> poisonings leave little doubt of the state’s involvement — which may be precisely the point. Exactly. That was the point of using Po-210 for Litvinenko. The goal was to leave no possible doubt who killed him and for what. It was a warning to all future defectors. So yes, nobody is safe even outside Russia. Funny enough during Soviet times US seems to have been considered off-limits for targeted assassinations. But…
And the proof for this theory is? I'm not buying anything main stream media or our elites are telling us.
They can't present proof for their far reaching accusations? Then it must be propaganda designed to steer us into hating some government they don't like for various reasons.
If they don't like this government and believe that they can convince us by presenting facts then I'd be fine with it. But they don't do this.
> It is also interesting that as soon as War On Terror started Putin has quickly jumped on-board and also started to claim what they were doing was "War On Terror" as well.
Russia had internal civil wars in recent memory where they fought radical Islamist groups trying to establish an Islamic Emirate in Russian regions like Chechnya, Dagestan and others. And they had lots of terror attacks before this even became a thing in the West.
Islamist terror organisations were actually so strong back then in the region, that Russia _lost_ a war against them in the first Chechen war. Imagine the US loosing a hypothetical war against self proclaimed leaders of a Texan Emirate/Caliphate and ceding territory to them. You would go nuts.
These are some pretty strong reasons why any Russian leader would support a war on terrorism as I doubt you'll find a Russian politician (even within the opposition) that is in favour of establishing a Caliphate on Russian territory.