Should the UK Invoke Article 5 After Chemical Weapon Attack?

[Gaaz]

What they know so far is that the used chemical is 100% Russian made, since it's a known chemical that was exclusively made by the Russians themselves.
Military grade chemical weapons like that would not be easy to steal, so it was either directly used by the Russians or they made it available to someone willingly for use.

In both cases, Russia is directly responsible for such a weapon to be used on NATO soil. A hundred years ago, a war wouldve started by now. But since Russia can still nuke half the world on it's worst day, no one is that stupid today.

This logic has so many flaws in it... Let us look at Sarin gas for example. Does the fact that it was developed in Germany indicate that attacks in Syria were also a German attack? Same goes for Iraq? You also realize that details of manufacture and composition of the Novichok gas (samples were given to 16 countries) were given to UK and US a couple of decades ago? You also realize that UK has an active stockpile of chemical weapons of many types just 10 miles from the incident? Yes, I do mean that there was Novichok gas stockpile in a British lab just 10 miles from the incident. Also, VX (UK made brand of nerve agents) and Novichok symptoms are practically identical. Unless you can isolate the source, there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that it was either of them.
Also, some facts do not add up. Military grade nerve agents like VX and Novichok are supposed to be very fast acting. Somehow, victims were walking around, visiting cafes and parks while being exposed to it with a near lethal dose. Maybe something else was used? But the latter is open to debate, since there is no way to identify for certain the type of agent that was used.
Finally, a motive. Why would the Russians engage in this James Bond type shit? What purpose would it serve? Killing Skripal would be much easier when he was in a Russian prison for 6 years. Also, if killing was necessary and they (somehow) could not do it in prison, why wait 6 years after his release while he lived in Britain? I think that a "fatal robbery" would also be easier to pull off.

[Wilian]

It is Soviet-developed binary nerve agent.

Yeah and we totally do not know which state of the Soviets pulled the strings.

It was known after it was publicly published about in Russia in 1992...

Developed in 70s, thus decades.

How exactly is Russia "failed security" when Novichok production plant was in Uzbekistan? Can you explain it to me?

Obtusity isn't pretty but since you insist I refer to the first point.

And it was US who were the ones dismantling that particular plant; should they be held responsible?

As you continue on the road of obtusity, surely over the decades that plant was functional it also served as the sole storage.

[Warning]

This logic has so many flaws in it... Let us look at Sarin gas for example. Does the fact that it was developed in Germany indicate that attacks in Syria were also a German attack? Same goes for Iraq? You also realize that details of manufacture and composition of the Novichok gas (samples were given to 16 countries) were given to UK and US a couple of decades ago? You also realize that UK has an active stockpile of chemical weapons of many types just 10 miles from the incident? Yes, I do mean that there was Novichok gas stockpile in a British lab just 10 miles from the incident. Also, VX (UK made brand of nerve agents) and Novichok symptoms are practically identical. Unless you can isolate the source, there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that it was either of them.
Also, some facts do not add up. Military grade nerve agents like VX and Novichok are supposed to be very fast acting. Somehow, victims were walking around, visiting cafes and parks while being exposed to it with a near lethal dose. Maybe something else was used? But the latter is open to debate, since there is no way to identify for certain the type of agent that was used.

This isn't a court of law case against a citizen, it's a question of protecting national interests. Russian gas kills Russian traitor and the Russian government brags about it releasing statements that "traitors always end up dead somehow". That is clear enough to warrant response some response, though not an article 5 one. We do not need "100%" certainty, and it is suicidal to maintain that level of standards for veracity in your national security policy.

On the topic of why this isn't a case for article 5:

Article 5 in its wording specifically refers to an "armed attack". An armed attack is a very specific legal term that can be described as the most severe form of a "use of force". Using force in international relations is prohibited by article 2(4), but is not a grounds for invoking self defense or collective self defense by the victim state unless the level of force reaches that of an armed attack. The goal of this distinction is de-escalating violent conflicts and consequently the threshold for an armed attack is quite high. It's not specified by a certain amount of deaths or damages but is judged on a case by case basis. According to the Nicaragua case of the ICJ it must be evaluated on the basis of "scale and effects", but should go beyond something like "mere frontier incidents", which could also result in some minor casualties or limited destruction of property. So when you're talking about an armed attack you really need to be looking at an invasion of a somewhat significant military force, missile strikes, bombings or crippling cyber attacks that result in significant damage or death.

