[rdiddly]

There is good reason to doubt the Skripal story -- among other things the apparent lack of hard evidence, the absence of any discernible upside for Russia the purported perpetrators, and the already-existing climate of relentless and politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now. If Russia is being set up for military attack, then we're currently seeing a propaganda campaign pretty similar to many others. Fool me once... shame on me etc.

How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.

[favorited]

> politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now

You realize Russia has invaded (and annexed territory from) multiple neighboring sovereign nations over the last 10 years? The idea that the west is simply posturing to set up a war with Russia while Russia is starting actual wars is laughable.

[lawnchair_larry]

They actually haven’t done that. There are other sides to both of those stories that are pretty well supported and make for a far simpler and more straightforward explanation. It’s politically unpopular to discuss that though. Even floating the idea that there might be a rational explanation is enough to invite knee-jerk downvotes and accusations of being a fake Russian troll account. I find it quite bizarre.

[rdiddly]

Doubly so, given that the amount of digging required is so very minimal!

[TangoTrotFox]

Do you know anything about the 'invasion and annexation' of let's say Crimea?

Imagine that the US as a nation was dissolved at some point. And some of our territory, perhaps a bit of Texas, ended up the property of Mexico. This new part of Mexico remained almost entirely American in both ethnicity and identity. And then some decades later Mexico began to collapse in internal turmoil with their government being violently overthrown from within. In the mean time the former US had regained a good deal of its lost strength.

In the midst of this, local forces in the annexed regions of Mexico, probably with some support of the US, formed their own interim government. And they then held a vote on whether they should remain part of Mexico, or return to the US. And with 83% voter turnout, 97% voted to return to the US. Those are certainly North Korea like poll numbers, but they have been reflected in later polls by third party organizations including Gallup. If anything it reflects how absurd the initial situation was. The US then declared them as part of its territory and the 'invasion' ended with nary a fatality.

I think there is a strong argument that the people should have been allowed to return as part of Russia if they so overwhelmingly desired it. But even that was something that was not independently acted on. You had a nation collapsing and a group of people in that nation that really did not want to be there. Annexation and war generally implies that the annexed nation did not want to be annexed. In this case, it was their former 'owner' that was holding them against their will.

---

The Project for the New American Century was a think tank made up of basically every big name in Washington. It was from Bush's era, but many are still playing extremely prominent roles in DC politics. This paper from them [1], 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' is one of the most honest and clear views of neoliberal foreign policy to date. To avoid bias, I'm going to avoid commenting directly on the paper. Other than to say that our foreign policy actions make vastly more sense if you peruse that paper, but it will also make you vastly more cynical. Keep in mind there that Russia's rise from the USSR's collapse is something that certainly qualifies as what the paper refers to as 'the emergence of a new international player.'

[1] - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmeri...

[rdiddly]

Your haughtiness really doesn't improve or bolster your point. Google "Victoria Nuland Viktor Yanukovich regime change" together for some examples of contrary information. Hillary's State Dept. (Nuland et al) destabilized the Ukraine in the first place (2014), to get rid of Yanukovych (duly and democratically elected by a sovereign nation), who maybe coincidentally had previously been leaning toward joining the Russian/Asian trade & cooperation zone instead of NATO. Hmm interesting. Kiev soon turns into a neo-Nazi shitshow. Crimea, made up almost entirely of ethnic and linguistic Russians, holds a referendum and votes to join Russia. "There's a big powerful country with a big military next door, that we used to be a part of anyway, that can protect us from neo-Nazis and US meddling alike? Huzzah, welcome the tanks!" For Russia it's their best shot at a warm-water port, so I agree it is a bit convenient for them. But think about what the US would do if Russia toppled, say, Ontario. Do we let foreign governments create failed states on our borders? We almost started WW3 over Cuba.

[wafflebear]

Do you dispute that Russia poisoned Litvinenko as well? Enemies of the Russian state just seem to be poisoned by incredibly rare substances every now and again.

[rdiddly]

I don't know much about that case, but a cursory read on Wikipedia (which could itself be biased and/or misinformed) is a bit more convincing than the Skripal case.

Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).

[dragonwriter]

> Select two

Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.

[rdiddly]

The person I'm conversing with mentioned two, and based on that, concluded Russia is the #1 suspect here, and the only country brazen enough to do it. All you have to do is pick two assassinations by any other country, and that country is now equally brazen. The point is that the statement is weak, not that there have been two assassinations in history. Get it now?