Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay says it’s “highly likely” that Russia responsible for the

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay says it’s “highly likely” that Russia responsible for the Salisbury attacks – the question now is what Britain will do

Theresa May said it was “highly likely” that Russia is responsible for the poisoning of a former Russian spy https://t.co/zYJzVi0ZIM

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,324
    First. We can not go to the World Cup.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,487
    2nd. Sounds like Corbyn may have made a major miss-step on all this. Not that his cult will care, but wider public might.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201
    Theresa May can forget about any robust backing from the US on this, of course. It’ll be from Europe that she gets most support.
  • Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    Mori finds 49% of voters want to leave the Customs Union with just 36% wanting to stay in a boost to May before the Commons vote on the issue

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/rise-those-saying-theresa-may-doing-good-job-handling-brexit-most-still-lack-confidence-her
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    FPT but relevant here too:
    Mr. Jessop, it's about the Greatness of Russia. In conflicts against weaker forces he uses military intervention. Against stronger forces he uses cyberwarfare to extremely good effect, and his critics both in his own country and overseas have an inexplicably short life expectancy.

    He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,535
    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544

    Theresa May can forget about any robust backing from the US on this, of course. It’ll be from Europe that she gets most support.

    Congress will back May even if the administration might be more circumspect.

    It also depends which bits of Europe you are talking about, Tsipras and Salvini are both pro Putin for example even if Macron and Merkel are more wary of the Russians
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    Mr. Meeks, it does sound heartening. Maybe once Corbyn's gone they'll have a leader who isn't a disgrace. It'd be nice.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470

    2nd. Sounds like Corbyn may have made a major miss-step on all this. Not that his cult will care, but wider public might.

    Completely out of step with the House and coming under fire from his own MP's
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470

    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.

    It has been an amazing debate with labour mp after labour mp complimenting TM and attacking Corbyn and some in stark terms.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,324

    Theresa May can forget about any robust backing from the US on this, of course. It’ll be from Europe that she gets most support.

    So long as they aren't worried about upsetting their gas supplier...
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,090

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    Most effective response would be a removal of Corbyn as Labour leader and a suspension of Brexit.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,090

    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.

    Mays problem comes when words need to be turned into actions though.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,182
    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    JonathanD said:

    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.

    Mays problem comes when words need to be turned into actions though.
    I think you will find on this she will act
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784
    calum said:
    Is that still going on, complete with fake tweets?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,324
    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Careful, you'll cause Remainers on here to have a heart attack saying things like that!

    I wonder if it has something to do with the upcoming election, but it's not like there's a danger of Putin losing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201

    JonathanD said:

    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.

    Mays problem comes when words need to be turned into actions though.
    I think you will find on this she will act

    What will she do? The UK needs international support to make any difference. Putin’s technology and financial investments in backing Trump and Brexit will pay dividends. He may be nasty, but time and again he’s shown how smart he is.

  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 181
    It would be nice if we could plant a highly explosive bomb under the Kremlin cabinet table to go off when they have their next meeting.
    More realistically, we could break off diplomatic relations, kick out all Russian nationals and freeze all Russian money in UK banks.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,133
    calum said:
    They can keep him. He can have Philby's old flat.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,535
    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.

    Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.

    They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,485
    tlg86 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Careful, you'll cause Remainers on here to have a heart attack saying things like that!

    I wonder if it has something to do with the upcoming election, but it's not like there's a danger of Putin losing.
    If in the aftermath of the election there are mass protests, Putin needs a pretext for a very heavy handed crackdown. The context of sabre-rattling from a Western power gives him the perfect excuse to denounce any protests as a coup attempt orchestrated from outside.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180

    Theresa May can forget about any robust backing from the US on this, of course. It’ll be from Europe that she gets most support.

    Canada would also be very firm I imagine. And the Dutch are still fuming about the passenger jet shooting.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,072
    edited March 12
    A statesman-like performance from Theresa May. Cometh the hour cometh the woman. A nice contrast to the rather hysterical comentary later by Laura Kuenssberg
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,968
    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470

    JonathanD said:

    Theresa May seems to have handled this very well today.