[Sorshen]

So you want WW3 ? Gl hf
Also, this chemichal gas, or whatever it was, was made in USSR. Do you know how many former Soviet republics are now independent countries? In any of those countries might be such weapon. So argument that it was made in ussr proves nothing. Do your homework better.
p.s. Personally im sure that it was we who did that, and i see nothing wrong in killing betrayers. But to blame someone you guys need better proofs.

Man, the propaganda machine is working wonderfully over there. You guys are proud of your 3rd world antics.

[Shalcker]

Yeah and we totally do not know which state of the Soviets pulled the strings.

It was broke in 90s and in no position to completely secure anything in it's former republics - with exception for nukes.

That's why Uzbekistan went for US funding to dismantle that facility. And it would be quite strange if US would not use this opportunity for other purposes; that's not how US usually acts.

Obtusity isn't pretty but since you insist I refer to the first point.

We are not in control of that plant for close to three decades; and, as far as i'm aware, Russia has no ongoing Chemical Weapons programs, and in fact finished destruction of everything we had in September 2017.

As you continue on the road of obtusity, surely over the decades that plant was functional it also served as the sole storage.

All Russian chemical weapons were declared and destroyed.

We're focusing on nukes as more efficient form of deterrence.

[Deleted]

The UK wont do much. Especially since Russia gives so many Donations to Parties like the Tories.

[Gaaz]

Maybe he only now leaked something that made him a clear threat. As for why kill him in such a conspicuous manner, to serve as a deterrent. You don't want it to look random, you want a clear message to other traitors.

If they would want to send a clear message, they would have done it Trotsky style - an ice pick to the head. Gassing someone non lethally is a bad job from whatever perspective you can look at it. Also, it just as well might be British gas, or belonging to another 3rd party. Thing is, we can not be sure, since there are stockpiles of that stuff a bicycle ride away from the incident location. And the fact that all medical reports are classified, no chemical analysis is available and poisoning seems atypical compared to the alleged agent's symptoms, does not give any credibility to the case.

[Shalcker]

This isn't a court of law case against a citizen, it's a question of protecting national interests. Russian gas kills Russian traitor and the Russian government brags about it releasing statements that "traitors always end up dead somehow".

No, that's not what Russian government said.

I think this tweet from Kovalev illustrates the point best:
Russia's official statements VS state TV in the past week:
Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman: It wasn't us.
State TV anchor: BUT THEY TOTALLY DESERVED IT!!!
FM spox: It's a baseless accusation.
State TV: DIE TRAITORS DIE!!!
FM spox: Stop blaming Russia.
State TV: BRING IT ON!!!!!!!

[Shalcker]

So, proper actions require going through proper channels first...

Guardian: Russia demands nerve agent samples in standoff with UK over poisoned spy

Moscow summons British ambassador as foreign minister denies Russian responsibility for attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Russia has summoned the UK’s ambassador to the foreign ministry in Moscow, as its foreign minister denied the country was behind last week’s nerve agent attack in Salisbury and said it would only cooperate in an investigation if it received samples of the agent.

“Russia is not responsible,” Sergei Lavrov said during a televised press conference that marked an escalation of the standoff with the UK over the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.

Lavrov also suggested Moscow would not comply with a Tuesday midnight deadline set by Theresa May to deliver an explanation or face retaliation. He said Moscow’s requests to see samples of the nerve agent had been turned down, which he called a violation of the chemical weapons convention outlawing the production of chemical weapons.

“We have already made our statement on this case,” he said. “Russia is ready to cooperate in accordance with the convention to ban chemical weapons if the United Kingdom will deign to fulfil its obligations according to the same convention.”

In his remarks, Lavrov said that under the convention, Russia would have 10 days to reply to an official accusation by the UK over the use of a banned substance within its borders.

His response reflected the broadly dismissive tone adopted by the Russian establishment on Tuesday.

“We have an enormous government here in Russia, it’s a global country, we have a mass of problems both internal and external,” Andrei Klimov, the deputy head of the Russian federation council’s foreign affairs committee, told the Guardian by telephone. “This entire story about your internal score-settlings and scandals doesn’t interest me.”

