0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,205 $

May, Highly Likely, “People’s Expert Knowledge Of Russia”


May, Highly Likely, "People’s Expert Knowledge Of Russia"

Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool via REUTERS

The media spectacle surrounding various Russiagate-style stories have reached the level, where all more or less adequate people demonstrate their puzzlement by and disapproval of this political circus regardless their political views.

On August 7, The Guardian reported that Scotland Yard has examined the role of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in the supposed novichok nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

Putin is assessed by UK intelligence agencies as having been “likely” to have approved of the attack in March 2018 on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer, and his daughter, both of whom were left seriously ill but survived,” the article starts.

According to the report, the head of UK counter-terrorism policing Neil Basu said the investigation into the attack was continuing.

You’d have to prove he [Putin] was directly involved,” he said. “In order to get an EAW [European Arrest Warrant], you have to have a case capable of being charged in this country. We haven’t got a case capable of being charged.”

“We’re police officers, so we have to go for evidence. There has been a huge amount of speculation about who is responsible, who gave the orders, all based on people’s expert knowledge of Russia. I have to go with evidence.”

Many “wellwishers” of SouthFront often make comments claiming that it is unacceptable to refer to unnamed experts and sources when SouthFront publishes articles and videos on key political and military tendencies of the modern world. Indeed, SouthFront, as well as other media organizations and investigators, often forced to avoid revealing personal data of sources and experts.  Nonetheless, the frequency of such reports by SouthFront does not reach 5-10% of those observed in the Western mainstream agenda.

The Skripals case, chemical attacks in Syria, the MH17 incident and ‘Russian meddling’ in the US presidential election are examples of stories based solely on such ‘facts’ as “may”, “highly likely” and “people’s expert knowledge of Russia”.




Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • The Guardian is, without question, the worst newspaper in the Western world for extreme bias. Just shabby.

    It has a whole set of prejudices, but hating Russia and hating Jeremy Corbyn, a decent tolerant politician, are probably on the top of their list.

    Little real journalism ever occurs at The Guardian.

    I could offer many examples, but my favorite ione s this that made extended comments on:


  • RichardD

    Where are the victims?

    Why would any rational person believe anything from an English government that employs Saudi style disappearances of those who know to much? Were they carved into pieces alive like the MI5 butchers did to their own citizens in Northern Ireland?

  • Toronto Tonto

    Who the hell would believe a thing Russia says anyway . Oh ya iran NK and venez. all pinnacles of our upper class eh .

    • AM Hants

      When you look into the eyes of President Putin, you look into his soul … George Bush (Junior)

      When President Putin gives you his word, unlike other world leaders, he delivers… Bill Clinton

  • AM Hants

    Off topic, but, links in.

    The Declining Empire of Chaos Is Going Nuts Over Iran
    AUGUST 5, 2019
    The transition in recent years from a unipolar to a multipolar world order has created international tensions that seem to threaten to escalate into clashes between regional and global powers… https://theduran.com/the-declining-empire-of-chaos-is-going-nuts-over-iran/

  • goingbrokes

    Guardian has sank so low it’s not funny anymore.
    Unnamed sources: of course it is accepted that journalists protect their sources, this is normal when the source might be compromised or under threat. BUT it is not acceptable for major publications to constantly produce PURE opinion pieces based on an “unnamed source” in MI6 or CIA or State Department, or a think tank. All of these are publicly registered bodies or part of the government and these kind of sources have either a domestic or a foreign agenda and CANNOT be treated as objective sources of information. What they say is never more than an attempt to inject their interpretation and narrative on events, unless confirmed by opposing agents or neutral sources. There are so many untruthful narratives these days that reading MSM is a major hazard, and is best avoided altogether.