The Article of H.E. Mr Alexander Ivanov,
the Russian Ambassador to ASEAN, published in Jakarta Post (Thursday, March 22, 2018).

The poisoning of Sergey Scripal, ex-officer of the Russian military intelligence, and his daughter Julia in Salisbury has become recently a “hot potato” in international information space. Just several days after it had happened the British prime-minister stated that Russia is “highly likely” behind the spy attack. She didn’t bother to provide any evidence or persuasive arguments to support this statement. Nevertheless the British version about the “Russian trace” was taken up. A reader actually has no chance to examine the situation independently. It was calculated that the inattentive and unsuspecting audience will blindly believe the new fictions invented by the British political strategists. 
Let us look impartially at the facts but not guesswork and analyze independently what happened. 
Sergey Scripal was arrested in Russia in 2004 for espionage and in 2006 sentenced by the court to 13 years of imprisonment. In 2010 he was granted a pardon and then exchanged to the Russian intelligent agents. Since that time Scripal lived abroad. Thus after his arrest in 2004 he hasn’t had an access to any information which disclosure could threaten the Russian security. All he knew he conveyed to his bosses before 2004. So this personage could not be of any interest for Russian authorities. 
The way Scripal was assassinated provokes a lot of questions. If the British are to be trusted he was poisoned by a certain chemical agent, a chemical compound used during the combat operations at warfare and aimed against hundreds or even thousands of people. The use of such powerful weapon against one person doesn’t have any logical explanation. The only answer is that the real purpose behind the assassination attempt was to create an effect of “information bomb” and provoke an ultimate public response. 
The British ambassador at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stated that identification of the chemical allegedly used in Salisbury had been carried out at the scientific and technical Center of the British Defense Agency. The same Center used to develop and produce chemical weapons of that type. The question is how the British experts could determine the type of the chemical if they didn’t have the standard sample of “Novichok”. A conclusion inevitably comes to mind that London not just was capable but did produce the chemicals with one of which Scripal was poisoned.
The moment chosen for this crime is also remarkable. It was committed just two weeks before the presidential elections in Russia that took place on 18 March and a few months before the Russia World Football Cup 2018 to take place in June and July. The tasks to damage the Russian international image, to stir up another round of Russophobia are easily tracked. 
Even if we hypothetically accept the perverted British logic on Russian involvement, it becomes clear that Moscow does not have any single reason or motive for that. 
The British actions are worth of a separate analysis. After the incident with the chemical agent London just ignored occasionally or deliberately the internationally adopted procedures for such cases. Sending an official request to Russia for clarification is one of them and is foreseen by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). On the contrary the Great Britain, apparently following imperial manners of its diplomacy, accused Russia in CWC violation and presented an ultimatum. By the way London still seems not to be able to accept an idea that the colonial age has been over long time ago and speaking the language of ultimatums with Russia or any other country is not acceptable. We will never agree with British attempts to compel us “to take their word for it”. Not long ago the British public trusted the “word of honour” of the then prime-minister Tony Blair who plunged his country into Iraqi catastrophe. Later he apologized but it was too late. 
The British side has rejected several Russian proposals to launch a dialogue on the issue, to provide us with an access to investigation, including to the samples of the chemical agent used. Only on that condition we could determine the type of the poison gas and its producing countries. The Russian requests to provide assistance to Julia Scripal, the Russian citizen, were also rejected. 
Moreover, the British blocked the UN Security Council Chair’s statement initiated by Russia with the appeal to all sides to cooperate in order to establish the truth. The United Kingdom has refused to convey any information not only to us, the United Nations or the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon, but also to its allies. 
It is absolutely clear that London openly neglects any activities foreseen by the international law but prefer a propaganda hysteria and unproved accusations. The attempts to hide the investigation details and therefore the truth from the British public and international community are clearly seen behind such actions. 
The real motives of such British steps are easy to guess. One of them is by stirring up a Russophobic hysteria to distract the attention of its nationals from serious internal problems. It is about a desperate position of the Mrs May’s Cabinet on Brexit. The popularity of her government is decreasing dramatically. At the same time the British authorities are trying to put at the background a fragrant scandal broken out in this European country with the pedophile network in Telford that functioned for 40 years with connivance of the local police. 
The other, more global interests are clearly behind such actions. Many in the UK as well as in the West cannot accept the obvious success of Russia in fighting ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and other terrorist groups in Syria. Having in mind their disastrous politics that led finally to the catastrophe in the region, the Western countries cannot recognize the concrete achievements in launching with the major Russian participation a direct dialogue between Syrian parties. For this reason some circles in the West are ready to do anything to discredit Russia and its leadership. 
It is also very remarkable that many British allies, without any hesitation and their own analysis, as if they got instructed, have just supported the totally absurd ideas announced by London. Nobody has raised a question that while presenting its accusations the United Kingdom has violated blatantly the key law principle of presumption of innocence. Their position only confirms that it is a planned anti-Russian provocation. But even the unexperienced public understands that the arguments in favor of the “Russian trace” cannot stand any critics. 
The question about who is really behind the crime in Salisbury is not answered. We don’t know who organized and carried out this act. It cannot but raise our deep concerns. And it seems that the answer to this question should be searched with the guidance of a well-known saying “cui prodest?”, which means “who benefits?” As we see, definitely it is not Russia.