That Corbyn fella...

Cheers. The meandering into Corbyn as a Soveit apologist romantically riding his motorcycle through East Germany is a bit much, but overall it's at least trying to deal in facts. But I think it's ignoring them? Please correct me where I'm wrong.

Three of Britain’s closest allies – the US, France and Germany – agree with the British government that the assassination attempt represents an “assault on UK sovereignty” and that there is “no plausible alternative explanation” to Russian involvement.

In his first parliamentary performance, and in subsequent interventions, Mr Corbyn refused to blame the Putin regime while raising a spray of questions that undermine the case for coordinated western action.

So he has ended up saying that Britain should not “rush” into retaliatory action while at the same time endorsing Mrs May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats identified as intelligence officials.

You would think from this (and much else in the article) that Corbyn has refused to attribute any blame to Russia, and that instead he's been trying to undermine claims that there is any responsibility with them. But, first, I think much of this is demonstrably wrong, and second, even if we're talking about nuance in response, this isn't how I've read Corbyn. Conveniently it's linked to in the article:

Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible.

As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights.

However, that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a “new cold war” of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent. Instead, Britain needs to uphold its laws and its values without reservation. And those should be allied to a foreign policy that uses every opportunity to reduce tensions and conflict wherever possible.

I don't see anything "cross-eyed" about this. He's agreed with May on the two possibilities. He's rebuked Putin's Russia. He accepts that a response is necessary, and the first steps taken by parliament are part of this response. He also offers further responses which aim to directly hurt those with power in Russia (legal and illegal).

I really don't want to be a Corbyn cheerleader, but I don't see the gulf here that others do.

'The wife of a former Putin minister is still owed a tennis match with Boris Johnson and David Cameron, having made a winning bid of £160,000 for that privilege at a Tory event.'

Amazing. Fly Ivanka in and it's mixed doubles 🎾

Other than being a bit too long, I find it hard to find fault with that article.

The tl:dr hits the nail on the head:

Some of these questions might seem reasonable, but collectively, they make him sound like a man searching for any possible reason not to assign responsibility to the Kremlin.

A better route would have been to just nail Tory links to London oligarchs, and create a subtext that they were effectively responsible for the attacks.

His PR team need a slap.