    It's striking just how ready so many Labour MPs are to go off the reservation. Should make for a lively time on Twitter this evening.

    Mays problem comes when words need to be turned into actions though.
    I think you will find on this she will act

    What will she do? The UK needs international support to make any difference. Putin’s technology and financial investments in backing Trump and Brexit will pay dividends. He may be nasty, but time and again he’s shown how smart he is.

    I am not going to speculate but wait and see what happens after wednesday.

    The debate has been amazing in it's unity across the house with attacks on Putin but also on Corbyn, even from many of his own MP's
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553

    FPT but relevant here too:
    Mr. Jessop, it's about the Greatness of Russia. In conflicts against weaker forces he uses military intervention. Against stronger forces he uses cyberwarfare to extremely good effect, and his critics both in his own country and overseas have an inexplicably short life expectancy.

    He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.

    And my response:
    That may be the strategy. The question is what he hopes to achieve from this tactic, which is rather extreme. It could be tied in to the election, sanctions, preventing spying, or something that we plebs outside the security forces are unaware of. Or all of the above.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    Roger said:

    A statesman-like performance from Theresa May. Cometh the hour cometh the woman. A nice contrast to the rather hysterical comentary later by Laura Kuenssberg

    I am proud of her today - she has been amazing
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,998
    The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other.

    George F. Kennan
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.

    Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.

    They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.

    Putin got Trump and Brexit, plus various smaller victories in places like Austria. The only real setback he’s had is Macron. He has invested Russian money and influence very wisely.

  • It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 202

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    I suspect that many of the Russian donors are anti-Putin UK residents. They do exist as Evening Standard readers will testify
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    edited March 12

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    Unfortunately they will keep taking the loot and assisting with keeping the laundering capital of the world in operation. The bluster will come to nothing , zilch , nada.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,998

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Finchley Road. Amber Rudd. Limited companies.

    Need I say more?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    If the money *has* come from Russian governmental sources, why give it back? Give it to something that would really p*ss Putin off, like AIDS charities. Or (say) for the World Service to increase broadcasts to Russia and surrounding states.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,232

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    May has a point that not all Russians are crooks, and therefore not all donations are dubious, but I think she should accept that it's better to remove all possible doubt and return the money.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    calum said:
    They can keep him. He can have Philby's old flat.
    Be far better if the crooks in Westminster who take the big loot from the Russians were put up methinks. Lots of looking for scapegoats coming up from hysterical Tories.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
    Well if the number of labour mps demanding it in todays debate is to go on it must be a runner. And the whole house including a mature contribution from Ian Blackford were in support of TM actions.

    Just Corbyn made a complete fool of himself and came under sustained attack from his own MP's

    It was a display of unity, apart from Corbyn , so missing from our politcs
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,985
    I see that Corbyn’s response was a total mess today. I’m seeing that he’s advocating dialogue with the Kremlin apparently....like what?????? After seeing that Russia Today spat with him and McDonnell I’m beginning to think it’s McDonnell who is actually more of a pragmatist out of the two.

    Although the fact that most Labour MPs don’t agree with him (Corbyn) and are publically saying so isn’t really new. This has been the case since 2015, moderates even triggered a leadership contest to try and get him out and it still didn’t happen.

    The moderates issue is that they don’t seem to have any real sway among the membership. That’s in part because they can’t provide an exciting alternative to Corbynism which inspires anyone. I can’t see a strongly neo-liberal Pro-EU stance winning a GE.

    Also, just wanted to say that I think JossiasJessop’s posts on the issue of sexual harassment in the previous thread are fantastic.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    They know we are soft marks, he was just proving a point given they have been giving him lots of stick recently. Pointing out who is the big dog.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,485
    edited March 12

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.

    Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.

    They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.

    Putin got Trump and Brexit, plus various smaller victories in places like Austria. The only real setback he’s had is Macron. He has invested Russian money and influence very wisely.

    True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.

    Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 763
    edited March 12

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553
    rcs1000 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Finchley Road. Amber Rudd. Limited companies.

