There is a well-known aphorism of Charles Clausewitz: “War is The “Novice” the continuation of politics by other means.” In many cases, thisThe “Novice”The “Novice” may be true, but it rarely becomes a happy outcome.The “Novice” No one likes politics, but when there is a chance to choose between politics and war, most sensible people will readily choose a policy that, even when filled with sarcasm and riddled with corruption, usually remains immortal. Politics in relations between countries is known as diplomacy. It is a formal art that rests on a specific set of tools used to keep countries out of the war. This set includes the maintenance of communication channels in order to strengthen trust and respect, includes exercises to find common grounds, efforts to identify mutually beneficial scenarios that both sides would readily agree to.
Diplomacy is a professional occupation, in many respects similar to medicine, engineering, and law. It requires the same high level of specialized training. Unlike many professions, successful diplomacy requires much more attention to behavior issues: the diplomat must be friendly, polite, courteous, polite, representative, accessible, decent, thorough, reasonable, balanced … in a word, diplomatic. Of course, in order to maintain good, healthy relations with this or that country, it is important that the diplomat freely speak the language of this country, understand its culture and know its history. It is especially important to have a very detailed knowledge of the history of diplomatic relations of this country with its own country. At least for the sake of maintaining continuity, which, in turn, allows to build these relations on the basis of what has already been achieved. Full knowledge of all previously concluded treaties, conventions and agreements are absolutely necessary.
Reasonable people will prefer politics to war. And reasonable (ie, competently managed) nations will prefer the diplomacy of militancy and confrontation. The only exceptions are those nations that can not hope to gain the upper hand in a game called “diplomacy” due to the acute shortage of competent diplomats. They readily fall into disappointment, undermining those very international institutions that were supposed to keep them away from trouble. And then on their more competent counterparties in other nations, it is a matter of negotiating with them to take them from the edge. Not always it is possible to make. Especially if the incompetent in this matter cannot be forced to understand the risks to which they themselves are exposed by opposing their diplomatic counterparts.
If we look around for such incompetent nations, the two examples readily represent themselves – the United States and the United Kingdom (UK). In history, it is rather difficult to identify the moment when the US last had a state secretary who was really competent. In order not to be mistaken, let’s point out January 20, 1977, the day Henry Kissinger left his post.
Since then, the diplomatic history of the United States has been to some extent the history of fantastic miscalculations. For example, in 1990, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein: “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your border conflict with Kuwait.” Thus, in fact, it included a green light to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and launched a series of events that led to the current sad state of affairs in the region. Another “bright spot” was Hillary Clinton, whose “credentials” had to do with the kind of pseudo-nobility that sprang from her marriage to the former president. And she also used her post of Secretary of State for self-enrichment through a variety of corruption schemes.
Turning to the diplomatic corps of lower ranks, it can be noted that the posts of ambassadors were given to people without any diplomatic education or experience. Their only qualification is that they were related to raising funds for election campaigns in the interests of those who at that time happened to occupy the White House. Party considerations also played a role. Very few of these people are able to enter into meaningful dialogue with their counterparts. Most of them are barely able to read a policy statement from a piece of paper handed to them by an assistant.
Meanwhile, the British establishment is gradually crackling on fire in its own inimitable post-imperial manner. Britain’s special relations with the United States all the time meant that it has no reason to maintain an independent foreign policy, all the while playing the second violin in the interests of Washington. Britain all the time after World War II remained a territory occupied by the United States – just like Germany. And, being devoid of full sovereignty, it could afford the slow atrophy of its international bodies because of the refusal to use them. The advantage of such an arrangement is that it makes it possible at a slow pace to continue the disintegration of the British Empire – the slowest and longest disintegration in the long history of empires.
That little competence that still remains is gradually flowing away as the UK continues its temporary aimless game with the European Union. The following year, it is destined to end this mischievous flirtation, under which the sovereignty of Britain was withdrawn by agreement, and most issues of international administration were handed over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. And now, at the end of a long process of degeneration and decay, we have a foreign minister in the face of a clown named Boris Johnson. He, just as incompetent, the head of Therese May, recently considered it acceptable to violate the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC) very loudly and publicly, under which there is a signature, including Britain.
