Arsenic and Old Lies – A tale too poisonous to make up
Over the last week, the UK Government announced the imminent expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats.
They also announced that other punitive measures against Russia and Russian interests would follow.
What is the reason for these drastic actions? Very simply, it is the UK Government’s response to the poisoning of a Russian double agent, (Sergei Skripal) now living in the UK.
Let’s forget, for a minute, the UK Government’s admission that they had made a Russian citizen a spy (i.e. double agent) for them. While t does prove that they had no issue with directly interfering in the affairs of, and spying on, another sovereign nation, I think we can all accept that most governments seem to think that sort of thing is pretty “whizz bang” and necessary.
I do, however, find it amusing that this all comes hot on the heels of the outrage and allegations over what the Russian government may or may not have been doing abroad.
In acknowledging Mr Skripal as their agent (not to mention the dozen or so others that were released at the same time as him), the UK (and by association the US) Government have admitted to conducting exactly the same activities that they have screamed, for months, are unacceptable.
While the mainstream media had made all the time in the world to focus on groundless allegations made against Russia by UK and US politicians, not one eyebrow has been raised by those same media representatives, about the blatant and hypocritical double standard at play here.
This piece is not, however, about hypocrisy; It is about proof. Not just proof in this case but proof in politics and reporting as a whole.
The Sergei Skripal case is just another, in a long list of examples that show (again) exactly how farcical accountability in politics and reporting have become.
The UK Government has stated that the poisoning of Mr Skripal is the work of the Russian Government and that the UK Government is justified in their reactions.
There is just one teensy weensy problem. PROOF, or rather an absolute lack of it.
There is not one shred of evidence to connect the Russian Government to this crime. In fact, if one is going to make assumptions (which seems to be the UK Government’s approach to this), then there is every reason to assume that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Let’s review the facts and then we can get on with a more serious and largely irreverent review of what the powers that be are wanting us to believe.
Mr Skripal, a Russian, who acted as a double agent spy for the UK (beginning more than 2 decades ago), was subsequently caught by the Russian Government and convicted of treason nearly 15 years ago.
Over a decade ago, he was imprisoned in Russia.
In 2010, he was released and he retired with his family to the UK.
Now, nearly a decade later, long after he has finished being of service to the UK and long after he was any threat to Russian interests, the Russian Government (if we are to believe Theresa May) has decided it is the PERFECT time to poison him with a substance easily (though inaccurately) tied to Russia.
Not for the Russians an option more subtle and less readily identifiable. No anthrax, no ‘robbery gone wrong knifing’, no sniper, No home invasion, no car accident, no “fall” from a high place, no suicide. In short, the Russians, if we are to take the UK parliament seriously, have spurned any discretion whatsoever.
Russia, in their infinite wisdom we are told, went to the medicine shelf and said, “hmmmm, which of these things would point to us the quickest and cause us the greatest grief internationally? Let’s use that one”.
Why? To what end would Russia do this? Why now? This premise is just plain stupid on so many levels that it is beyond imagining.
Apparently we are supposed to believe that master assassins from Russia chose to use a weapon that is more of a smoking gun than an actual smoking gun would be!
The UK government has espoused their unfounded theories as fact, so let’s explore these nefarious plotters and their purported actions and see if we can make the UK government’s version of events make any sense at all. (Spoiler alert – Not so much).
The Russian Government had imprisoned Mr Skripal over a decade ago. If they had an axe to grind with him, they were perfectly positioned to do anything wanted to, at their leisure, and with no questions and no recriminations. They would certainly not have been exposed to any recourse from a foreign government).
Yet the Russian authorities did nothing and the man was released in good health and then moved, with his family, to the UK.
Mr Skripal’s daughter subsequently moved back to Russia from the UK.
Obviously she was not living in fear of the Russian Government or she would never have returned.
Also, I am sure that her Father would have warned against such a move if he, with his experience as a spy for two countries, had any serious fears for her wellbeing.
At the very least, one assumes his British handlers would have expressed their concerns if they believed hey safety might be jeopardized as a result of her father’s previous activities.
Had the dastardly Russian Government, which Theresa May has described, actually wanted to do harm to Mr Skripal’s daughter, surely they could have engineered something in Moscow. Mr Skripal’s daughter lives there and, again, a simple accident would have meant no questions and no recriminations.