    Need I say more?
    FRARLC? That's the FRA:RLC, or the Royal Coal Corp! My God! Putin's working with the Queen to bring back the coal industry! It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    Why not just empty the whole place, send them all packing.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,985

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.

    Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.

    They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.

    Putin got Trump and Brexit, plus various smaller victories in places like Austria. The only real setback he’s had is Macron. He has invested Russian money and influence very wisely.

    Yep. Bet he’ll be happy with the outcome of the elections in Italy recently as well.
  • malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    They can keep him. He can have Philby's old flat.
    Be far better if the crooks in Westminster who take the big loot from the Russians were put up methinks. Lots of looking for scapegoats coming up from hysterical Tories.
    Come off it, Malc. The Tories should absolutely be held to account for any cash from assorted Russians, but Salmond is equally open to criticism for his links to RT-as are any number of politicos from both left and right.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
    Well if the number of labour mps demanding it in todays debate is to go on it must be a runner. And the whole house including a mature contribution from Ian Blackford were in support of TM actions.

    Just Corbyn made a complete fool of himself and came under sustained attack from his own MP's

    It was a display of unity, apart from Corbyn , so missing from our politcs
    They should withdraw their license then.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,725
    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    glw said:

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    May has a point that not all Russians are crooks, and therefore not all donations are dubious, but I think she should accept that it's better to remove all possible doubt and return the money.
    LOL , how Tory , only the nice ones gave us money.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784
    glw said:

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    May has a point that not all Russians are crooks, and therefore not all donations are dubious, but I think she should accept that it's better to remove all possible doubt and return the money.
    The problem is returning it then has people claiming it was definitely then dirty money.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434
    The $64000 q is, is this an armed attack for purposes of NATO Article 5? Short answer, if 9/11 was (and everyone seems to agree it was) then so is this; it is a better candidate than 9/11 because the apparent involvement of a hostile state is more obvious and because of the use of a dedicated weapon of war rather than the repurposing of civilian aircraft. It is a weaker candidate because of the death toll (nil vs 3-4000), but the endangerment of a large number of civilians goes some way to redressing that balance.

    It is striking how much difference to the international law position there is between what actually happened, and having Skripal quietly knifed or shot, and it is difficult to believe this is unintentional.

    If TMay decides on Wednesday to "deem the Kremlin has carried out "unlawful use of force" on British territory," will she then notify the Security Council as she is required to do by Article 5 of the NATO treaty if this was indeed an armed attack?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,072

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    I think that that would be overkill. How about getting Jamie Carragher to spit at them.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    edited March 12

    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    They can keep him. He can have Philby's old flat.
    Be far better if the crooks in Westminster who take the big loot from the Russians were put up methinks. Lots of looking for scapegoats coming up from hysterical Tories.
    Come off it, Malc. The Tories should absolutely be held to account for any cash from assorted Russians, but Salmond is equally open to criticism for his links to RT-as are any number of politicos from both left and right.
    TFS, sure he needs to take a good hard look at it , but he is not getting £820K for that crap show, the Tories are up to their necks in all this stuff and chickens are coming home to roost.

    PS: Would be great if we had some real politicians rather than money making grubbers, shedloads of them desperate to get cash from RT and any other outfit that will cough.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    edited March 12
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    Why not just empty the whole place, send them all packing.
    Home as Foreign Secretary was informed about the number of KGB and GRU hostile intelligence operations in the UK by a KGB defector.

    So he kicked out all 105 members of the KGB and GRU at the Soviet embassy in London with any replacements coming at the expense of the remaining staff. The Russians complained angrily but were less problematic in future.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,253

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    Why not just empty the whole place, send them all packing.
    Home as Foreign Secretary was informed about the number of KGB and GRU hostile intelligence operations in the UK by a KGB defector.

    So he kicked out all 105 members of the KGB and GRU at the Soviet embassy in London with any replacements coming at the expense of the remaining staff. The Russians complained angrily but were less problematic in future.
    Sending them all packing would be a real message.
  • Roger said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    I think that that would be overkill. How about getting Jamie Carragher to spit at them.
    Judging by the amount of gob Carragher can produce, that'd probably be classified as a chemical attack in it's own right!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,324
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553
    edited March 12
    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
    They are licensed. If it can be proved that they're non-compliant with their licence, then it can be removed. I don't know enough about the licences to know if that's feasible.

