Being exposed to western media, there are a lot of questionable parts to the story of Russia trying to kill the double agent. 
Of course I have no special knowledge, so all I am doing here is looking at what is presented to me and seeing if the story makes sense. 

_What is often not being told:_
1. The agent was not only a rusian agent, but a double agent.
2. The gas was not developed in Russia, but in the Soviet Union. This is not only a small detail but very relevant. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this gas has probably fallen into a lot of hands. Parts of the territories of the Soviet Union are now western allies. It would be especially naive to think that western agents did not get hold of anything with military relevance after the collapse. So saying it was developed by the russians would mean at least something, but saying it was developed by the soviets is nowadays almost entirely pointless. 
3. Russia did have the guy captured, but released him some years ago in a prisoner exchange. This means that Russia did not think that he poses any special risk to them.
4. The western allies not complying with international agreements. (See more below)

![download (1).jpeg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmXJuzRZTrPWdo3DoeRP1mTv2KdC72EiYf9djyBKdpaHQm/download%20(1).jpeg)
[source](https://news.sky.com/story/may-and-putin-what-is-their-next-move-11287845)

_How the story does not add up:_
1. The russians are not complete amateurs. If you want to kill someone, using a deadly and dangerous gas is complete BS. This Gas was developed as a weapon for chemical warfare. The risk for collateral damage is huge. And then they did not even kill the guy. Gas is among the most feared weapons by the public, ideal for people that want to create terror, but not for killing an agent. Even North Korea is able to do assassinations better. 
2. Theresa May jumping to conclusions immediately. When such an incident happens, it takes time until you can be sure who is responsible. She is saying it is probably of Russian origin and directly blaming the Russians, but not presenting any hard evidence. Russia does not have to prove they are not guilty (which is by the way impossible), but the UK has to prove who is guilty. Until then it is _In dubio pro reo_.  
3. May not complying to the chemical weapons convention that both the UK and Russia have signed. For cases like this an international convention was set up to resolve them in a civilised manner. This convention states that the UK has to give all evidence they have collected to Russia and then the Russians should give an official response within 10 days. But May refused to give any information to Russia, does not allow Russian investigators on the crime scene and requests a reply within 3 days. By refusing to cooperate under these conditions, Russia is acting according to the chemical weapons convention. 

So in summary, the UK and the supporting western allies are not following international agreements, are not presenting conclusive evidence and the western media are propagating at least a very biased version of the incident. No matter who is responsible for the crime, it seems that there are some people that have an interest in escalating conflicts with Russia.