It doesn't matter that the UK cannot fight a conventional war with Russia and win, because it would not be fought conventionally. One can claim all the moral high ground they want beforehand, but examples such as the bombing of Dresden and the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nukes, when there was arguably no real need for it at that stage, beg the question of what more would be perpetrated if there actually was an immediate existential threat to any nation with nuclear and biological weapons capability.
If there's a war there's no winner. The only way to win is to not play. The UK would be obliterated and Russia would suffer so massively and be thrown into such turmoil, that someone else (take your pick) would think: "You know what, let's finish the job while we have the chance."
To me the more pressing issue is now that the government has issued its statement, to question it. Because one thing is for sure - even though they may include some truth, they are not telling all of the truth. Not yet anyway. And not holding breath because these things never work like that.
The statement implies that only two options are possible: the Russian state did it, or someone who obtained the nerve agent from the Russian state. It omits spelling out that the UK (and likely others) will also have samples of Novichok, with which to have compared/matched the alleged agent involved. No mention of why Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey entered Skripal's home later, presumably unprotected. No mention of who exactly were the 21 others treated (we can assume doctors, nurses, other policemen but it is still an assumption) or how they were treated. No mention of why nobody is dead due to exposure to it, if it makes VX look tame in comparison (according to UK experts). And of how much time elapsed since being exposed to it and (presumably) being treated with an antidote. Why the call to wash clothes and dishes etc only came 5 days after. Etc.
Only a week has passed, so that's fine. These things can take time. But I do hope these and much more will be asked, and addressed (if not properly answered in every instance). Instead of just assume "It's true now, cos May said so innit, so what do we do against Russia?".
The statement is also strikingly disinterested in obtaining all the information possible about it. To explain - if the Russians have offered their cooperation, then call their bluff (if it is one). To pass up such an opportunity to gather information, even from what they might choose to lie about, seems at odds with a party (the UK state) that presents itself as investigating and not knowing all the facts. It rushes to merely taint Russia in one way (they did it) or the other (someone obtained it from them so they are still responsible). The longer the investigation, the more weight the findings would carry, public relations wise as well. It is unlikely that Russia will fail to point this peculiarity out, which May won't benefit from. The impression being made out there is that she has succumbed to extraordinary pressure to blame Russia, before enough facts are known. Sudden revelations of donated Russian money to her party (doesn't matter that they are unlikely to have been friends of Putin, and more likely enemies). Leaks to The Sun by MI5 (allegedly), telling them what her statement would be (or is that "should be"?) before she uttered it, etc.
It also doesn't sound like the possibility that a third party wishes bad (or rather - worse) relations between the UK and Russia, is being looked at.
