Russia, plenty has been made of the Sergei Skripal poisoning and plenty MPs in the Commons have come out in condemnation of Russia and place the blame firmly with them. This doesn’t mean they believe the Kremlin and Putin are directly involved. Jeremy Corbyn called for evidence before jumping to conclusions, whilst others immediately blamed Russia. In more recent interviews, Labour’s shadow chancellor has blamed Russia, along with the likes of Kier Starmer.

The Conservatives have been unequivocal over who they believe to be responsible. But what is known so far about the incident? If Putin did order the attempt, why and how did it fail? The other possibility is Kremlin linked mafia, which is a possibility.

Conservative supporting Kremlin?

The Russian ex-spy who along with his daughter was poisoned by a nerve agent in the U.K. may have been exposed to it through his car’s ventilation system, sources told ABC News. However, British investigators are reportedly convinced that Novichok, a military-grade nerve toxin, was planted in the luggage of Yulia Skripal, the former spy’s 33-year-old daughter. In the last election, the Russian Embassy tweeted their support of the Conservatives, which raises all sorts of questions but why do they have such a desire to see them in power.

Firstly, the £3 million in donations the Conservatives have received from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies since 2010 and the Conservative party have consistently blocked Magnitsky powers to clamp down on all the Russian dark money sloshing around the City of London, the UK housing market, and their own party coffers.

Top Videos of the Day

Whilst Jeremy Corbyn has been calling for the Magnitsky powers since 2010 and been vocally critical over human rights abuses in Russia since becoming Labour leader in 2015.

Russia also see Brexit as a strategic and economic blow to the NATO alliance, furthermore, Russia are the UK’s biggest exporter in weapons grade nuclear material, with Corbyn government likely to clamp down on the sale of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear products to countries with poor human rights records. When Theresa May was Home Secretary, she repeatedly resisted an official inquiry into the Litvinenko poisoning, her reasoning was relations with Russia, yet is happy to jeopardise those relations on a whim with no real evidence?

Geopolitics and foreign policy

Importantly what is being ignored is geopolitics and foreign policy. Over century ago, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed between Britain and France, this was to break up the Middle-East following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

This along with the Darin Treaty with Ibn Saud of Al Saud and the Balfour Declaration created what Churchill described as colonies in the Middle-East (Saudi Arabia and Israel).

Russia weren’t involved because Britain didn’t trust their anti-imperialism (not saying they were better, just different form of abhorrent violence). Throughout that time, along with the US allies, UK and Russia have been rivals in the Middle-East with the UK/US holding power, until more recently. Those ‘colonies’ became more important after WW2 and the dismantling of the British Empire, especially with global trade being propped by arms sales.

In recent years, with the rise in China’s economic power, who are close allies with Russia, Turkey and UAE’s anti-imperialism within the region and Russia’s close ties with Assad and increase activity in Syria. They have become an important voice within the region, much to detriment of the UK/US hold over the region. Weakening NATO and the UN, the latter have been vocal in their condemnation of Russia, Turkey, Assad etc. and this would be vital for Russia to continue their push in the region. An attack on foreign soil, particularly that of a member of NATO, would directly undermine plans to restructure global powers in their favour.

By no means are Russia good but whoever or whatever happened, it is being used so that ordinary people can be used as weapons against a fake enemy, which will only benefit the elite. In which who knows how many innocent people will be killed in the process but much like Iraq, those few millions are just collateral damage to those who sit in parliament and decide the fate of others without having to experience it for themselves.