[Prosthetic Conscience]

because they are the only state with anything to gain from the murder - intimidation of Russians who might oppose Putin.

You need to have completely brainwashed propaganda to believe in such nonsense. What prevented Putin from killing this defector before? At least in the Russian prison? What made him kill this defector right before the election? The desire to provoke an international scandal in the most critical moments? Putin is an idiot, do you think?

The Russians exchanged him for some of their spies who had been caught by the West. He was thus useful to them alive. Their judgement of what message needs to be sent to people who might work for a foreign power can change with circumstances - what their relationship with other countries is (which has been affected by a lot since the spy exchange - their invasion of Crimea, their support for the Ukraine rebels, the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner, Trump in the White House ...), and the power of any factions inside Russia.

But if you think Russia had no motive to kill him, then you have to think no one did. Because if you can say "Russia obviously has no motive", then there'd be no "international scandal", because no one would be blaming Russia.

Right before an election? Well, it's one way to send a message to any troublemakers who might question the way the election is held.

A newsreader on Russian state television has presented a story on the poisoning of a former Russian spy, with a warning to anyone considering becoming a double agent.

During the news programme, Kirill Kleimenov said he wanted anyone "who dreams of such a career" to be aware that traitors rarely live a long and peaceful life.

Kleimenov, of government-controlled Channel One, also advised them: ''Don't choose Britain as a place to live."

http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/09/russ ... in-britain

Message sent.

[skinster]

^ conspiracy theories and still no evidence.

BORING!

[Balancer]

But if you think Russia had no motive to kill him, then you have to think no one did. Because if you can say "Russia obviously has no motive", then there'd be no "international scandal", because no one would be blaming Russia.

The position "if it is not beneficial to anyone, then Russia is to blame" obviously does not withstand any criticism from the point of view of logic. And it can not be used by sane states for a coordinated political attack.

...

And if you cling to such fantasies as "Putin wanted to intimidate opponents before the elections," then fantasies like "May wants to divert attention from problems before the elections", "the United States continues to build from Russia the image of the enemy" or "the DPRK wants to quarrel Russia with the West. " There are many options. But only Russia is blamed. And not just accused, an aggressive diplomatic demarche is organized against it. At what the charge was put forward before any results of the investigation appeared.

[Seeker8]

It's simple, we don't fucking know who did it, let investigations happen. If no evidence is found, then nothing should happen.

But i trust the Tories much less than the Russians, they lie every time they speak. Well about 99% are lying bastards, a few seem quite honest, like Ken Clarke.

[Atlantis]

The Russians exchanged him for some of their spies who had been caught by the West. He was thus useful to them alive. Their judgement of what message needs to be sent to people who might work for a foreign power can change with circumstances ...

Message sent.

Spies and prisoners of war have been exchanged for centuries. For this to work, the parties have to trust each other to abide by the terms of the exchange. To kill somebody after exchanging him destroys that trust and makes such exchanges impossible in the future. Whatever you think of Putin, he has been very scrupulous about sticking to rules. That is very different from the arbitrary and illegal conduct we have now come to expect from the US.

Anyways, there are signs that Skripal was again working for the Russians, perhaps to inform on the community of exiled Russians in London. To inform on the Russian or Chechen Mafia isn't without risk.

But if you think Russia had no motive to kill him, then you have to think no one did.

The only possible motive is to damage Russia's interest. If you can prove that Putin is a suicidal maniac, then we'll be listening to you.

Barring that, anti-Putin oligarchs, exiled dissidents, the Western spy community, the Neocons or the Tory establishment, all have very credible motives, which have already been explained in great detail in the dozens of pages in this and in the two parallel threads. We don't have to resort to wild conspiracy theories. We can arrive at the most likely scenario by logic and reason.

[skinster]

[Seeker8]

Disappointing other countries are taking action against Russia. @Atlantis have the EU countries done it?

[SpecialOlympian]

Yes, what kind of insane madman would do something that has, historically, resulted in very little blowback or consequence?

[skinster]

Former OPCW official: no conclusive proof of Russian complicity in Salisbury attack
*Nerve agent found in Salisbury does not conclusively prove Russian complicity
*Russia’s denial of a Novichok programme is true but misleading — a secret nerve agent programme to create Novichok-type agents was run under a different name
*Western states have extensively researched and synthesized the Novichok class of agents
*Novichok was most recently synthesized by Iran, details of which were provided to the OPCW
*Russian Novichok stockpiles were destroyed in the 1990s, but it is theoretically possible that some capability still exists, though no evidence for this is available

The US and its European allies have coordinated the largest collective expulsion of Russian diplomats in history. Russia has promised to retaliate in kind. Yet despite the sense of certainty around Russian culpability in the Salisbury incident, questions remain around the state of the available evidence.

