Zhivago wrote:Digby wrote:There are no angels in all this, but it's sure as hell not the case that the grouping breaks down as proven liars in one corner and the Russians in the other. The Russians are all too often more inclined to deny a vast domestic nuclear meltdown than speak truth to the public
I'm not believing either of them. Just saying we are listening to a bunch of liars and supposed to believe what one of them says? Fuck that shit. It's probably some big play between two secret agencies. God only knows what the truth is. It's distracting from what really matters.
Surely Occam's Razor comes into play here.
We have two men with false names and consecutive passports, one who is confirmed ex-special forces and decorated by Putin. They are known to have come to the country for two days, gone straight to Salisbury and gone out of their way to go to the area where the Skripals live (which is purely residential and has nothing of any interest to a tourist). To Russia, Skripal is a traitor who is actively leaking secrets to the UK. To the UK, he is an active source of intelligence. These are the indisputable facts.
Russia's explanation is that they are tourists who decided to spend two days in the country and ignore any of the traditional sights like London or Stonehenge, in favour of going to Salisbury Cathedral, and coincidentally decided to take a detour to a residential area with nothing for a tourist to see. At the same time as this coincidental visit by an ex-Russian special forces colonel, an enemy of Russia was poisoned.
The UK's explanation is that they were Russian agents sent to kill him.
If you had two equally credible explanations, or if one side had a history of being clearly more credible than the other, then I can understand equivocating. As it is, I think the Russian explanation is only one step above, "Yeah, we did it and we don't care if you know." It's a fig leaf.
Puja