Separately, the Russian foreign ministry said it had summoned the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Laurie Bristow, according to reports in state media. Reached by phone, a representative for the British embassy in Moscow said Bristow would visit the foreign ministry on Tuesday for talks with Vladimir Titov, the first deputy minister for foreign affairs.

May told parliament on Monday it was “highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal”. She named the poison used as Novichok, a Soviet-era nerve agent, and heard suggestions that the UK should respond by revoking broadcasting licences to Russian media or increasing scrutiny on foreign investment from Russia.

[Themius]

So you want WW3 ? Gl hf
Also, this chemichal gas, or whatever it was, was made in USSR. Do you know how many former Soviet republics are now independent countries? In any of those countries might be such weapon. So argument that it was made in ussr proves nothing. Do your homework better.
p.s. Personally im sure that it was we who did that, and i see nothing wrong in killing betrayers. But to blame someone you guys need better proofs.

Your argument is dumb

"Oh it could be anyone because independent countries part of the Ussr made it... magically though this chemical made by the ussr just happens to kill all russian enemies. it's such a conincidence!"

[Shalcker]

Your argument is dumb

"Oh it could be anyone because independent countries part of the Ussr made it... magically though this chemical made by the ussr just happens to kill all russian enemies. it's such a conincidence!"

It is first time it was encountered, and samples haven't been independently verified yet (nor did they kill anyone yet).

You could just as well said "and affected just magically happen to be 10 miles from UK chemical weapons facility, what a coincidence"...

...i mean, if source would be that facility, and they are also the ones identifying it (as the only experts on the matter), wouldn't cover-up look exactly the same?

[Themius]

It is first time it was encountered, and samples haven't been independently verified yet (nor did they kill anyone yet).

You could just as well said "and affected just magically happen to be 10 miles from UK chemical weapons facility, what a coincidence"...

...i mean, if source would be that facility, and they are also the ones identifying it (as the only experts on the matter), wouldn't cover-up look exactly the same?

Now you're reaching it was made in the USSR and is known to be of their origin not the UK. Stop with the stupid arguments.

[Shalcker]

Now you're reaching it was made in the USSR and is known to be of their origin not the UK.

USSR produced them, that is true; but UK certainly had samples - that's how they, likely, can identify it despite it being designed to be unidentifiable and state secret.

What does USSR production from Uzbekistan has to do with modern Russia being source, however?

[caervek]

You seem very keen on defending the Russians. Why's that?

Technically he was defending the facts by correcting your misinformation.

- - - Updated - - -

What does USSR production from Uzbekistan has to do with modern Russia being source, however?

It's common in western media to say Russia when they mean Soviet.

Surely you remember the hilarity from a few years ago when they saw a Soviet tank in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine which was a type never sold outside the USSR and ran a story about how they had evidence of a Russian tank that had never been exported being in Ukraine XD

[Orby]

Teresa May wont do anything because she is a spineless corpse of a human being...

Should she though? Yes!

[Ripster42]

It would be interesting to see if the UK would be willing to sanction swift again to try to compel them to stop dealing with russia. And if anyone else would join them. I wrote my senators yesterday about starting public talks about it in the face of trump's lack of new sanctions 8 months after they overwhelmingly passed the legislature.

[Shalcker]

It would be interesting to see if the UK would be willing to sanction swift again to try to compel them to stop dealing with russia. And if anyone else would join them.

To block SWIFT you need 28 or so voting for it (as it happened with Iran), and Germany already said it is internal UK issue so others are unlikely to escalate.

[Deleted]

The US invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 Attacks, which called for a response against state and non-state actors in the attacks.

That was ilegal, that article doesn't cover non-state actors.

[schwarzkopf]

Just remember - Rex Tillerson was fired for just agreeing that the poison attacks were bad.

Russia and Trump are allies, Article 5 and NATO are no longer relevant - Trump has already threatened to walk away from NATO.

[Xarkan]

Personally I'm not sure why the EU didn't just ... 'surgically remove' Putin yet. Same for Trump tbh.

Because it would not end well..

Also Trump is an arse but he is a democratically elected leader of an ally country of most of the EU. The only ones that should remove him would be the US in a future election (or by law)