    Iran Press TV lost their licence years ago.

    Edit:
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/20/iran-press-tv-loses-uk-licence
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,119
    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    I agree but can't the UK response be summed up as 'Too much, too late?

    Years ago, the police called allegedly 'suspicious' deaths 'of Russian exiles suicides'. Why ... lack of funding or instructions from on high? If any of the ~10 deaths had been followed up, would he even have got as far as this collateral damage (innocent bystanders contaminated by chemical weapons, businesses badly damaged financially, two more (near) deaths.)

    This piece makes me wonder if US action caused the UK authorities to start asking people where they got their unexplained £££: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2018-02/russia-oligarchs-united-kingdom-corruption-accountability.html

    As any Private Eye reader picks up, the default standard of financial regulation is for the US authorities to start court proceedings about when the UK begins an investigation, i.e. the UK likes 'light touch' regulation and the US takes it a bit more seriously.

    I've cut & pasted from the previous thread so hope for no mishaps...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784

    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
    They are licensed. If it can be proved that they're non-compliant with their licence, then it can be removed. I don't know enough about the licences to know if that's feasible.

    Iran Press TV lost their licence years ago.
    My brief viewing of RussiaToday is that they are a lot more subtle approach to propaganda and probably is well within the compliance (compared to PressTV which was a total disgrace).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,463
    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy.
    If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.

    It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784

    twitter.com/spajw/status/973267549206007808?s=21

    Corbyn has a foreign policy?
  • glwglw Posts: 4,232

    The problem is returning it then has people claiming it was definitely then dirty money.

    Sure, but keeping it will simply cloud the issue indefinitely. Give the money back, don't let it be a distraction and feed the conspiracy theories.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,072

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    Russia had no great need to dispose of this former spy. If they did so, they could have done so in ways that looked like an accident or where it would have been difficult to link the death to the Russian government. So we can conclude that Russia intends to be blamed for this, with only minimal deniability that will satisfy only those on the payroll.

    Why might they do this? It's a statement, like leaving a horse's head in a bed. Russia is sending a message to Britain - and others - that Russia is powerful enough to do this with impunity.

    They're probably right, sadly. With the west more broken down into individual states than at any time in my adult life, the Russian policy of divide and conquer is proving very effective.
    You do get the impression that it's a very smart adversary. Could it be BLOFELD!
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,182

    glw said:

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    May has a point that not all Russians are crooks, and therefore not all donations are dubious, but I think she should accept that it's better to remove all possible doubt and return the money.
    The problem is returning it then has people claiming it was definitely then dirty money.
    That is a problem, but another one is: if the money did come from a dubious source, why give it back to them to use again? If tainted money needs to be disposed of, better to give it to some other place. Medecin sans frontiers?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756

    malcolmg said:

    calum said:
    If he does he may find it will not be broadcast into the UK
    I doubt they can just shut down licensed news outlets, UK is not a banana republic
    They are licensed. If it can be proved that they're non-compliant with their licence, then it can be removed. I don't know enough about the licences to know if that's feasible.

    Iran Press TV lost their licence years ago.
    My brief viewing of RussiaToday is that they are a lot more subtle approach to propaganda and probably is well within the compliance (compared to PressTV which was a total disgrace).
    Flying out of St. Petersburg airport last year, they had a big display in English saying things like "Lost an election? Blame us!"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    brendan16 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
    Most of those ISIS returnees will be either imprisoned or monitored though
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,253
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201

    twitter.com/spajw/status/973267549206007808?s=21

    Corbyn has a foreign policy?

    Yep - back any anti-Western cause or regime. It’s been the same for 40 years.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    Why not just empty the whole place, send them all packing.
    Home as Foreign Secretary was informed about the number of KGB and GRU hostile intelligence operations in the UK by a KGB defector.

