20 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case
To my knowledge, none of the questions I wrote in my previous piece – 30 questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case – has been answered satisfactorily, at least not in the public domain. Yet despite the fact that these legitimate questions have not yet been answered, and many important facts surrounding the case are still unknown, the case has given rise to a serious international crisis, with the extraordinary expulsion of Russian diplomats across many EU countries and particularly the United States on March 26th.
This is a moment to stop and pause. A man and his daughter were poisoned in the City of Salisbury on 4th March. Yet despite the fact that investigators do not yet appear to know how they were poisoned, when they were poisoned, or where they were poisoned, a number of Western nations have used the incident as a pretext for the co-ordinated expulsion of diplomats on a scale not witnessed even during the height of the Cold War. These are clearly very abnormal and very dangerous times.
I pointed out in my previous piece that it is not my intention to advance some sort of conspiracy theory on this blog. It remains the case that I simply don’t have any holistic theory — “conspiracy” or otherwise — for who carried this out, and I continue to retain an open mind. But since the Government of my country has rushed to judgement without many of the facts of the case being established, and since this has led to the biggest deterioration in relations between nuclear-armed nations since the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems to me that it is more important than ever to keep asking questions in the hope that answers will come.
And so, for what it’s worth, here are 20 more important questions that I think that journalists ought to be asking regarding this case:
1. Have the police yet identified any suspects in the case?
2. If so, is there any evidence connecting them to the Russian Government?
3. If not, how is it possible to determine culpability, as the British Government has done?
4. In her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May stated the following:
“It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down” [my emphasis added].
In the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the court (Section 17 i) stated the following:
“Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent” [my emphasis added].
So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing?
5. Why were the phrases “related compound” and “closely related agent” added to the statement given by Porton Down, and is this an indication that the scientists were not 100% sure that the substance was a “Novichok” nerve agent?
6. Why were these phrases left out of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons?
7. Why did the Prime Minister choose to use the word “Novichok” in her speech, rather than the word Foliant, which is the actual name of the programme initiated by the Soviet Union when attempting to develop a new class of chemical weapons in the 1970s and 1980s?
8. When asked in an interview with Deutsche Welle how scientists at Porton Down had found out so quickly that the nerve agent was of the “Novichok” class of chemical weapons, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was asked whether Porton Down possesses samples of it. Here is how he replied:
“They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt” [My emphasis].
If Mr Johnson’s statement is correct, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down has samples of “Novichok” in its possession, where did they come from?
9. Were they produced at Porton Down?
10. How long have they had them?
11. Why has the DSTL not registered possession of these substances with the OPCW, which it is legally obliged to do under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
12. Does this admission by Mr Johnson not indicate that “Novichoks” can be made in any advanced chemical weapons facility, as indeed they were under the auspices of the OPCW in Iran in 2016?
13. If so, how can the Government be sure that the substance used to poison Mr Skripal and his daughter was made in or produced by Russia?
14. In her statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday 14th March, the British Prime Minister stated that there were only two plausible explanations for poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter:
“Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”
Other than the actual substance used, is there any hard evidence that led the Government to conclude these as being the only two plausible scenarios?
15. On March 26th, a number of countries expelled Russian diplomats in an apparent response to the incident in Salisbury. Yet at this time, the OPCW had not yet investigated the case, nor analysed blood samples. Why was the clearly co-ordinated decision to expel diplomats taken before the OPCW’s investigation had concluded?
16. Has this not put huge pressure on the OPCW to come up with “the right” conclusion?
17. It is reckoned that the OPCW’s investigation into the substance used will take at least three weeks to complete, whereas it took Porton Down less than a week to analyse it. What accounts for this difference?
18. Will the OPCW be using the samples of “Novichok” that Boris Johnson says are held at Porton Down to compare with the blood samples of Mr Skripal and his daughter?
19. If not, on what basis will this comparison be made, since the first known synthesis of a “Novichok” was made by Iran in 2016?
20. If the OPCW discovers that the substance is indeed a “Novichok”, will this be sufficient evidence with which to establish who carried out the attack on the Skripals or — given that other countries clearly have the capability to produce such substances — would more evidence be needed?
Thanks for an insightful list of questions.
I live in Russia and one of the many things that distresses ordinary Russians is the evidence this case provides of massive intellectual decay in the West. Russians have long been aware that Westerners, in particularly in the US, to an increasing degree have lost basic abilities to do arithmetic, can no longer write a complete paragraph in their own English without errors in grammar and spelling, and have become gruesomely ignorant of geography and history. Those are dangerous trends for world peace.
But in this case we see the UK government proceeding with a case that indicates disdain for the intelligence and common sense of citizens. The UK government thesis boils down to a claim that the detection of a nerve agent, that may or may not be similar to an agent researched 30 years ago in the Soviet Union, is proof the Russian government attempted to kill someone in the UK, sufficient proof to engage in acts of war against Russia.
