and simply for revenge, a double who had been taken off the board and therefore was not capable of doing any more harm (killing them before they could be debriefed and give up more information, yes; but once they were done?).
Or a snatch and put on trial, that would be fine.
Or is there a gentleman’s agreement that Russia has breached whereby spies who’ve been handed back in a swap are off-limits for retribution
It does seem a bit off. A bit like buying something and then stealing back the money you paid for it with.
I would say it would definitely make people less likely to swap with the Russians in future, with the consequent damage to the morale of Russian spies (you’re going to think much more carefully about what risks you take if you know you’re not going to be swapped back because nobody trusts Russia to keep their end of the bargain).
Maybe he didn’t want a new identity? You can’t force it on someone.
Years ago, a bloke I knew brought back to this country a copy of the book “Spycatcher” by Peter Wright, which was banned for sale in the UK as it criticised our glorious intelligence service.
I remember the fuss about Spycatcher when it came out. Then I remember more fuss about David Shayler mouthing off, then Stella Rimington publishing a book. This told me spycraft in the UK is no longer a serious matter. Do you think the Russian allow spies to publish books?
Also, maybe they didn’t smuggle a nerve agent into the country, maybe they manufactured it here? That’s even more chilling!
Maybe he didn’t want a new identity?
In hindsight, offering him the new name of Jimmy Saville was a mistake.
Do you think the Russian allow spies to publish books?
Thing is, without a glavlit, you can’t actually stop ex-spies from publishing books (they tried using the OSA with Spycatcher, but the Australian publication, which of course they couldn’t stop, just made a laughing-stock of the law).
And this is a situation where the cure — opening the door to the state being allowed to decide what can be published — is worse than the disease.
Of course Wright had an axe to grind, but one hopes that the more responsible ex-spies publishing books are careful not to give away active information (that rather comprehensive history of the SIS that was published a few years ago stops in 1945 for this very reason).
“Perhaps the security services should spend less time hounding British citizens for saying hurtful things on the internet”
That’s basically true of every story involving the police or the security services these days.
I would say it would definitely make people less likely to swap with the Russians in future, with the consequent damage to the morale of Russian spies
Okay, why are we engaging with Russian spies in the first place? Does Russia really represent a serious threat these days? If not, then stop running double-agents in Russia. If it does, then treat Russia as a dangerous foreign entity and protect your double-agents at all costs. What Britain’s done is continue the spying on Russia (for whatever purpose) but not bothered with the security commensurate with an adversary such as Russia. A pretty half-arsed job, in other words. I blame diversity.
And this is a situation where the cure — opening the door to the state being allowed to decide what can be published — is worse than the disease.
Well, yes. But if you can’t stop your spies from blabbing their mouths off as soon as they retire, perhaps you shouldn’t be spying at all.
Well of course the lesson to be learned from this is that being “up” at one of the Oxbridge colleges for a year or three guarantees immunity from fatal retribution if one’s thinking about going into the spying trade. Maybe the world’s espionage organisations could consider paying for a few terms there as part of their induction & training for new recruits. Sort of like offering a health insurance plan. Certainly save them all the bother of prospecting amongst the undergraduates for nascent British traitors.
Maybe the Foreign Office could arrange a deferred payment scheme for the less wealthy countries as part of the Student Loan set-up. The FO is the government department looks after the interest of foreigners, isn’t it? Or is that now a Home Office responsibility?
“Or is there a gentleman’s agreement that Russia has breached whereby spies who’ve been handed back in a swap are off-limits for retribution?”
There is, and a bit more than just a Gentlemen’s Agreement.
The thing is, the Russkies are usually pretty good at honouring these sorts of bargain, which is another fact to toss into the evidence pot as to who really did this, as it doesn’t seem to be in the interests of Putin or the Russian intelligence organisations. FSB or GRU guys with a grudge, on the other hand.
The thing is, the Russkies are usually pretty good at honouring these sorts of bargain, which is another fact to toss into the evidence pot as to who really did this, as it doesn’t seem to be in the interests of Putin or the Russian intelligence organisations.
Exactly. If the rules of espionage have been broken in this instance, perhaps the perpetrators are not from the official espionage world.
FSB or GRU guys with a grudge, on the other hand.
Yes.
“possible this had nothing to do with the Russian government at all. ”
The use of nerve agents make them much more likely it was state-sponsored. You don’t buy it in the corner shop. Some of the cruder stuff to might be able to synthesise (and indeed the dosing appears to have been botched), but if you were a private citizen, why bother when there are much simpler ways.
Yes, Tim, let’s just give the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt and let bygones be bygones. Surely they wouldn’t try anything like that again now, would they?
False flag. CIA.