Put the "facts" together says the West, and the answer to the question of who attempted to kill the Skripals’ is obvious. The nerve agent used, Novichok was designed and manufactured in the old USSR. Never mind that one scientist, who worked on the Novichok project claims the chemical would not have survived the journey from Russia to Britain if it was carried in Yulia's luggage as claimed and that the formula was know to many countries, including
the USA and the UK:  just stick to the script.

The script is that the Russian President is a thuggish dictator whose game plan is the restoration of the USSR. From this flows ongoing evil. The evidence is his heinous actions – the war in eastern Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the flouting of international decency with anti gay propaganda laws, the usurpation of private business interests, the crushing of any real opposition, and the targeted assassinations of those who don’t like him. All of this undoubtedly adds up to a lot of evil.

But despite President Putin’s extraordinary popularity, there is deep discomfort in Russia with what has occurred. There is scepticism about the conviction of those charged with the various murders, none of whom (miraculously) had any connection to the Kremlin. The anti-gay laws are popular among the elderly and considered disgraceful by the young. The theft of once privately held capital is likewise seen along demographic lines – good by those who lost everything when communism collapsed, bad by those who’ve thrown themselves into the new capitalist order of things. And the war in Ukraine, though no longer in the headlines, has cut deeply into the Russian psyche. Little of this is taken into account when Russia as a whole is smeared by the accusations that form the backbone of Cold War II.

There is also a deeper factor at play for Russians, largely ignored in the narrative. And it crosses demographic lines. There is the belief that for all his faults and unacceptable modus operandi, that Putin is merely reminding the world that Russia isn’t the West's doormat.

There is evidence for Moscow’s proposition that since the collapse of the USSR, NATO has breached a promise made as the Berlin wall came tumbling down that it would not move eastward.  The promise itself has been denied by successive US administrations.

There is a belief that Russia’s ability to forge its own kind of democracy has been interfered with, most notably in 1996 when the communist party looked a chance of toppling the bumbling, foolish Yeltsin regime that had so willingly allowed Russia to become a vassal for American capital. And then there’s the Western belief that the new Russia should look and behave exactly like we do, notwithstanding the cultural differences and difficulties.

Europe’s Washington-backed designs on its neighbour, Ukraine, were always going to be rebuffed. Annexing Crimea, understood in its historical arc and national emotional place is even less surprising. But as is the norm when one militarily and geographically powerful nation refuses to conform to the demands of another militarily and geographically powerful nation, narratives are born and only the strongest survives. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Monica Attard was the ABC's Moscow correspondent from 1990 to 1994 and is the head of journalism at Macleay College.