Russian operations in the West—or rather, alleged Russian operations in the West—are designed in part for deniability. From election meddling in the United States to mysterious poisonings in the United Kingdom, the Russian connection has been visible through hints, happenstance, digital trails, or clear motives, but always hard to prove. Which leaves Western governments in the position of deciding when, and how, to make public accusations.
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May chose the bold course Monday of, essentially, and provisionally, accusing Russia of “unlawful use of force” on British territory. In a remarkable speech to the House of Commons, she addressed the disturbing case of Sergei Skripal, the former Russian spy who was found last week alongside his daughter, Yulia, on a park bench in a catatonic state. The pair, as well as a police officer who responded to the scene, remain in critical condition after being exposed to what May described as a “weapons-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.” The case had echoes of the poisoning of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who died in the U.K. in 2006 after drinking tea that was laced with polonium—an assassination that was later traced to Russia, and in retaliation for which Britain expelled some Russian diplomats.

May framed this latest poisoning not as a criminal act, but as something akin to an act of war, leaving open the question of how the British government would respond. (10 Downing Street, when reached for comment, declined to give more specifics on what specifically May meant by characterizing the poisoning as an “unlawful use of force.”) In the directness of its accusation, the speech was reminiscent of the U.S. intelligence community’s January 2017 report formally blaming the Russian government for interference in America’s 2016 presidential election.
May spelled out her own government’s reasoning this way:
Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
She allowed for only two possibilities: Either Russia had directed the attack, or it had somehow “lost control” of the substance used in the crime.
Moscow can be expected to deny involvement (it has already dismissed the prime minister’s statement as a “circus show”). But there are already signs that the U.K.’s tolerance of suspected Russian criminal activities on British soil is waning—British lawmaker Yvette Cooper urged the government to re-examine a string of unexplained deaths in the U.K., which Buzzfeed connected to Russia, citing U.S. intelligence agencies, in a recent investigative report. That report characterized the British response to those cases as tepid, pointing out that “British police have ruled out foul play in every last case” of 14 the news outlet examined.
In the U.S., former President Barack Obama’s response to Russian malfeasance was similarly criticized for its supposed timidity—the administration expelled a number of Russian diplomats and imposed sanctions on the country in response, but by then the election was over. Expulsions and sanctions are among the responses the May government could enact in response to Skripal’s poisoning. Other options floated include a boycott by British ministers and dignitaries of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, which will be hosted by Russia this summer.
The British government has, however, given Russia until the end of the day Tuesday to make its case that Skripal’s poisoning was not a state-directed plot. The other alternative outlined—that Russia had manufactured a large volume of nerve agents now turning up abroad without the knowledge or control of the Kremlin—would be a different kind of problem, and plenty horrible in its own way.

(Original post by shawn_o1)
Where's the proof that Russia was responsible? I bet the UK loses on this one. Even if it means their Brexit goes pear shaped.

Well in fairness Russia has a rather explicit history of this - namely in 1978 and 2006.
Personally I withhold judgement on the matter until more information is released but it would be foolish to overlook the similarities.

How about this government decides to grow up, stand up to the menacing pests in Russia and call on the EU and the US to sanction Russia's gas and oil industry.
Then they will care, then they will regret, then Putin will be "quaking in his boots".

(Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
Russia don't actually care what we do because what can we.

How about this government decides to grow up, stand up to the menacing pests in Russia and call on the EU and the US to sanction Russia's gas and oil industry.
Then they will care, then they will regret, then Putin will be "quaking in his boots".

The EU is almost guaranteed not to sanction the energy sector. It has far to much riding on it in terms of imports and investments, us to for that matter.

I also tend to side with the common counter argument here [aside from the cutting off our nose to spite our face approach] what benefit would marginalizing Russia possibly accomplish aside from making the government feel better about themselves? Bugger all aside from pissing off an already truculent neighbor who might well just lash out if we were to declare war in that fashion against them.

Not to mention an act of economic warfare generally requires hard evidence not just suspicions.

It sounds like the government is contemplating a retaliatory attack in the cyber domain. No doubt that GCHQ will take point - I'm curious how the UK's capability stacks up to other nations in this area.

What else can she do? Rules of diplomacy say she can't ignore it, can't just pretend it hasn't happened.

This is how this kind of thing is supposed to be dealt with, it's just we've all got used to the buffoon with Twitter in the round room in the other side of the pond being a colossal numpty that we've forgotten that nation states are supposed to be restrained and kinda silly about this kind of thing.

(Original post by Drewski)
What else can she do? Rules of diplomacy say she can't ignore it, can't just pretend it hasn't happened.

This is how this kind of thing is supposed to be dealt with, it's just we've all got used to the buffoon with Twitter in the round room in the other side of the pond being a colossal numpty that we've forgotten that nation states are supposed to be restrained and kinda silly about this kind of thing.

It has already been suggested that if Putin doesn't comply, then she should consider passing a Magnisky act, increasing the British millitary prescence at military excercises near the Russian border, carry out cyber attacks against the Russians and more diplomats can be expelled.