If the UK government has reason to believe the citizens of the UK are so massively stupid as to swallow that thesis, then the UK has far bigger problems than belligerence from Russia.
For that matter, if the leaders of the EU also believe their citizens would accept a thesis that in no way establishes any logical connections, let alone proof, then the EU is doomed. No collection of nation states can survive such toxic stupidity in today’s highly competitive world. The Chinese and the rising states of Asia will see to that.
By the way, those who believe that mistreatment of ambassadors, defaming a sovereign power or launching economic attacks are not acts of war should consider how precisely such acts have precipitated so many wars. Roosevelt, for example, famously achieved his objective of entering WWII by launching economic attacks against Japan. If war is what the UK government wants, then the citizens of the UK should consider what they shall have if their government achieves its objective.
Russian patience is not endless in the face of mistreatment of our diplomatic personnel, defamation of our state, and economic attacks on our people. For the first time in living memory, more and more ordinary Russians are calling for a military response to such attacks, and the war party in Russia has succeeded in bringing weapons of mass destruction to a greater readiness for use against the UK. How is that in the interests of the UK?
What worries Russians is that our turning the other cheek is not enough. As students of history we know very well that countries in the West do not go peacefully into the long decline of entropy through stupidity. They make their way into failed state status through a serious of violent tics, lashing out at neighbors and rivals with wars and assaults, often based on false pretexts. France famously lost Alsace and Lorraine by foolishly launching the war of 1870 against Prussia based on false pretexts. Does the UK really think they will today profit from a war with Russia? Perhaps so, but also as students of history we Russians know that wars are to be avoided, as even for the winners the process is always harsh.
As they say, a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day, so it could be that despite the phenomenal implausibility of the UK government’s thesis it is, indeed, against all odds, correct. We don’t know, but we can get closer to the truth by asking questions as you have done.
Zeroing in on the technical aspects of this case, for which answers are difficult to fabricate, is one method to get closer to what actually happened while reducing the influence of war-mongering propaganda. Your questions are spot on. Here are a few more questions an enterprising MP might want to ask Boris Johnson and Theresa May. They too might well be caught up in something they do not understand, and just might be interested in discovering the truth if, against all odds, it is contrary to what they now believe.
1. You have launched acts of war against Russia based on the claim that detection of a nerve agent that may be similar to agents researched in the Soviet Union 30 years ago is proof the Russian government today tried to kill one or more people living in the UK. What proof do you have the Russian government tried to kill Skripal, specifically what proof that is so compelling it justifies acts of war against Russia? Other than the detection of a chemical, do you have any proof at all that the Russian government tried to kill Skripal?
2. Have you considered the possibility of a military response by Russia? What are the possible military responses from Russia that your planning has considered? What are the possible military escalations should your actions against Russia bring the war party in Russia into power? Have you considered the effects on UK citizens in scenarios other than “if nuclear war breaks out we all shall be incinerated, but many of them will be as well”?
3. You say this nerve agent was “of a type developed by Russia.” By “Russia” do you mean the Soviet Union of 30 years ago or do you mean the Russian Federation of today? By “Russia” do you mean the country of Uzbekistan, where chemical weapons were researched and produced in the days of the Soviet Union? When you say “of a type developed by Russia” do you really mean, more accurately, “of a type developed in Uzbekistan”? What evidence do you have that the claimed molecule has anything to do with Russia or the Russian government, as opposed to Uzbekistan? Is the UK government aware that Russia and Uzbekistan are different countries, significantly more different than, say, France and Belgium? How has that awareness, if it exists, guided your implied claim that the country in which such weapons were researched and produced, Uzbekistan, could not possibly be involved in this matter, while a country in which no such weapons were researched and produced, the Russian Federation, was without fail the only party involved? How many criminal events within Uzbekistan have there been in recent decades involving military assets? Do you know?
4. What, specifically, do you mean by “developed”? Do you claim Russia was the first country to create this molecule, or do you claim that Russia was the first country to discuss the possibility of this molecule? For the record, which countries are known to the UK government as having, or as likely having, researched or produced molecules that are a) nerve agents of any type, or b) nerve agents that are in any way similar to this molecule? Is the number of countries more or less than, say, 20?
5. What, specifically, was the molecule detected? Please provide a structural diagram of the molecule, to erase all taint of lies told to date about what the UK government claims. No doubt Porton Down has a comprehensive bibliography of all industrial, academic, and military papers that mention this molecule or molecules that are similar to this molecule in structure or in action. Please provide a list of those papers. If the government’s thesis that the detection of this specific molecule proves an act of war by Russia, then it seems that list must be very short and will not indicate any work whatsoever in any other country.
