For Russia, perhaps. But not, as you yourself note, for Putin. It's politically useful for him, since it suppresses dissent. His enemies die even when they have fled to another country, so don't be his enemy. In addition, the sanctions were not a known outcome of the assassination attempt and military posturing is just posturing and is also politically usable for Putin (and therefore useful for him, since he's very good at politics).
It may be politically useful to him internally to a small degree. But it's wholly unnecessary. This is going to be a general theme of my response to you - not a disputation of facts but of degree of significance. Which is not unexpected given nobody really knows the truth and we're all just weighing up the likelihood of different conspiracy theories. As I said earlier, Putin has just received an overwhelmingly positive election result. Since Putin came to power, Russian people have seen steady rises in quality of life, employment and paying off of debt. He's well liked. I'm really going to challenge you on this one. I think it's not possible to make a case that Putin was sitting there thinking: "75% of the votes isn't enough! I must have 77%! Quick execute a spy!". And honestly, I think you're doing the Russian people a disservice in thinking that killing a British spy so that Britain will blame you so that you can then deny it so that people will be outraged at the false (real) accusation and think "I must express my outrage by voting for Putin" is worthwhile tactic.
In addition to overselling the gains, I think you are underselling the cost, which I'll come to in a moment. I'll just divert briefly to note that if there is a gain for Russia it is the discouragement of other traitors. I think your idea of political capital on Putin's side should be dismissed. This discussion you and I are having cannot be one of "is it possible or is it not" as I'm having with Dowie. It has to be one of "I follow Russian politics and this isn't significant or yes it is". The difference being one can be absolute and independent of personal familiarity. A googling facts and logic battle, essentially. Whereas ours becomes one of "do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just picking out handy facts and abstract principles".
Putin ordered the invasion, conquest and annexation a large part of another country. He's clearly not very concerned about what other countries think or what they might do. Assassinating a few people would generally be expected to come further down the list of international incidents than invading, conquering and annexing a large part of another country.
Putin is very, very smart and very, very good at International politics. I understand your chain of reasoning but Putin very much cares about what other countries think or might do. Because that's what he does. There are many billions at stake here. I've already made the case as to how sanctions require a causus belli (they do and I know you wont dispute that). I've also made the case (in light but sufficient detail) that sanctions and efforts to shut down Nordstream 2 are in the order of many billions and huge strategic importance. I reject wholly the idea that Putin doesn't care about such actions and doesn't make them part of his strategies. Anymore than any chess player ignores what their opponent is doing.
The degree to which Western interests are being pursued here has to be acknowledged. The USA desperately wants to be as much of the primary seller of oil to Europe as possible (both directly and where unable, for oil to come from allied states like Saudi Arabia. SA is also starting to negotiate directly with Russia, btw). These things are massive and you cannot just file them away with "Russia doesn't care what other countries think". The Skirpal poisoning case has minimal impact on Russia directly (good or bad). But it has a large effect indirectly in what it enables the UK and USA to do. I repeat, if you're going to engage in economic warfare you MUST have a pretext. Both legally and politically. We KNOW the UK and USA want to sanction Russia and close down Nordstream 2. I linked to a speech in the US Senate from last week explicitly calling for that. If there were no pretext,
it would be necessary to invent one.
All of this is true and supported.
Could have, yes. But there's no evidence that they did. There's also no evidence of the UK using toxic substances for assassinations. Russia, on the other hand, has made this particular chemical weapon and has used toxic substances for assassinations.
Well no, we don't have evidence that the UK poisoned Skirpal and his daughter. We only have evidence that somebody did and that this somebody would very likely have to be a state actor.
I presume you agree that the UK has the capability to have done this. These agents have been around for forty years, numerous different formula are available and it's demonstrated other countries have made them. And unlike Dowie I know you wont avoid the question of whether there's something special about this one that means only Russia could have made it (there isn't). You and I both acknowledge that the UK could have done this. Our dispute is over which is likeliest as culprit. Your comment of "Russia is known for this", is immaterial in the context of a possible False Flag. A False Flag would conform to public perceptions of the intended target. Obviously.
On the Russian side, I see two possible reasons, only one of which is likely. To send a message to others not to betray their country (plausible); to prevent Skirpal from sharing information or doing something (highly unlikely he has any relevant cards in hand or utility by this point).
On the UK/USA side, I see many billions and great strategic influence at stake. To justify economic warfare, a causus belli is required. By definition this must be highly public and dramatic.
Both are valid. We disagree (I think) on which is the greater likelihood. Given that the Russia scenario plays greatly into his opponents hands (which Putin never does) and given the USA/UK scenario is of huge importance, I land on the latter. I'm actually hoping (unlike Dowie) that I can convince you on this balance of probabilities.
Murdering a person under the protection of the UK in the UK would be an own goal for the government of the UK since it's an obvious failure to provide the promised protection. This attack is harmful to the UK in the short, medium and long term because it will put people off providing information to the UK intelligence services.
This point is valid. It does put people off turning to the UK intelligence services. If it is the case that it's a false flag, I can imagine a whole bunch of intelligence workers stomping around right now angrily cursing the short-sightedness of their directors who don't understand the implications. But to be fair, that would also make it like every other industry I've ever worked in and you as well! No?
It does in the "Russia Did It" column. But for me, it doesn't come close to tipping the scales.
As regards the risk of the truth coming out and embarrassing Britain, I can only restate my view that the risk of this is non-existent. If it's a false flag then nobody who made the decision will ever go to jail for it. Not unless there is catastrophic overturning of the political power in this country. We've literally lied to cause a war on multiple occasions. William Hague isn't in the Hague. Tony Blair isn't rotting in prison. Frankly, we're more than capable of this. The discussion can only come down to one of Cui Bono.
Which so far is us, not Russia.
