Recent Russian Intelligence Operations

[Azor]

David,

I have to respectfully disagree with Lomas’ conclusions.

Firstly, although Lomas is correct that various states carry out assassinations or targeted killings abroad, in most cases plausible deniability is sought. Notable exceptions include state actions against organized non-state actors such as insurgent or terrorist groups. Although the Soviet Union did not disclaim the attempted and successful assassinations of Trotsky in 1939-1940, despite a pro-Trotsky organization being a phantom, the Soviets were much more careful to have Bandera and Rebet appear to have died from natural causes (1957 and 1959). With regard to both Litvinenko and Skripal, the method of assassination renders deniability implausible, as the poisons are both traceable to Russia.

Secondly, even the death of a former agent from natural causes or criminal activity can arouse suspicion. Had Litvinenko and Skripal been stabbed, shot, or bludgeoned to death during a robbery, struck by a vehicle, or fallen from a height, their deaths alone would have had a chilling effect on British intelligence asset development in Russia. Was using radiological and biological weaponry truly necessary to deter treason? After all, media reports probably credit too many deaths to Russian state assassins, when organized crime and natural causes are also involved.

Unfortunately, Lomas provides no insight as to why Russia would attack a NATO member with traceable weapons of mass destruction in an indiscriminate manner twice, risking an Article IV or V response from the North Atlantic Council, when a bullet would do.