You have dodged the question as to whether, assuming the variables are true, would this constitute an act of war? I am afraid that it might because this would provide authorities with a good reason to avoid disclosure of the results of their investigation…obviously if this was an act of war, then it would be incumbent upon the UK government to do something so as to protect its citizens and defend its sovereignty (there are many potential responses short of, as you suggested, armed conflict).

So the question is still out there, hanging.

Russia – EU partnership crucial for united, prosperous Europe

Nice to believe in but not so nice when the reality sets in.

The reality of speculation and propaganda? Certainly.

However, political correctness has effectively castrated Western male society and made them pathetic. Why should Russia follow their lead in this regard, or be kind to their enemies?

Agreed. It’s a hypothetical question at this point. If the Russian state assassinated Litvinenko and killed British subjects in the process, is it an act of war?

No. If, hypothetically speaking, the Russian government ordered the assassination of an enemy (or perceived enemy) abroad, it does not necessarily constitute an act of war against the country that dissident happens to find himself in. For example, if Osama Bin Laden hides out in Russia somewhere, and the CIA assassinates him there, does it mean the USA wants to declare war on Russia? I think not.

Nice to believe in but not so nice when the reality sets in.

Shadows, more shadows, and a wilderness of mirrors.

The question is who directed and who allowed who to do what they did in the manner in which it was done.

Any thoughts?

The verdict on the case is still out, there is no evidence that the Russian state assassinated Litvinenko.

Agreed. It’s a hypothetical question at this point. If the Russian state assassinated Litvinenko and killed British subjects in the process, is it an act of war?

You didn’t really answer Blaise’s question, did you? The fact that Russia could kick Britain’s butt doesn’t mean that Russia didn’t commit an act of war. Maybe Mr. Blair should pose the question to Mr. Putin.

The verdict on the case is still out, there is no evidence that the Russian state assassinated Litvinenko. There is not even evidence that it was murder yet — although the media gladly proclaims it as a murder, without conclusive evidence.

To talk of an “act of war” by Russia against Britain is, I fear, a little far-out at this stage.

There are new twists and turns everyday. HotAir is keeping track of the new developments….

Want to hear my kooky conspiracy theory?…Iran.

Or Pakistan.

Every good spy has developed an immunity to iocaine powder.

What should Britain do, attack Russia?

You didn’t really answer Blaise’s question, did you? The fact that Russia could kick Britain’s butt doesn’t mean that Russia didn’t commit an act of war. Maybe Mr. Blair should pose the question to Mr. Putin.

why isn’t that an Act of War?

What should Britain do, attack Russia? There is a precedent. Napoleon and Hitler tried.

There cannot be a war ever between US/Britain and Russia, because such a war will destroy both sides through nuclear obliteration. Russia has enough nuclear warheads to level all major cities in the world several times over. So perhaps warmongering is not the answer here.

The main reason for using polonium was not its effectiveness, nor to spread general terror but to SEND A SUBTLE MESSAGE. Not to the general public, but to a select few.

Under Putin, Russia has grown stronger economically (at a rate of over 6% per annum), and it is reaching the general population (in contrast with the Yeltsin years, when only the super-rich benefited). Increased consumer spending across Russia testifies to this, as well as a massive boom in small and medium businesses. Putin has done miracles for the Russian people.

- The Cat

Yet another Russian–former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin–claims to have warned Alexander Litvinenko about the existence of “a government-sponsored death squad that intended to kill him and other Kremlin opponents.” The warning came via a letter da…

Using Polonium as a poison for an assanation just makes no sense to me. The risk, cost, and danger is just unecessary. This is the type of stuff you use if you want to cause widespread terror.
Exactly. This is either incidental to a larger plot or the sloppiest assassination since Rasputin.

RedWinged Blackbird on December 1, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Good questions there. I too don’t quite get why such a sloppy method of poisoning was used. It does not make sense and tells me there might be more going on than a couple of assasination attempts.