    So he kicked out all 105 members of the KGB and GRU at the Soviet embassy in London with any replacements coming at the expense of the remaining staff. The Russians complained angrily but were less problematic in future.
    Sending them all packing would be a real message.
    I certainly agree a tough message needs to be sent
  • glwglw Posts: 4,232

    True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.

    Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.

    Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,253
    AnneJGP said:

    glw said:

    The 1st thing May should do is give back the £820,000 received by the Tory party from Russian sources.If she were to do that,she just might do what some are advising her to do-hit the oligarchs in the wallet using money laundering regs and the proceeds of crime legislation for the commandeering of oligarch property in the capital.It's a chance for the Tories to prove they are not corrupt.

    May has a point that not all Russians are crooks, and therefore not all donations are dubious, but I think she should accept that it's better to remove all possible doubt and return the money.
    The problem is returning it then has people claiming it was definitely then dirty money.
    That is a problem, but another one is: if the money did come from a dubious source, why give it back to them to use again? If tainted money needs to be disposed of, better to give it to some other place. Medecin sans frontiers?
    The British Ukranian Friendship Society?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544

    HYUFD said:

    Well what’s the point of Trident if we’re not going to use it against Russia in these circumstances?

    We have casus belli.

    The assassination of a defecting Russian agent is not an excuse to start a nuclear war.

    We should simply do what Home did in 1964 in similar circumstances and expel every known FSB (KGB then) agent from the Russian consulate and embassy
    I agree but can't the UK response be summed up as 'Too much, too late?

    Years ago, the police called allegedly 'suspicious' deaths 'of Russian exiles suicides'. Why ... lack of funding or instructions from on high? If any of the ~10 deaths had been followed up, would he even have got as far as this collateral damage (innocent bystanders contaminated by chemical weapons, businesses badly damaged financially, two more (near) deaths.)

    This piece makes me wonder if US action caused the UK authorities to start asking people where they got their unexplained £££: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2018-02/russia-oligarchs-united-kingdom-corruption-accountability.html

    As any Private Eye reader picks up, the default standard of financial regulation is for the US authorities to start court proceedings about when the UK begins an investigation, i.e. the UK likes 'light touch' regulation and the US takes it a bit more seriously.

    I've cut & pasted from the previous thread so hope for no mishaps...
    I think May might take a tougher line on that than Blair and Cameron too
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434
    Nigelb said:

    AnneJGP said:

    The question on previous thread is very interesting indeed: why did Russia do this and why now?

    It goes against received wisdom, but the objective that seems most likely to me is an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Less of a threat to Mr Putin's ambitions if we're inside, rather than outside?

    No, it's more likely the testing of what Putin perceives to be a weakened enemy.
    If we don't respond robustly - and/or if we get no international support - expect to be provoked again, more blatantly. Though this was pretty blatant.

    It's what you expect from the leader of what is effectively a mafia state.
    It's a NATO issue, not an EU issue.

    I am surprised the Donald has yet to tweet on this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    edited March 12

    twitter.com/spajw/status/973267549206007808?s=21

    Corbyn has a foreign policy?

    Yep - back any anti-Western cause or regime. It’s been the same for 40 years.

    Yes we will still have a 'special relationship' under a Corbyn government, just with Moscow and Havana rather than Washington and Brussels
  • glwglw Posts: 4,232

    twitter.com/spajw/status/973267549206007808?s=21

    Corbyn has a foreign policy?
    The only thing positive you can probably say about Corbyn's anti-western views is that they are his own. Unlike the resident of the White House who parrots the talking points of his boss.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Could we if they stayed in, let's say, Salisbury for the duration of the competition?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,998
    brendan16 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
    Aren't those returning ISIS fighters British citizens?

    We are signatories to a Treaty that means we cannot strip people of British citizenship, if that is their only citizenship. Now, we could leave that Treaty, but it's by no means clear that other countries would recognise us having stripped citizenship.

    The best we can (realistically) do is explicitly make fighting for ISIS a crime, and imprison those British citizens who return from fighting for them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784
    edited March 12
    rcs1000 said:

    brendan16 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
    Aren't those returning ISIS fighters British citizens?

