[dirtyid]

US admin disputes the WP piece.

>"Reports that Canada asked the U.S. to publicly condemn the murder and that we refused are false and we would strongly push back on the rumours that we were reluctant to speak publicly about this," the official said.

US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate. That doesn't happen behind the scenes if US can wiggle out of allegations. Canada wouldn't have gone to G20 with allegations on sidelines unless they have sufficient FVEY intelligence. That's read between the line of formally supporting Canadian allegations but trying to find a position not throw everything into the shitter. Which they could have during Indian G20 to make this the dominating narrative. The most charitable interpretation right now is FVEY/US supports CA allegations, but still hoping this somehow IN/CA can manage crisis in way it would blow over.

[pseudo0]

Spot the difference between these two statements:

> Canada had asked it's closest allies, including Washington, to publicly condemn the killing

> US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate.

They got a much, much weaker level of support than they wanted.

[dirtyid]

There is no difference. The point wasn't level of support/theatre/posturing but presence of support at all that tacitly indicates the level of intelligence behind Canada's accusation. It's credible enough that FVEY can't deny. Which is key. How they hedge / crisis manage,whether they hang Canada out dry during G20 etc, is secondary to the fact that they can't swept it under the rug. The narrative this isn't India said vs Canada said, it is India said vs FVEY said. With underlying assumption that FVEY can't deny credibility of Canadian allegations. Even if 4/5 of FVEY also say meh/whatever to the incident overall. And as I mention previous, entire layer also modulated by how much credence you place in FVEY, only that its extremely counter to their interest to not be able to deny.