Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Russian TV anchor warns 'traitors' not to settle in Britain" video.

  1. Not a good idea to be a dissident in Russia, as you may disappear, be assassinated or die in mysterious circumstances. Russia criminals and oligarch supporters of Putin may find the UK an unpleasant place to live and not the best place to stash you wealth.
    10
  2. Sib Student I wonder how Russia would react if English traitors were executed on Russian streets? You would think the Russians would be more concerned about the spy's that they have yet to find.
    2
  3. Nurdaulet Suleimenov one countries traitor is another's hero freedom fighter. However, I understand that the espionage community have rules of engagement, and once a spy is caught and exchanged he/she are out of the game and should be free from further retribution. If Russia is behind this action, then they have breach the rules, making future exchanges unlikely and opening a path for tit-for-tat assassinations.
    1
  4. Nurdaulet Suleimenov Russia does not seem to disguise between freedom fighters, dissidents and spys. All appeared to be targeted for assignation equally. Not content with simply killing them, Russia seems intent in sending a message, why else chose such exotic weapons to conduct the murders. There appears to be no regard to the collateral damage or the innocent lives lost. Polonium and Novichok-5 are not exactly precise weapons. There are as indiscriminate as a bomb, they differ from a bomb in that they make it clear there must be state involvement in the killings. At least the bulgarians where more inventive when they murdered Gyorgy Markov. There weapon of choice was both precise and sufficiently high tech to have required state level involvement.
    1
  5. Epsilon the trick is for everyone to know who authorised the attack, but without providing any proof. By using a high tech weapon, in this case a nerve agent, it make clear that a state must be behind the attack, since only a state has the resources to manufacture the weapon and the organisation to carried out the attack. By denying responding the onus is placed on the UK to produce definitive proof of guilt. All the circumstantial evidence indicates Russian involvement, so all concerned know who ordered the attack, they just can't prove it with indisputable evidence. The message is sent without any real risk of retribution or justice. So Russia cannot be held to account as there is always an element of doubt. The Israeli government is thought to use similar methods. There enemies have a habit of dying in mysterious circumstances, but there is never any evidence linking back to the Israeli state and they always deny involvement. The most obvious examples are the assassination of the inventor of the super gun or the elimination of those in involved in the attack on the Israeli olympic athletes. The purpose of such messages is to act as a deterrent, warning those who might betray the state that they will be killed no matter where they seek sanctuary. One reason the UK is so often involved is because the UK accepts so many of these dissidents/(criminals?) Into the UK. These Russians are often very rich former oligarchs who have fallen out with Putin and are now critical of the Russian state. They bring with them Russian money which is stored/(laundered) in UK banks, out of the reach of the Russian state. The UK has nothing to gain from picking a fight with Russia. As to Iraqi wmd, In that case I was never convinced by the UK government arguments and campaigned against UK involvement in that war. One reason for believing the government this time is that the UK is very unlikely to want to a war with Russia, it would almost certainly lose without NATO involvement and if NATO became involved it would quickly escalate to World War III.
    1