Why Only 23 Diplomats Expelled? Surely It Should Be 76!

[ToraToraTora]

[aelmpvw]

we probably can't expel the successful spies because we don't know who or where they are ...

[DTCwordfan]

I tend to agree but then a 'compromise' line has to be found. However, forget the ministers and the Royal Family as to the World Cup, we should stay at home.

and kick their television station out - and Pravda as well.

[ToraToraTora]

apparently they only have(had) 55 anyway!

[Peter Pedant]

No I think we should wire in special nerve gas into the plane deporting

and then when they start dying and screaming "the air it is poisoned!" =- an automatic anno9uncement says in Russian now you know what it feels like !

sozza - dont tell me yours was a serious question

[jourdain2]

It seems a pretty feeble response to the gravity of the attack i.m.o..
I assume that the 23 'known agents' were allowed to stay here because we were feeding them false information - at least I hope so.
We should not go to the World Cup, as I said on the other thread. I'm sure we have other weapons in our diplomatic arsenal.
I think I just heard on the radio that troops are now out and about in Dorset. This is serious.

[ToraToraTora]

then we say it wasn't us PP!

[ichkeria]

The response goes way beyond expelling 23 known or suspected intelligence offficers of the SVR or GRU. The reason we don't expel these people normally will partly because it can actually be quite useful to have them there to see how they operate. And also of course there is a danger that when the tit for tat expulsions come they will accidentally or otherwise include a few of our own agents.
But occasionally, as now, things come to a head and we decide that they've got to go.

[Gromit]

Yes Minister was brilliantly written which is why it stands the test of time.

The expulsion of Diplomats is a sign of inpotence by a Government. They feel they have to do something, but are unable to catch the real culprits, so they engage in a fake show of strength, knowing full well there will be a tit for tat retaliation, and it will have achieved nothing.

[Jackdaw33]

In 1971 the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, expelled 105 Soviet diplomats (can't remember what the issue was).

[jourdain2]

So we sort of agree that it's not good enough, is it? Probably a first, if so. :)

[jim360]

I thought of this scene as well.

[ichkeria]

Jack: the issue in 1971 I think was general alarm at the level of Soviet espionage in the UK at the time.
The expulsion of the diplomats here gets all the headlines, but it was just one of he measures taken. Others include vetting passengers on incoming flights from Russia, sanctions, increased intelligence effort, the so called magnitsky laws tarted to and enhanced. Suspension of all high level contact etc etc. And hopefully a lot more to come. Looks like President Trump is behind us, esp in the light of his UN ambasssdor’s hard hitting words in the UN earlier

[Kromovaracun]

There was another spat in 1985 with expulsions. This seems like posturing.

[ichkeria]

Compared with attacking people with chemical weapons anything is going to seem like posturing

[Kromovaracun]

Well, it doesn't exactly fill me with glee that yet another assassination on British soil by a foreign govt is going to join a list of obscure diplomatic spats with zero real consequences, ich. But that does seem the way this is going. The UK is not a powerful country and its main economic asset - The City - is reliant on Russian money.

[ichkeria]

It’s a bit early to say there won’t be any consequences. Plainly there will be

[Old_Geezer]

It's probably 23 for treating with contempt the suggestion that the evidence points strongly against them, and for their belligerent response; 55 when the world concludes it's beyond all reasonable doubt.

[gulliver1]

Wonder if Putin would like to show us how to play Russian Roulette ?.