Nothing so simple for the Russians though. These master spies and assassins who have inspired such venom in the British Parliament are apparently all morons! It seems that they and their overlords (because every good villain should have an overlord, preferably in a trenchcoat, with a scar on one cheek, and stroking a hairless cat) could not do such simple equations.
The UK parliament would have us believe that Russian intelligence agencies stumbled about blindly, leaving massive and obvious clues everywhere.
I blame the translation of spy novels myself. I get to read them in the original English and this obviously gives me a massive advantage over trained professionals with decades of experience and almost unlimited resources. That is why I, a complete amateur, can find the flaws in all of this but the expert spies in Russia could not.
Honestly, I have a sieve with less holes than the UK Government’s story.
Anyway, according to the UK government’s narrative, we should believe that the Russian Government has suddenly remembered that they meant to kill a retired double agent who is no threat to them at all.
We are also expected to accept that the best and most unobtrusive option that Russian agencies could come up with is that he be poisoned with a substance that would be associated immediately with Russia.
I would love to see that ‘to do’ list:
- Polish bust of Lenin
- Count rubles in petty cash
- Use Russian poison to kill spy from 10 years ago who now lives in other country (N.B. Do not put this off again. Olga is getting cranky about all my procrastinating).
With all the resources and expertise available to them, we are supposed to believe that the Russian Government could not come up with a better option than clumsily poisoning Mr Skripal and his daughter in the UK.
Even better, of all the random or neutral substances that could be used, which would leave no clue as to the identity of the assassins, the Russian Government chose one with a chemical composition that apparently screams, “Da Comrade. Made in Soviet Union. You catch us badly Tovarich. Ivan, his bear and I are feeling very stupid as we sit in KGB Lada. Would you like some Vodka?”
By any rational standard, this is not just looking ridiculous, this is cartoonishly farcical!
Using even a little common sense there are really only two serious options.
Option A. The UK and the US have repeatedly told us for decades that Soviet/Russian spycraft is some of the most advanced and dangerous in the world. (Defending us against the red peril is how they justified all those big budget toys and less than friendly operations).
Now, after nearly a century at the top of their game, we are expected to believe that The Russian Government has suddenly developed institutional dementia. Russia is now supposed to be deliberately doing everything it can to get caught, except for providing fingerprints (or at least a bear paw outline), a selfie of an assassin wearing a Putin mask, and a signed confession.
OR
Option B. Someone is trying really hard to make this look like the Russian Government is responsible, and because that suits the current political narrative, no-one is going to ask any questions!
Simply on the basis that I do not believe the Russian Government is entirely comprised of incompetent buffoons, I am going to have to go with option B.
Let’s review some more facts:
While the UK Government claims that it is a “Russian made” poison that was used, this is unproven. The poison allegedly used was created in the Soviet Union. (I say ‘allegedly’ because no-one has provided any PROOF that this poison is even what they say it is). The British Prime Minister has, however, stated authoritatively that “…no-one but Russia had the formula for this poison…”
WOW! That does sound damning and definitely worthy of further investigation!
Apparently, Theresa May was using ‘technical English’. (i.e. English that should be read or heard any way other than the way it was actually written or said).
When she says ‘no-one but Russia’, she actually means, no-one but Russia and one of the chemists who told us about it, who defected to the USA (presumably in return for sharing his knowledge of chemistry including the formula).
So, what she meant was “’…no-one but Russia…’ and one of the chemists who told us about it, and the USA (where he defected to)” …
Ummm … and other ex Soviet countries. Novichok was apparently made and stored in a number of countries that used to a part of the Soviet Union.
So, what she really meant was “’…no-one but Russia…’, and one of the chemists who told us about it, and the USA (where he defected to), and a bunch of ex Soviet countries”…
Errr … and Amazon customers. The formula has purportedly been outlined in a book authored by the one of the chemists who told us about it. (available on Amazon).
So, what she really meant was “’…no-one but Russia…’, and one of the chemists who told us about it, and the USA (where he defected to), and a bunch of ex Soviet countries, and any Amazon customer with $30” …
Ahem … and maybe some US and European commercial and military interests who gained access to and/or control of ex Soviet production and/or storage facilities over the years.
So, when Teresa May stated, as a fact, that ‘no-one but Russia had the formula for this poison', she was really just abbreviating, and what she actually meant was:
“’…no-one but Russia…’, and one of the chemists who told us about it, and the USA (where he defected to), and a bunch of ex Soviet countries, and any Amazon customer with $30, and probably some US and European commercial and military interests, ‘…had the formula for this poison …””
Did I mention that one of the chemists who told the world about Novichok also stated that pretty much any competent laboratory in the world, with access to very standard chemical components, could churn this stuff out like ice cream?
