Originally Posted by
andy6025
Driller, I'll refer to my thoughts on the matter posted in the thread on 'Public Safety' (copied below). You're right to point out though that all the countries mentioned, including Russia, engage in acts like this when it suits their interest, and cry foul when others do it contrary to their interests. I know nothing in the Russian DNA, nor their methods of operation that sets them significantly apart from their Western counterparts, nor amongst either of their numerous vassals abroad. In light if that, I'd agree with Corbyn that measuring twice before cutting once is sensible policy, especially before going down the avenue of disproportionate escalation. Just as an exit strategy was lacking prior to the invasion of Iraq (possibly because there may have never been a desire to exit at all), we would do well to ask ourselves what's the end game that TM es all have in mind?
My thoughts copied from the other thread:
I see two possible narratives here, both plausible.
1) Russia did it and did so in so obvious a fashion as to send a warning to all of their agents not to double cross Russia in the future as this will be their fate. In light of all the investigations into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia in securing an election victory (by simply making the Dem's own words public, funding his campaign, and/or using social media to discredit the Dems) it is of strategic importance to ensure that spies remain loyal. Getting Britain and possibly the EU wound up and considering counter measures (increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk, etc) is a worthwhile price to pay to help (no guarantees!) Trump remain in office for another 2 years, possibly 6.
2) It is in a particular states interest to make it appear as if Russia is the culprit. What would they hope to achieve? Same as the list above: increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to the Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk. Add to that an attempt to further 'expose' Trump circumstantially as a Putin puppet. In this narrative it could be a number of actors who would be interested in securing these results - elements of the CIA and/or MI6, Ukrainian agents hoping to gain increased support in their civil war, or even Israel (Russia is throwing a monkey wrench into their middle-east designs). What would be the cost for any of these agents engaging in such a tactic? If they don't get caught, nothing at all. If they DO get caught... hmmm, would Therressa May call out the CIA, her own intelligence agency, the Israeli or Ukrainian governments? I can't be certain, but I suspect she might stick with the 'Russia did it' narrative even if she knew otherwise. Besides, could she really be exposing any of these groups at a time when her 'communist' opposition is currently polling higher than her own party? I have doubts, especially when it may circumstantially assist her re-election efforts to paint Russia as a real threat in a renewed cold war and further solidify her support for programs like Trident - an example of one issue among many that separates her from Corbyn.
With no evidence at hand to the public and little choice but to either accept or reject what our masters tell us, either narrative seems plausible to this footy fan.