Brits take on Russia

British Prime Minister Theresa May booted out 23 Russian “diplomats” yesterday in retaliation for a nerve gas attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil. It’s the kind of action that should make Americans cheer her on.

For days the White House hemmed and hawed. (“As soon as we get the facts straight ... if we agree with them [the British], we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be,” Trump said Tuesday.)

Yesterday it was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley who finally stood up for America’s oldest ally. She told the Security Council, “The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent.” And she called it a “defining moment” for the body on which Russia holds a seat and a veto.

Sergei Skripal, who was a double-agent working for Britain as well, and his daughter Yulia remained in critical condition after being poisoned in Salisbury with a chemical known as Novichok (newcomer in Russian) developed by the Soviet Union back in the 1970s.

What has raised hackles in Britain is that because nerve agents are rather clumsy weapons, some two dozen British citizens, including first responders, have been sickened as well.

Russia, of course, has issued the standard denials. No surprise there. But the issue raised by Haley at the U.N. is the reason no nation can afford to ignore this kind of attack.

“If we don’t take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used,” Haley said. “They could be used here in New York, or in cities of any country that sits on this Council.”

The point is that any nation that feels free to attack those it defines as its enemies anywhere, anytime, and without regard for the lives of those in the vicinity is no better than a common terrorist. And any nation that fails to respond to such an act of aggression only courts more of it.