It is obvious, even upon the most cursory examination, that Russia is far from being the only party to have this ‘secret’ formula.
In fact, it may actually be quicker to list the people who do not have access to a formula.
Right now, that list seems to be made up of a small tribe in the Amazon rainforest who have never seen a European, a Guatemalan teenager name Jose, whose parents have banned him from the internet for a week (because that boy really needs to knuckle down with his schoolwork and stop wasting time on computer games) and Theresa May herself.
Frankly, when Jose gets his internet privileges back, it will not be at all surprising if he stumbles across the “secret formula’ while messing around with the cleaners under the sink!
THESE ARE FACTS! Not allegations, not speculations, not insinuations. FACTS! Verifiable FACTS. (Well, maybe not the bit about Jose .. but who knows!?)
Does it mean that Russia did not have anything to do with this poisoning? I don’t KNOW for sure and frankly, that is not what this piece is about.
The facts available to me do not prove whether Russia did or did not have anything to do with this.
Unlike UK politicians, however, I feel that obligates me not to leap to spurious conclusions and baseless allegations, but rather to present what can be proven, so that it may be considered and investigated further.
God forbid that any of these politicians ever have to serve on a jury. I am damned sure I would not want them deciding my fate.
Apparently biased opinions and preconceived notions are, in their minds, a more than suitable alternative to truth, facts or proof!
In the absence of truth, facts, or any solid proof of their involvement, Russia, by any reasonable standard, must be presumed innocent.
Russia has certainly shown every interest in contributing expertise and resource to the investigation but the UK has rejected this out of hand.
As the alleged creator of this substance, one might think that Russia could have some valuable insight into this chemical. We will never know, as the UK refuses to co-operate with them.
One would have hoped that discovering the truth of the matter would be the priority but the UK, it seems, is irrevocably pre-disposed to Russia’s guilt and has no time for any alternative.
Apparently, the Skripals are not the only victims. To fit a pre-determined narrative, the public’s right to truth and justice are also being poisoned by both politicians and by the mainstream media.
What the facts DO show clearly and unequivocally is that Theresa May was not telling the truth.
I am not saying that she deliberately lied. Perhaps she was ill informed herself and only said what she believed was correct. (If that is the case, however, it does point to a freakish level of incompetence).
I do not have the full weight of the UK government behind me. I do not have the resources of an army of underlings all paid to trawl and research on my behalf.
I am sitting in front of my laptop with a simple internet connection and it still took me less than 30 minutes to disprove, FACTUALLY, Theresa May’s innuendo against Russia.
Rumour, accusation, gossip and deliberate lies are presented as proven truth by politicians, when nothing could be further from the truth, and the mainstream media holds no-one to account!
It is a simple task. The mainstream media simply have to say something like “Prime minister. You say the poison comes from Russia and this is an act of Russian aggression. SHOW US SOME PROOF”.
Or, (and this is a novel concept), journalists could use this new super secret magician’s tool that is the font of all knowledge, called “Google”.
Look something up you bone idle boneheads! In the bad old days it was called research! (You know, back when journalists did “news” and not prissy puff pieces to make their favourite celeb politician look like a reality star).
Research is one of the tools you can use to hold elected representatives to account if they appear to be dishonest or serving any agenda other than the public good.
Isn’t this reporting stuff just the neatest!?
On the bright side, you can do most of this from your desk instead of having to hit the pavements like your predecessors. It is a concept we are trying to reintroduce to both media and politics called “DOING YOUR DAMNED JOB!”
I know, it does create a dilemma. Should you have more latte while reading the gossip columns, or should you do a little bit of hard graft in your chosen profession to justify your expense account, your salary, and your consumption of so much oxygen? Tough choices indeed!
No-one in the Western mainstream media seems to have the inclination or the courage to do this, it seems. (Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, very very few have the inclination, and even if they do, their voices are lost amongst the rabble blindly broadcasting the accepted narrative).
By the way, before the next question is even asked, the answer is, “Not unless you are bloody stupid!”
(The question was, of course, “But these are our governments and reputable news agencies, surely we should trust them?”)
How many times have we been lied to, misled and deceived, just so that their propaganda and their political and military agendas can be met?