    We are signatories to a Treaty that means we cannot strip people of British citizenship, if that is their only citizenship. Now, we could leave that Treaty, but it's by no means clear that other countries would recognise us having stripped citizenship.

    The best we can (realistically) do is explicitly make fighting for ISIS a crime, and imprison those British citizens who return from fighting for them.
    The French and Russians have been much proactive....they identity the worst and don't give them chance to return....
  • If a Russian wins the current candidates' tournament, don't give him a visa to play in the World Chess Championship against Carlsen in November in London.
  • rcs1000 said:

    brendan16 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
    Aren't those returning ISIS fighters British citizens?

    We are signatories to a Treaty that means we cannot strip people of British citizenship, if that is their only citizenship. Now, we could leave that Treaty, but it's by no means clear that other countries would recognise us having stripped citizenship.

    The best we can (realistically) do is explicitly make fighting for ISIS a crime, and imprison those British citizens who return from fighting for them.
    The French and Russians have been much proactive....they identity the worst and don't give them chance to return....
    Skripal doesn't sound like an ISIS fighter though.....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,985

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
    I think they’ll still go tbh.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
    I think they’ll still go tbh.
    I cannot see it after today's debate in the HOC - indeed it seems inconceivable
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,253

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
    We have Semi Final tickets, so not expecting to be watching England!
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,182
    rcs1000 said:

    brendan16 said:

    It does make you wonder just why the attempted murder was done in such a way as to point to Russia. I can only agree with others below that it was intended to point to Russia. Maybe we need Tapestry back to shed some light on it.

    Who knows what the logic is?

    Amber Rudd is barring right wing US and Canadian female journalists from the UK while allowing several hundred ISIS fighters back into the country? Apparently the former - whether you find their views pleasant or not - are a much greater threat to our security according to the Home Secretary?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html
    Aren't those returning ISIS fighters British citizens?

    We are signatories to a Treaty that means we cannot strip people of British citizenship, if that is their only citizenship. Now, we could leave that Treaty, but it's by no means clear that other countries would recognise us having stripped citizenship.

    The best we can (realistically) do is explicitly make fighting for ISIS a crime, and imprison those British citizens who return from fighting for them.
    Would such a law apply to those who went when it wasn't a crime? Surely not, as long as they returned within a reasonable period of it becoming a crime?
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,119
    glw said:

    True, but of this is being executed from a position of weakness because his overall strategy is failing. My judgement is that the Putin regime is far weaker than generally assumed and could come unstuck at any moment.

    Putin recognises the power of the EU single market model which is why he's tried to imitate it in an attempt to reconstitute the states of the former USSR into a new union.

    Apart from the irrelvant EU stuff I basically agree with you. The upsurge in "strongman" antics from Putin is because he is relatively weak, Russia is hugely dependent on high commodity prices, when the economy is doing less well they revert to older ways of gaining popular support. i.e. Agressive nationalism, posturing, militarism etc.
    The Soviet Union was like that, a house of cards with strong credentials if seen only from the outside, e.g.

    a space programme
    nuclear weapons
    nuclear power stations (but without key safety precautions)
    'free' healthcare and education.

    It collapsed earlier than experts had expected.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup
    We have Semi Final tickets, so not expecting to be watching England!
    O ye of little faith - but seriously you may have to ignore foreign office travel advice
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553
    Just seen that Carragher video. He's got an impressive amount of gob.

    Reminds me of this:

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    First. We can not go to the World Cup.

    I think we should go but get knocked out in the group stage.

    That will show em
    Perhaps all but one UK team should boycott?
    Surely there's a security aspect now, can we guarantee the safety of the players, staff and fans?
    Me and Fox jr are not put off so easily. We are taking berets, stripy shirts and strings of onions. Allez Les Bleus! We thought the Lederhosen probably best left at home for St Petersburg.

    I very much doubt England will play now and expect the foreign office to warn against visting during the World Cup

    England will definitely play. The government has no power to prevent it and the FA has huge financial incentives to carry on. Mrs T tried to prevent British athletes going to the Moscow Olympics after the invasion of Afghanistan and did not succeed.

This discussion has been closed.