The meaning of chemical attacks

The problem with politics is its transnational approach. The position of Britain as a victim and the power of the UN to intercede. The Cold War had some principles which are historically accurate and the response from a victim is politically accurate. The solution is against principle, and a European crisis not a social illness. The predicted answer is a chemical weapons intensity and the power of organised crime has to be considered.

The intensity of social ideology  and the risk of political demise has upset the government, the attacks have been diminished.  The response from social isolation has undermined key ministers and their global influence is upsetting key negotiations with nuclear terrorists, The isolation of political institutions from this debate has clouded their judgement on political insurance and social risks. The background is prepared.

The Russian menace is not crisis framed, a sort of reluctance and mighty footprint has overdetermined the political impact. The origins are Cold War in propaganda. The position warm of her identity, the principle shallow motives. The origin of socially framed ideas and politically defined answers has upset western attempts at mediation. The politics is political and economic solutions have been outsourced, the solution is resistant and the power un-concentrated.

The principle of position is never about right or just, and the politics a political instance. I argue Russia has no resistance to position and the idea that response has come to late is being avoided. Chemical weapons are dangerous to the public, as were sprays in agriculture thirty years ago. The formula is destructive and the growth exponential. The reach is expansive ad these issues have wounded a British targeted response.