Skripal Poisoning Canard Comes Unraveled

Following the initial UK-U.S. organized bum rush of Russia over the Skripal poisoning, the narrative has come under increasing suspicion.

The Skripal daughter, Yulia, is now conscious and appears to be on her way to recovery. The police officer who assisted the Skripals has also recovered and returned home. How is this possible if what we're dealing with here is a super-lethal fourth generation chemical weapon, code name Novichok?

More questionable is the idea that an assassin --  and not just any assassin, but one who is trained in the use of a fourth generation nerve agent -- would smear her Novichok on the front-door handle and skedaddle. What if the Amazon deliveryman were to arrive?

This morning Ellen Barry and David Sanger come to the rescue in "Poisoned Door Handle Hints at High-Level Plot to Kill Spy, U.K. Officials Say."

British and American officials say they are struck by the symbolism of the attack on Mr. Skripal, as well as its effectiveness. There were many ways the former spy could have been killed: He could have been shot, or killed in a staged accident.

But the assassins knew the nerve agent would be identified, and knew it would be linked to Russia, the officials said. That was meant to send a chilling message to others who would think of defecting to, or informing, the West.

And by conducting the operation in an historical British town, some distance from London, the attack was meant to indicate that no place was out of reach of Russian assassins, the officials said.

The boldness of the attack on Mr. Skripal, which took British authorities by surprise, has caused them to reassess Mr. Putin’s use of what has come to be called “hybrid warfare.”

The officials are now viewing those actions as part of a pattern — one rarely seen in the Cold War — in which Mr. Putin exerts Russian power in ways that are hard to attribute directly to Russian actors, but leave little doubt in the minds of adversaries about the country’s willingness to use a range of new tactics.

This explanation is similar to the one used when the question is asked, Why would Assad use a weapon that provides no tactical advantage yet invites retribution from a superpower? Because he loves to terrorize his people.

That's basically what Barry and Sanger are hanging out there for the NYT readers to consume. Putin did this, used a chemical weapon nonsensically in an assassination attempt, to terrorize his opponents.

It's the Boris and Natasha explanation. In other words, a cartoon meant for children.