The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed that the Skirpals were poisoned with a specific “toxic chemical,” as alleged by the British government. Both public statement and classified version, however, decline to offer any specific.theories on the origin of the poison.
That’s a problem for Britain, which has been blaming the Russian government for the poisoning since long before testing began. They identified the poison as Novichuk, and concluded it was Russia’s fault, despite there being other nations with access to the chemical.
British officials were quick to claim the OPCW report as vindication, since the classified version reportedly contained the chemical formula for the poison. Yet without any evidence on where it came from, they’re really no better off than before.
The Skirpal poisonings were used by the British government to take major diplomatic measures against Russia. Russia has denied anything to do with the incident, and offered to help investigate. Britain has spurned that offer and continued to blame them.
8 thoughts on “OPCW Confirms Salisbury Poisoning, Can’t Say Where Poison Came From”
What are the “findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical” anyway?
Good point. This finding is an abomination. Its not up to the OPCW to agree with anyone. They should present the facts as they find them.
Now we have to figure out whether they agree with UK Government or their official weapons lab which are different.
The OPCW, like Porton Down restrict their statements so they are not untruthful but they don’t contradict the official story. That does not mean they agree. They can even be forced to restrict their focus to a small part of the issue to suit the government, as so often happens with committees for investigation. No complicity required.
The comment on the purity of the poison is pernicious. It’s a sneaky way to insinuate it was made by a government and that it was not natural(food poisoning) The purity issue came up in the case of the large sarin attack in Syria.
Even if there were no direct consequences it becomes easier and more tempting the next time to blame Russia. , and those objecting will have a harder time and will be more compelled to comply to avoid being seen as unreasonable. From the Russian side the arguments for restraint will also become weaker.
“..since the classified version reportedly contained the chemical formula for the poison.”
If the alleged “poison” had been Novichok, as already widely published, why not identify and confirm? Answer: it wasn’t Novichok. (Shellfish poison perhaps?)
Was the alleged “poison”, allegedly “identified”, derived from blood/tissue samples taken from the Skripals or from “the doorknob”? Chain of “evidence”, please.
Why is Yulia Skripal being held (against her will?) and kept from speaking out?
How deep does the bullshjt have to get before the hooting and howling and derision takes over? Will Boris Johnson ever comb his hair?
Check out my blog at: whimsicaldog dot blogspot dot com dot eg/
I wondered too. The OCPW was given a sample-by the UK? Or illegally from blood removed without permission from the comatose pair? The sample tested may not be from the pair at all-who knows? We don’t, and no Yulia is not allowed to speak and her dad can’t.
So Russia has offered to help in the investigation only to be “spurned” by the British. Russia also was for an investigation into the alleged Syrian gas attacks but the US wanted to blame Syria and vetoed any investigation. Anyone else noticing a pattern here?
Legally the UK was obliged to allow a sample of the chemical to Russia and join in the investigation together. The UK refused, also refused Russian consular visit to the Skripals and is now hiding them away. The UK/USA/Israel still have CWs, the Russians have destroyed theirs, but a name like novichok sounds like Russian guilt, so who needs evidence or reasons for such a stupid act?
Comments are closed.