As contradictory narratives proliferate amidst conflicting Western and Russian government statements and media reports, a clearer picture of the secret history of the nerve agent used in the Salisbury poisonings is emerging.

In an exclusive interview with INSURGE, a former senior official at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) from 1993 to 2006, Dr Ralf Trapp, said that at this stage there is no conclusive evidence that Russia was the source of the nerve agent used in Salisbury. He pointed to compelling evidence that Russia did run a secret research programme to create Novichok-type nerve agents — and strongly criticised Russia’s denials of that programme. While justifying grounds for suspicion, there is as yet no decisive proof that Russia retained such a Novichok programme or capability today, he said.
Click for details...

[Atlantis]

Disappointing other countries are taking action against Russia. @Atlantis have the EU countries done it?

They haven't expelled anybody yet, but are expected to do so in the coming days. All Nato countries have aligned with the UK position. They seem to have agreed on a quota. Big countries (Germany, France, Poland) are to expel 4 diplomats, each, while smaller countries are to expel 1 to 3 diplomats, according to size.

They are all taking the UK's word for it, even though nobody has seen any evidence. I guess there will be no evidence either way, and the thing will just blow over after a while. The UK must have pulled a lot of levers and expended much diplomatic capital. I guess the narrative pushed by Westminster is that Putin is testing Nato resolve to defend one of its members.

It would be so embarrassing for Westminster if there were proof that parties other than the FSB were responsible.

*Russian Novichok stockpiles were destroyed in the 1990s, but it is theoretically possible that some capability still exists, though no evidence for this is available

That is of course a possibility, just as it is possible that other states have secrete capabilities to produce nerve toxins.

But why would Russia want to disclose such secrete capabilities to the West if it has guarded the secrete for decades? It just doesn't make any sense.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Whatever you think of Putin, he has been very scrupulous about sticking to rules.

Comedy post of the week! See: Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine, sports doping, killing of Russian journalists, killing of Russian exiles, interference in other countries' elections, the rise of the Russian oligarchy loyal to him ...

[SpecialOlympian]

He's one of, if not the, richest men on Earth so of course Putin, and by extension the rest of the oligarchy, are scrupulous and and honest. More money = Better than.

Once you assume this basic truth you soon realize that the only reason anyone would ever kill a former Russian intelligence agent is to hurt Russia in an elaborate conspiracy to preserve NATO partnership, bolster Iran, and hurt Russia for no readily apparent reason. It's the simplest explanation, Gotham's raisin and all that.

[Heisenberg]

And of course, the only reason you are taking such an interest in this is because the USA cares oh so deeply about Britain and Europe's people, rather than profits for its arms trade, which only coincidentally benefits from the pointless and obsolete NATO alliance.

[SpecialOlympian]

Cool thanks for the nice whataboutism Heisenberg.

[Heisenberg]

It's funny how pointing out an obvious straightforward fact gets called "whataboutism" by the right-on conventional wisdom crowd. I assume it's a word you guys have learned quite recently and need to use as often as possible to show how brilliant you are, even if it doesn't really apply. As is the case here. I'm not saying "what about the US, eh?", I'm saying "spare us the crocodile tears".

As it happens, I don't think it's "whataboutism" to point out that yours, and general American "concern" about this case has nothing whatsoever to do with solidarity with the people of Britain or Europe - countries that you see as nothing more than US army bases and weapons markets.

[SpecialOlympian]

I'm proud that you believe I speak for AMERICA, THE GREATEST COUNTRY. But in reference to your point:

"I'm a skeptic! No evidence that Putin assassinates his enemies! None whatsoever!"

"Also, it's obviously clear that Israel could be the only culprit! What, you need evidence? What are you, some kind of skeptic?"

But as I've said: my position on this does not change. Whether it was Russia or if we are blindly following the will of our superior Jewish masters I agree with the outcome both ways : D

[Heisenberg]

If you could point out where I said anything about Israel "obviously" doing this, that'd be grand.

[Decky]

Surely it goes without saying?

[Heisenberg]

It seems more like the sort of base and uncivilised thing that the French or Dutch would do, to be honest.

[SpecialOlympian]

If you could point out where I said anything about Israel "obviously" doing this, that'd be grand.

That's fair. I'll grant that you used a lot of words but managed to say nothing at all.