I have two words for you: cui bono. First hypothesis: Russian intelligence officers have attempted assassinate Skripals. What was the motive? All information h

I have two words for you: cui bono. First hypothesis: Russian intelligence officers have attempted assassinate Skripals. What was the motive? All information held by Skripal has been long ago acquired by MI-6 and their US colleagues. Assassination will not prevent any leaks. Maybe he had some assets in Russia? They would not be handled by Skripal personally. Maybe he was a triple agent? What kind of information he could've possibly had? Maybe it was revenge and terrorizing potential future defectors? Well, motive fitting the Evil Empire indeed, the image which is carefully cultivated since the Cold War, especially considering the timing (3 months before the World Cup). Ok, next question: why the attempt has failed? It could've been gross incompetence. Or sheer luck on Skripal's side? Quite possible, yes. But don't forget that every such explanation lowers probability of the hypothesis. But why poison (and with such loudly Russian name) and such tricky plan was used? If your goal is revenge, there are more practical way to execute someone, especially if you know where your target lives. And I highly doubt that he was under around-the-clock surveillance. Second hypothesis: it was a clever false flag operation. Motive? Make Russia look extremely bad in western eyes. Timing is really good, not only you have the upcoming World Cup, but also it would allow you to divert populace attention from the Brexit debacle. And with Brexit US influence in Europe has took a hit, Russia was warming relations with Germany and France (situation around Nordstream 2 is the most prominent example), everyone got tired from the war in Eastern Ukraine, more and more voices urged removal of mutually damaging economic sanctions between Russia and EU. Why the Russian intelligence officers were involved? Skripal could've made contact with them and offer some information. Yes, it contradicts the point that it's unlikely he had one, but I guess in intelligence you shake all trees you have, even unlikely ones. Why those homeless people died? I admit don't have a good explanation to this one. A cynic could said that such operation without dead bodies could've had smaller impact in the information war or it could've been an unfortunate collateral damage. As for the Bellingcat report, I hope you understand that it's hardly an independent source, right?