To top it all, Teresa May undertook to claim that some kind of Russian bastard, who became a British spy and who lives in Britain, was killed using a nerve agent manufactured in Russia. After this, May gave Russia 24 hours to clarify this situation to her satisfaction. Russia also signed the CWC and by that time (September 27, 2017) had already destroyed all 39,967 metric tons of its chemical weapons. In this regard, the Secretary-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Uzumjsaid: “The completion of the Russian program of verified destruction of chemical weapons is a major milestone on the way to achieving the objectives of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I congratulate Russia and applaud all the Russian experts who participated in this process, for their professionalism and perseverance. ” The United States has yet to destroy its stockpiles of chemical weapons. Nevertheless, they prefer to squander trillions of useless missile defense systems instead of meeting their obligations under the Convention.
And that’s what Therese May did exactly wrong. Under the terms of the Convention, the UK is obliged to provide Russia with samples of the nerve agent used, together with all relevant evidence obtained during the investigation. In the end, the Convention gives Russia 10 days to provide an answer. Instead, May did not provide any evidence but gave Russia 24 hours to respond. When Russia demanded access to the evidence in its entire form, it was refused. We can only guess why she refused, but one reasonable assumption is that there is no evidence because:
- May claims that the nerve agent “Novice”, developed in the USSR, was a nerve agent. In order to determine it, British experts should have a sample of this substance. Since there is no information that either the USSR or Russia exported it, we must assume that it was synthesized inside the UK. The formula of the substance and the list of precursors are in public use, they were published by the scientist who developed the “Beginner” and who has long moved to the United States. Thus, British scientists working in Porton Down could easily synthesize it. In any case, it is impossible to establish in which country this or that sample of the substance was synthesized, and the assertion that it comes from Russia is unprovable.
- It was alleged that the victims – Mr. Skripaland his daughter – were poisoned by “Novice” when they were in a restau The substance we are talking about is potently powerful, that with the spread of one liter of “Novice” in the atmosphere over London, most of its population would be killed. If the bottle with this substance was opened above a plate with food, then the killer and all those who were in the restaurant would be killed. Everything that came into contact with this substance would turn yellow, and many of those who were nearby would complain of a very unusual pungent smell. Poisoned would have been instantly paralyzed, and a few minutes later – dead, and could not walk on foot to the shop in the park, where they were found. The whole city would have been evacuated. The restaurant would be isolated by erecting a concrete sarcophagus over it by the forces of workers, operating in space suits. And then these spacesuits and this restaurant would be destroyed by burning at very high temperatures. None of this was done.
In the light of the foregoing, it seems unlikely that at least some of what was portrayed by the British media and the British government actually took place. An alternative assumption – and exactly what must be checked – is that all this is fiction. No photographs of the two victims were provided. One of them, the daughter of Skripal, is a citizen of the Russian Federation, but, nevertheless, the British refused to grant consular access to her. And now it turned out that the whole scenario, including the poisonous substance “Rookie”, was written off from the American-British television series “Strike Back” (Strike Back). If this is so, then the plan succeeded; why invent something, if you can just resort to plagiarism.
- This is only one (and not even the last) murder of Russian citizens in the UK from a whole series of murders that take – which is very doubtful – suicide. They have certain common characteristics – such as the use of exotic substances as weapons of murder, the absence of visible motives for homicide, the absence of noteworthy investigations and the immediate concerted efforts to blame Russia. You will not be mistaken if you assume that anyone who claims to know exactly what happened is actually lying. As for the motives for this lie, this issue should be addressed to psychiatrists.
- Summarizing all the above, one can only advise everything to be treated with a fair amount of skepticism. All that we have so far is the alleged double murder, no motive, dubious murder tools, over 140 million suspects (au, Russians, any of you!) And public statements that reach the level of a political theater. As for the consequences, the British authorities have little to do with Russia. They deported a couple of dozen Russian diplomats (Russia responded), the Royal Family will not attend the World Cup in Russia (not a great loss!), There are still some vague threats equal to zero.