Hacker News Reader

This point about Theresa May doesn't make sense. She's the Prime Minister of the UK. She has access to intelligence before it goes on the public record (and to intelligence that never goes on the public record). And whatever the timeline, we now know definitely that the Russian government was behind the poisoning, so she wasn't wrong.

How do you know that the Russian government was behind it?

You're not going to get an answer to this question, on this site.

I'm Russian. For a while, I shared the mentality that my country was just in a bad spot, but it would dig itself out. Especially during and after the 2011 protests.

Then 2014 came. I was wrong. Russia is exactly what the majority of its citizens want it to be. And what they want it to be is something that others are afraid of.

I hope that the globe is capable of separating the Russian people, 99.99% of whom are not calling the shots as far as geopolitics go, from the country's plutocrats, who do call them.

Likewise, I hope the globe (external to the US) is capable of separating Trump from Americans.

I think you both have valid points. Russia is not always a good global citizen. It’s had a history of ignoring protocol if it got in their way. They have had cheerleaders when they were Soviet, they have a few chearleaders now (ME, for example).

But we, in the West, and countries aligned with the West, fail to understand their motives. Like China, they have internal motives that while they look like they are strategizing against the West in particular, at times it’s just due to internal issues.

Russia didn’t anex Crimea to poke the West. They took it because not having it exposed them militarily (as well as domestically made them looked weak).

For all his faults, Kissinger understands those things better than most public figures in their public speaking (are willing to admit, at least).

> But we, in the West anc countries aligned with the West fail to understand their motives.

It's dangerous to assume this only holds true for one side, imho it's much more likely all the involved players think like that and act accordingly.

Case in point: Many Russian people also don't understand "Western motives" and they actually feel backstabbed due to cultural differences leading to, rather massive, geopolitical misunderstandings like that whole "No NATO Eastward Expansion" promise during German reunification talks. [0]

While Russians think "A word is a word", most Western responses to this pretty much boil down to a lawyered "nothing was ever ratified" response, which might be formally correct but is the diplomatic equivalent of flipping somebody off you just scammed.

There are so many barriers at work here, not just in terms of language, but also the cultural context, also ain't helping that pretty much everybody is running communication and information interference, so finding common ground is actively fought against.

[0]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-ex...

> They took it because not having it exposed them militarily

Ok, I'll bait - it exposed them to what?

It's advantageous to have a warm deep water port [Sevastopol] so you can mobilize your navy easily in the middle of winter --as well as allows for the trade of good during winter months-- both things which allow offensive and defensive options.

They already had a warm deep water port there before Sevastopol.

Any other "exposures"?

it's an uphill battle, even the HN audience, at first glance consisting of people capable of independent thinking, is brainwashed and uncritical beyond belief.

The last straw for me was when Theresa May declared, without any doubt, that the Russian state had attempted to assassinate two British citizens using nerve agents (10 days after the fact, before the conclusion of any investigation and without any concrete evidence to implicate Russia).

I don't follow you here. The toxin in question is known, or at least widely assumed, to be produced and controlled exclusively by state-sanctioned facilities in Russia.

So, scenario one is that Putin's agents committed the assassination attempt. That's obviously bad.

Scenario two is that Putin has lost control of his country's WMDs, and that they are being deployed in foreign countries by rogue actors without his permission. That's arguably even worse.

So, which is more likely, in your opinion?

Except that Iran [1] and the US [2] have successfully synthesized Novichok, and a Cornell professor of organic chemistry stated that any organic chemist with state-backing could synthesize the agent [3].

[1] http://www.spectroscopynow.com/details/ezine/1591ca249b2/Ira...

[2] https://medium.com/@gregclay/usa-synthesized-novichok-in-199...

[3] https://twitter.com/davidbcollum/status/998613563680882694?l...

(Shrug) I'm sure both countries are more than up to the technical challenge of synthesizing small quantities of pretty much anything in a research laboratory. But why would either country have sent people to the UK to assassinate the Skripals and pin it on Russians? What's the motive?

Are the Swiss in on it, too? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-russia/russian-agen...