How many more times will we accept this before we demand accountability?
To trust any of them, anymore, is just plain ‘bloody stupid’.
My God, the powers that be hold the masses in such disdain now that they don’t even bother changing the storyline anymore. They just trot variations of the same crap out every time and they know that the sheep will swallow it.
Iraq: Let’s go to war because they have WMDs (chemicals apparently).
Kids went to war. Kids died.
They had NO PROOF! There were no WMDs and they knew it long before the first poor slob in a uniform set foot in the sand.
That didn’t worry the politicians. They spouted the allegations as if they were pure gospel. Whatever crap they talked was picked up and repeated, verbatim, by a mainstream media too lazy, too self involved and too stupid to do their jobs properly and question what they were being fed.
We NEED to stop letting our politicians and our media get away with this.
I am not being an apologist for Russia. I am being an advocate for the TRUTH. It does not matter who it is about.
It does not matter whether it is Russia, the USA , the UK, May, Trump or Putin.
Good or bad, the truth should be the truth, irrespective of who that truth involves.
Time and again, we hear (via their mainstream media mouthpieces generally) that our governments have ‘proof’ of something; that their intelligence agencies have found ‘evidence’ proving something.
To the governments I say, “SHOW US”.
No, your ‘word’ is not good enough. There are used car salespeople I would trust more than you.
We are all big boys and girls now. You say it affects us; You say that you have evidence, then SHOW US.
Put up, or shut up!
To the mainstream media I say, why aren’t you taking these idiots to task on such things.
Put your big boy or girl pants on, try to remember that being a journalist may not be about your own celebrity status, and actually demand and report some unpopular truth for a change.
FYI, that means doing more than asking once and running away with your tail between your legs if the mean spokesperson slaps you on the hand.
It may mean holding their feet to the fire and being repetitious.
It may mean seeking the support of your colleagues. If you all ask the same question and simply do not let them off the hook, what are they going to do?
If they kick you all out of the briefing they are going to look pretty stupid.
.
Did Russia collude with Trump? The answer is “SHUT UP until you produce some PROOF!”
Did Russia interfere in the US elections? The answer is “SHUT UP until you produce some PROOF!”
Your default position when faced with a baseless accusation should be innocence, not innunendo!
(By the way, why is it ALWAYS Russia? Apparently no other country is doing anything nasty according to the powers that be (i.e. mainly the USA and the UK)).
Did Iraq have WMDs? Of course they didn’t! Don’t help countries go to war based on unproven lies. SHUT UP until you produce some PROOF!
How many died, on both sides, because you refused to do your job as journalists and instead you helped an administration sell a dishonest agenda to the masses.
Those deaths are on your heads too!
Media outlets need to stop spouting idle thoughts, gossip and hearsay as though they were facts! News should be facts.
Opinions are not facts. Gossip is not news!
Politicians need to start making statements and decisions based on EVIDENCE that they can share with, and explain to, us.
They should not be making any statements unless they are founded on evidence. They should certainly be held to account when they make statements based solely on whatever political agenda is their own flavor of the month.
Oh, by the way, this is an opinion piece. I have not presented it as news because I do not have the PROOF to support it as news.
See how easy that is!?
I do however work on a simple principle that is supposed to underscore our democratic system.
“Innocent until proven guilty!”
If we accept that this concept is a corner stone of democracy and justice, then how do politicians (i.e. our lawmakers) justify the way that they deal with foreign nations.
Guilt is presumed from the outset and baseless antagonism (in the form of unproven allegations, stated as proven facts) seems to be the order of the day. This is all acceptable not because it promotes truth but simply because it conforms to a narrative that politicians wish to promote.
23 diplomats will leave the UK, creating intense international tension between two nuclear powers, yet this entire diplomatic incident is based on groundless allegation and baseless accusation.
We have not been provided with a single scrap of PROOF to support any of these actions by elected representatives who are supposed to work for us! Their actions, however, could have significant ramifications for millions around the world.
Western governments are not being professional or responsible in their dealings, discarding truth frivolously, while opportunistically trying to promote their own agendas.
The mainstream media are equally pitiful in holding anyone to account for this and perhaps motivating better behavior from our politicians.
We, the people, surely deserve better than this! We don’t want a cold war, or a hot war, simply because our representatives and media have their own agendas.
We would be quite happy with the truth, whatever that truth may be, for a change.
Surely we, and the Skripals, deserve that much from our much vaunted democracies.