Yesterday at Westminster, Theresa May made perhaps the most momentous statement of her political career.
In a dramatic scene in the Commons, she effectively accused the Russian state of an act of war by instructing its military intelligence agency, the GRU, to assassinate the defector Sergei Skripal in March.
Backed up by a wealth of irrefutable evidence about the two Russian intelligence agents who carried out the assignment, which ultimately resulted in the death of a British citizen and three other serious poisoning cases, May's assertion has huge implications, not only for Britain's relations with the rogue Russian regime, but also for European and Western foreign policy as a whole.
The Salisbury incident is truly shocking. It is the first time that a Briton has been killed on our home soil by a chemical weapon deployed by a foreign power. Yet until it happened, Britain seemed utterly indifferent to the brutality of Vladimir Putin's government.
Theresa May accused the Russian state of an act of war by instructing its military intelligence agency, the GRU, to assassinate the defector Sergei Skripal in March
After Putin authorised another well- publicised assault on British soil in 2006, when ex-Russian secret policeman Alexander Litvinenko was killed with a radioactive poison in London, the initial shock and anger soon fell away to apathy, thanks to the feebleness of our Government's response.
True, the British authorities were quick to name the Russian suspects, but the speed of this early announcement was not matched by resolute action from the Government.
Huffing and puffing in Whitehall produced half-measures, which can only have reassured the Kremlin and Russian spymasters that they could get away with assassination.
Since then we have all become aware of the litany of charges against Russia, like its seizure of Crimea, its blood-soaked intervention in Syria on the side of President Assad's tyranny and its shooting-down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over rebel-held Ukraine in 2014.
But all those atrocities happened abroad, it was argued. They were nothing to do with us, so a slap on the wrists would do.
Alexander Petrov (R) and Ruslan Boshirov, who are wanted by British police in connection with the nerve agent attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia
In contrast, from the start of the Skripal case, the Prime Minister has been far tougher, imposing sanctions, expelling Russian diplomats, galvanising Nato, and even winning the support of Donald Trump's White House and the EU for her actions.
Admittedly, this was partly because the potential consequence of the Salisbury poisoning were even more serious than the Litvinenko case, given that Novichok put hundreds of lives at risk.
Nevertheless, our Government has, despite all its problems with Brexit, displayed a commendable spirit of resolution that has been all too absent until now.
Through her clear-sighted resolution, Theresa May has mounted a direct challenge to Putin's regime.
And although it has taken six months to name the alleged perpetrators, it has been worth the wait.
Thanks to the thoroughness of the investigation, the sheer weight of incriminating material she was able to announce in the Commons means that the Russian state cannot slide away from its responsibility for this crime.
What her statement also did yesterday was to blow apart the absurd conspiracy theories about the Salisbury assault that have been circulating, many of them promoted by Putin's regime or by Kremlin sympathisers.
The evidence, gathered by 250 detectives from 11,000 hours of CCTV footage, shows incontestably where the blame lies. This raises the question as to why the Kremlin resorted to such an act. The answer lies in Putin's security policy, which is so important to his macho political persona and the image of his regime's invincibility.
As a former KGB intelligence officer himself, he has made ruthlessness a central part of his strongman reputation, thereby enhancing his appeal among the Russian people.
When he first came to power in 2000 on his election as Russian president, there were profound weaknesses in the country's security agencies, epitomised by the defections of agents like Litvinenko and Skripal.
Since March, it has often been asked why Skripal, a former double agent, should still be a target, so many years after Vladimir Putin (pictured) let him out of the Gulag
So much information was leaking after the fall of communism that Western intelligence thought that they had crippled Russia's GRU agency, giving MI6 and the CIA a window directly into Russian policy-making which helped them to predict the Kremlin's actions.
But Putin changed all that through a pitiless crackdown. Internal security was vastly improved and leaks closed.
The CIA has privately admitted that many of its contacts in Moscow have gone silent. Some have disappeared. Others simply do not respond to efforts to contact them.
Dealing mercilessly with the defectors is an essential part of that security crackdown.
Since March, it has often been asked why Skripal, a former double agent, should still be a target, so many years after Putin let him out of the Gulag and allowed him to retire to Britain. It appears that Putin's intelligence services have decided that letting defectors sleep soundly at night offers too much temptation for others to follow suit.
Kill one, frighten 10,000 is an old tactic, and one that the Russians seem to have adopted. Washington certainly believes that putting the fear of God into potential double-agents was the real reason for poisoning Sergei Skripal.
Yet the Salisbury attack may also reflect Putin's wider, geopolitical strategy, with its focus on dividing the West through surprise, propaganda and intimidation. Years ago he decided the West, particularly America and Britain, wanted to get rid of his regime.
Instead of asking what he could do to allay Western concerns, he adopted the opposite course by using Russian wealth from the country's energy resources, plus the long experience of Soviet spycraft, to mount campaigns of disinformation and denial.
Until Salisbury, that strategy appeared to be working.
But the Novichok assault led to an unprecedented act of unity, due in part to the British Government's resolve.
The West hung together and backed Britain. The question now is whether this accord will last. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that she would be trying to mobilise the EU to harden sanctions on Russia and co-ordinate counter-measures against Russian intelligence operations in Europe.
That could be easier said than done. The wall of unity is already showing signs of cracking. Apart from the awkwardness created by Brexit, Putin's policy of divide and conquer is also having an impact, for the Russian president has been romancing allies in the EU.
Last month, he was a guest at the Austrian foreign minister's wedding, and Vienna's Right-wing government is one of the loudest voices in the EU clamouring for improving relations with Moscow.
In Italy, the new government is led by a critic of sanctions against Russia, so imposing new ones is unlikely to win Rome's support.
Yet Britain cannot possibly let the Salisbury attack slide away into unpunished oblivion as it did the Litvinenko case.
The need for action is all the more important because, worryingly, the balance of global power is sliding away from the West. The U.S. Britain and the EU are still economically potent, of course, but the rise of China as both an economic and military superpower adds to the challenge posed by Russia and other states.
Even Turkey, a member of Nato, is moving away from the West under President Erdogan. The fact is that the Salisbury outrage is a graphic indicator that the world is becoming a less stable place. It was a rare but disturbing episode that exposed the nature of the escalating global war between spy agencies.
In its wake, that war is likely to intensify.
Which makes it all the more imperative that the Government is robust and vigilant — and that the West remains resolute and united in the face of Putin's ruthlessness.
MARK ALMOND is the director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford.
Link hienalouca.com
https://hienalouca.com/2018/09/06/mark-almond-why-i-fear-the-truly-terrifying-prospect-of-an-escalating-global-war/
Main photo article Yesterday at Westminster, Theresa May made perhaps the most momentous statement of her political career.
In a dramatic scene in the Commons, she effectively accused the Russian state of an act of war by instructing its military intelligence agency, the GRU, to assassinate the defector Sergei...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves US News HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/09/06/01/4FBC591F00000578-6136985-image-a-9_1536195099217.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий