This just confirms that president’s regime has absolutely no connection with truth
‘We are two guys in the fitness business, our burning desire was to see the famous spire of Salisbury Cathedral. We get to Salisbury yet we don’t stay very long. We return to London frightened by a few flurries of snow that we never see in Moscow and then immediately we leave for Moscow where it is much warmer in March.”
That is the story that Russia wanted us to believe; the story of two individuals who supposedly were just wayward tourists in Britain and were just caught up in one of the most bizarre and strangest spying stories of the decade.
The real question is, does anyone in Russia really believe that this is a credible interpretation?
Does anyone in Russia believe that these two guys, completely unknown, suddenly rang up on a private mobile number, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today, the country’s chief propaganda trumpet, and offered to tell their side of the story without any help from the authorities?
Why is Russia engaged in this exercise and what does it tell us about the leaders of the country and the way they see our country?
Judging from the smirking face of Russian president Vladimir Putin, when he announced yesterday that the alleged culprits of the Salisbury attack had been identified, it is quite clear that the Russian authorities quite enjoy this game.
They quite enjoy putting up two fingers at Britain, reminding the British that at the end of the day they almost failed to protect the life of a Russian defector and double agent – and that they did fail to prevent Russian agents from breaching British territory and from unleashing a lethal – and latterly fatal – substance among its public.
The first purpose of the latest charade is to remind us that not only are the Russians able to breach our national defences, but that they can even smirk about it afterwards, and publicly.
For Margarita Simonyan, President Putin’s chief propagandist, the story represents a “media exclusive” at a time when her international audiences may be in decline.
But the story also allows Russia to engage in a tactic that the Kremlin has been perfecting for quite some time, which is to encourage as many conspiracy theories as possible, in order to cover its tracks.
The more stories like those of the supposedly hapless “tourists” in Salisbury emerge, the more we are being sent down rabbit warrens.
The more such irrelevant affairs occur, the more we take our eye off what really happened, which is one of the most egregious, dangerous and reckless actions by a country that lays claims to being a civilised state.
This idea of letting hundreds of conspiracy theories bloom has been a classic tactic of Russian propaganda, and we have seen it in full flow today.
But, ultimately, the episode is also a reminder of the poverty of the public debate in Russia itself today.
The idea that a country can put up such a flimsy, risible explanation in the full knowledge that most of the Russian TV spectators will not be either surprised or incredulous is probably the most interesting aspect.
In many respects, this bizarre story tells more about Russia itself than it tells about us.
And it clearly has no connection with the truth.