I can't get my head around why - for Russia. Just before an election Putin wants the world to see as legitimate.

Maybe being a tough guy that kills traitors plays well in Russia? Especially if you know you're rigging the election and you just want to send a message to your opposition in Russia and the world, that you will kill someone for opposing you.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Put in has supposedly been rigging the Russian elections in his favor for years, and it’s pretty well known globally that Putin’s “people” have killed reporters/opposition in the past. So why does this message need to be sent now?

Look at the lead up to now with Russian behavior. It's been escalating since 2010 and here we have him openly flouting his relationship to Trump and killing traitors in another country.

I don't to know exactly what Putin is doing but, we can see his actions and at a certain like 4 years ago, you have to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even if this is UK psyops, Putin has no leg to stand on with as many as he's killed/hacked, etc

Yeah no that's a good theory if you want to push the media narrative. the more logical thinker or an actually conspiracy theorist who knows that the media and the agendas of some governments is to lie and manipulate to get there point to be seen as true, is to see this as another attempt to push the Russia is bad narrative. Who benifits most from this ex spy been poisoned Russia or the west? If as you say the assassination was to send a message there is plenty of other ways that they could of done it but to use a russian chemical at a time when everyone is watching Russia does not seem likely

This viewpoint only holds water if you ignore the last 8 years of Russian behavior. You literally have to squint to ignore how shitty they have been and realize that "too fucking bad Russia, you lost the benefit of the doubt'.

How has Russia been 'shitty'?

Oh please you can read all on your own:

https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-criminal-inhumanity-syria/

https://qz.com/862764/heres-a-list-of-abuses-in-vladimir-putins-russia/

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-most-shocking-things-putin-is-responsible-for/

I'm not spoon feeding you.

You have got to be joking right?

Did you also believe the stuff bout Iraq having WMDs?

No.

I bet you do

Worst sources ever. Besides Russia, What conspiracies do you actually believe?

Violating airspace, invading countries. The usual

Got sources for any of that or are those just more of Western Coalition lies?

Well I’ve spoken to people who work on air traffic control and deal with Russians testing response times etc flying without transponders turned on. But what’s the point in trying to convince you though. Seems fruitless.

That's anecdotal. The US also violates other countries airspace all the time. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Don’t know what cake you think I’m eating. I live in a neutral country. Doesn’t matter to Russia though it seems.

Oh shit, that's so much worse than erroneously claiming a country has Weapons of Mass Destruction, invading it leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, then doing the same thing in Libya because we never learn from our mistakes. But hey, the Russians turned off some transponders, so we better invade them too. Open your eyes.

You mean to tell me that you believe that stuff from the countries that have invaded Afghanistan Iraq liyba and destabilised countless more but they are the moral ones who you will swallow the stories from??

You mean like how we invaded Iraq, destabilized Libya and Syria, supported a right-wing coup in Ukraine? That kind of shitty? Get real. Wake up. Fight the real enemy.

So I've heard. Now is there any evidence for that?

Enlighten me to the past 8 years of Russia that have been so bad to the public

playing out in Russia

This means nothing and no one cares. Russia has no market power and no one really gives a shit about them as an emerging market. Putin and the turd oligarchs have bled the country dry and so, what they think or feel is not important to the massive American/Europe alliance.

Putin has overplayed his hand and sniffed his own farts too long.

This means nothing and no one cares. Russia has no market power and no one really gives a shit about them as an emerging market.

Literally most geopolitical thinking in the past 100 years has been centered on preventing the ascendance of Eurasia, and it was one of the most astute concerns right away, after the Soviet-Union collapsed, as evidenced by leaked defense strategy paper in 1992.

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

Literally most geopolitical thinking in the past 100 years has been centered on preventing the ascendance of Eurasia, and it was one of the most astute concerns right away, after the Soviet-Union collapsed, as evidenced by a leaked defense strategy paper in 1992.

Cool, has nothing to do with calling out Russia for what they've done since 2010 and punishing them for it.

Long term geopolitical thinking does not stop in 2010. In fact, framing Russia as an antagonist, like you are doing, is only a recent iteration of that long term policy.

Your claim that no one is worried about emerging markets, when China and Russia are integrating with the rest of Eurasia, and the DOD is putting out papers worrying about a post US primacy world could not be further from the truth.

PS. Neocons usually start with the 2008 crisis in Georgia...2010 is very random.

The cyclical theory refers to a model used by historian Arthur Schlesinger to attempt to explicate the fluctuations in politics throughout American history. Liberalism and conservatism are rooted in the "national mood" that shows a continuing shift in national involvement between public purpose and private interest. Each of these cycles includes a phase of dominant public interest, a transition phase, and a phase of prevalent private interest.

The cycles Schlesinger defined these to be "self-generating and autonomous". They begin in the mentality of the masses, rather than creations of influential individuals of a time period. Leaders or politicians are representations of the "mood", chosen to express the voice of the majority. Shifts in the national mentality are initiated when discontent with present conditions over time drives Americans to pursue a new trend that promises to satisfy the interest of the masses. This discontent, described by Schlesinger as "inextinguishable", drives the cycles of change in national politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory

I am perplexed by your response. Cyclical or in Schlesinger's case, spiral accounts of history are not unique, nor are teleological accounts. However, neither are ruptures of cycles.

If the claim is that increasing discontent is cyclical, sure, as inequality grows political instability will follow, and with this both the methods of resistance, and the methods that the powerful consolidate and protect their power.

I fail to see what this has to do with long term geo-strategical thinking which has identified the containment of Eurasia as a primary goal.

I can't get mired in your response if you don't even take in consideration America's 300-400 year old cyclical political nature; the fight between conservative and progressive ideologies. Your response made me think you weren't even considering our ridiculous 80 year repetitions and without that, anything I believe and express will seem daft.

I am asking for you to make your points explicit, in order to narrow down your point, because as of right now the ambiguity is overwhelming.

Overwhelming because the appeal to 'cyclical' history as a struggle between 'conservative and liberal', or in your second iteration, 'conservative and progressive', are confusing. Liberalism, as in an ideology which holds that markets should be free with a state whose responsibility is to maintain free markets is the conservative position.

Nor is the preoccupation with the rise of Eurasia, 'cyclical'. It has been constant in an equation with some variables. The fact that public attention alternates does not negate this.

Russia has taking front and centre of syria and prevented another regime change to suit the west Russia is another block in the west's attempts to control the world if Russia falls to the west then in the next few years it will be China who is been accused of what Russia was doing.

lol, Russia props up dictator and you call it 'blocking regime change'.

The idea is to continue to punish Russia economically, in order to bring it to stand down as an opposition force to the US-Israel-Saudi axis in Syria. The Skripal media blitz is accompanied by the fact that the World Cup is taking place in Russia. The idea is for sponsors to abandon it, for it to be boycotted, and for a poor turnout.

It is basically the same situation as with Hillary C

So many people have died in her circle, that we would be fools to think it is actually her and not someone simply trying to discredit her at this point

And I think we all know who is doing the discrediting

This viewpoint only holds water if you ignore the last 8 years of Russian behavior. You literally have to squint to ignore how shitty they have been and realize that "too fucking bad Russia, you lost the benefit of the doubt'.

You have got to be joking right?

Did you also believe the stuff bout Iraq having WMDs?

Worst sources ever. Besides Russia, What conspiracies do you actually believe?