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”.
MORE ON THE TOPIC: