Live data from Hacker News

Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

bbc.com

231–240 of 371 posts

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have missed that the elusive WireCard CEO Jan Marsalek had the formula too. It's not a huge secret that random billionaires can't buy. Some people apparently believe the spin from some low-quality media that using or accusing of using Novitchok is basically proof Russia did it. It says more about their naivety than anything else. https://www.ft.com/content/941a9a2e-88df-4a66-9b3c-670bb7eb4...

Having the "formula" for a chemical weapon in no way grants you the ability to manufacture it.

Any secret service of the world can manufacture it.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#232
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Russian defector, poisoned by Russian intelligence agents using a chemical only the Russians have? Who do you think?

> using a chemical only the Russians have? This is obviously not true.

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent

It's not the sort of thing you export.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The events in Belarus recently demonstrated that you are wrong. I ran a small (1 mln pageviews/month) online Russian-speaking community since 2003 and since 2014, my main preoccupation are Kremlin bots. The population in Russia is mostly anti-Putin, they just do not speak up, because the state made sure they feel isolated.

That is not true. Putin's approval rating is actually pretty high even when measured by NGOs sponsored by the "West". You'll be surprised, but it is quoted to be 60% in July 2020. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Vladimir_Putin

We're citing Wikipedia now? I don't claim it's wrong, I claim citing Wikipedia is poor practice and surprising to see here. It's excellent for getting a broad overview but when it comes to specific facts or figures, these should be cited directly.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#234
post #47
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bad. But it was targeted. I worry about how easy it would be for terrorists to do something very bad with a large quantity of this stuff seeing it's so easy to move about.

It's not easy to obtain or synthesize. Terrorists prefer simpler approaches.

I don't think 9/11 was simple. But by and large you're correct that they don't have the patience, organization, or funding for the most part to execute more elaborate attacks (at least on the West, one could argue ISIS was pretty damn organized in their conquests in Iraq and Syria.) They seem to prefer more immediate low-effort things like simple suicide bombings, driving into crowds, or in the UK even knife attacks. We should be grateful for their lack of vision.

I'm specifically worried that the most dangerous thing about Coivd-19 is that it woke up the world to how much damage an infectious virus can cause. Technology is now at the point where you can engineer a virus like this in many university labs with maybe a team of a dozen or so and low millions of dollars of funding. That's potentially within reach of major terrorist organizations. If you're just lashing out at the world it's tough to get more bang for your buck so to speak.

Fortunately, the circles of educated, STEM type of people and radical Islamic militant types are largely exclusionary.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#235

If you ever wonder about the extent of Russia's online efforts consider that the comments on this HN thread might be part of things. Not saying anything in here is good/bad/other but you rarely see this level of flagged and down-voted comments in a HN thread.

I think many Russian people, especially those who watch or read mainly Russian news, hold such views with complete sincerity. The internal propaganda is quite effective.

I definitely believe you. A Russian colleague, who is living in EU for several years, found it justified that Russia invaded Poland back in 1940. We were all baffled.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A NATO member currently run by someone who grew up in a Stalinist dictatorship, with many members of the party that ruled said dictatorship currently in office around the country. > One who has brazenly done this sort of attack before and has a very obvious recent history of silencing dissidents? It is just "obvious" if you are a firm believer in accusations made by the "West".

Okay I'm sure there is always some post-Soviet era bias being applied, but does that change anything substantially? Did the "West" also lie about this Novichok attack on UK soil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... Your baseless tinfoil skepticism is extremely useful to fascists like Putin who thrive off of spreading disinformation and uncertainty. Do Western countries lie to benefit thems…

> baseless tinfoil skepticism

You can throw around these funny derogatory phrases all day, they lend no credibility to your fantasies.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#238

Putin's approval rating is actually pretty high even when measured by NGOs sponsored by the "West". You'll be surprised, but it is quoted to be 60% in July 2020. [1] And while it is possible to blame Putin for this Navalny's incident, he isn't the only one with motive/opportunity. It is actually very sad that some HN readers sometimes have a strong tendency to blame Trump/Putin/Another for Everything. I get that they…

> allows the US to impose more sanctions

Trump has done nothing but cater to Russia, which has been discussed at length. Lookup Russian bounties on us soldiers.

And whatever doubt-sowing your attempting can easily be disregarded by Occam's Razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#239

Putin's approval rating is actually pretty high even when measured by NGOs sponsored by the "West". You'll be surprised, but it is quoted to be 60% in July 2020. [1] And while it is possible to blame Putin for this Navalny's incident, he isn't the only one with motive/opportunity. It is actually very sad that some HN readers sometimes have a strong tendency to blame Trump/Putin/Another for Everything. I get that they…

> In my opinion, there is an alternate hypothesis.

It could also have been his kids. Maybe they feel neglected. Is there any evidence of this? The similarity of this attack to the one on Skripal a couple years ago objectively points to the Russian government being involved as the most likely possibility. Naturally most of the information around this is and will remain out of the public eye, but claiming that the "It's Russia" and "It's the US" hypotheses are anywhere close to being equally likely is, at best, naive.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#240
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using a chemical only the Russians have? This is obviously not true.

How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent It's not the sort of thing you export.

From the article you linked:

"Novichok has, however, been known to most western secret services since the 1990s,[16] and in 2016 Iranian chemists synthesised five Novichok agents for analysis and produced detailed mass spectral data which was added to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Central Analytical Database.[17][18] Previously, there had been no detailed descriptions of their spectral properties in open scientific literature.[17][19] A small amount of agent A-230 was also claimed to have been synthesised in the Czech Republic in 2017 for the purpose of obtaining analytical data to help defend against these novel toxic compounds."

---- Rate limited, so I'll reply here to the next comment:

> You'd also have to ignore the additional evidence

Ok, but if you say "only Russia have them" you're saying something that is not true. They have been synthesized outside of Russia, so it's perfectly possible that others (militaries, secret services) have them. Amounts can also have been exported from Russia in the 50 years since they've been developed.

As for the additional evidence: again, damning. However, if someone (a state actor) wanted to damage Russia, it could also have managed to attract two Russian agents in the area to frame Russia. It's a conspiracy theory of course. But we're talking about conspiracies. The bottom line is that if we conclude it was Russia then we need to ask why it would a) put the most obvious signature on the deed; b) use the most brutal and dangerous method available, one that would immediately make a vast number of very rich and powerful countries into enemies. Maybe just to sow division over the implausibility of it? I don't know.

Post reply on HN