6. What are the technical characteristics of the molecule that indicate it is of “a type developed by Russia” and not a type developed, researched or produced by Uzbekistan, by Iran, by the UK, by the US, by China, by North Korea, or by any other country? VX, Sarin and similar nerve agents are widely known throughout the world and have even been produced by amateurs, as in the Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway. What are the boundaries to your phrase “a type developed by Russia” that would distinguish such a type as this molecule from, say, “a type similar to VX” or “a type similar to Sarin”? Have any other countries developed, researched or produced any molecules similar to VX or similar to any other nerve agent known to Porton Down? How, exactly, is that lethal zoo of hundreds of weaponized molecules at Porton Down and in dozens of countries different from this particular “type” of molecule, and in such a profoundly different way that only Russia at the government level and no other country or group could have created this particular molecule?
7. Although you use the phrase “a type developed by Russia” you have also added the qualifier or “a closely related agent.” What, specifically, is the list of known agents that qualify as “closely related”? In which other countries have research, development or production of such “closely related” agents occurred? What is the bibliography of citations for industrial, academic and military publications that discuss the theory, research, development or production of such “closely related” agents?
8. You refer to this chemical as a “military grade” agent. What are the technical characteristics that make a nerve toxin “military grade” as opposed to any other “grade”? Do you use “military grade” as a synonym for “scary nerve toxin” such that any formulation of, say, VX or Sarin, you would call “military grade”? Or, by “military grade” do you mean some other characteristic, such as purity of the substance, concentration within a carrier fluid, or physical characteristics such as formulation as an aerosol or powder?
9. Given that there is no evidence at all that the substance known as Novichok was ever known to exist in anything other than laboratory research in Iran or, as claimed by the UK, at Porton Down, what technical basis is there for saying a given sample of Novichok is “military grade” as opposed to “terrorist grade” or “industrial grade” or “amateur grade”?
10. Did Skripal ever attempt to sell information or services related to intelligence activities or opposition research or military information of any kind, to any nation state or any organization of any kind, while he was living in the UK? If so, what did he do? How did he earn a living? Did Skripal in any way try to profit from his former status as a spy? Has Skripal ever discussed or communicated with anyone in the UK or in the UK government regarding chemical weapons, for example, nerve agents?
11. What is the physical evidence for the mechanism of dosing the victims?
12. Many cases of people with former Soviet connections have emerged where samples of “weapons grade” materials were offered for sale to government agencies, at times under the pretext of exposing a plot, and other times simply as intelligence for sale, and often as a fraud to pick up cash from intelligence services which are eager to pursue all leads. Is it possible Skripal was involved in a plan to sell samples of a “nerve agent” and that he was sloppy in his handling of such samples? Would not such sloppiness be more likely to cause the health effects seen, wildly spread out over geographic distance and time, than a deliberate effort to use a “military grade” weapon to kill?
13. No crime is credible without a credible motive. How does the UK government explain the motive of the Russian government in this matter, when all logic and self-interest provide a compelling counter-motive, that the Russian government could not possibly want to cause a public relations problem by killing Skripal in a highly exotic way, guaranteed to leave a trail miles long pointed at the Soviet Union, on the eve of the World Cup in Russia? What tangible evidence does the UK government have that the Russian government was compelled to act in this alleged way right now, as opposed to simply shooting Skripal the week after the World Cup finished?
Well… that’s a very long letter, but then we Russians have a tendency to write at length. I want to emphasize that in no way do I condone assassinations in foreign lands, nor do I in any way wish any ill to the UK or EU, to their governments or to their citizens. I strongly believe that peace is in everybody’s interest and that something has gone terribly wrong within government in a way that serves nobody’s interests. I offer these questions so that the strong minds and stalwart morals of people in the UK, beginning with good people like Boris Johnson and Theresa May, can consider these questions themselves and, perhaps, see from them that they are going to war based on a thesis that is false and which does not serve their own interests.
I could be wrong in my belief that the Russian government has nothing to do with this, of course, but only the hard path of answering necessary questions will lead to the true cause of this incident in Salisbury. Sweeping difficult questions under the rug will only allow the truly guilty to go free, while possibly precipitating a war with a country that did nothing wrong.
Best regards,
Dmitri
- Hi Dmitri,This is great. Just great. I don’t think there is a word of what you have written with which I could disagree. I particularly agree with the sentiments of your opening paragraph, about the intellectual decay in the West. This is a huge grief to me, and the Skripal case merely highlights very, very starkly what the problem is.I have tried pointing out to people who should know better, how the Government has acted not only recklessly, but with a complete disregard for the “values” which once defined us — adherence to the rule of law, presumption of innocence, regard to due process etc. But it all falls on deaf ears. It’s as if many have simply lost the ability to think rationally, logically, and to rely on facts, and now rely only on emotion and so are hugely susceptible to propaganda.It’s actually part of a far, far bigger problem in the West, which is the complete and total loss of objective truth. You can see it in the movement to redefine the institution of marriage in a way that no previous society on earth ever tried. You can see it in the movement to override the biological fact of a person’s sex, as defined by their chromosomal make up. You see it in the rampant individualism where truth and reality is defined internally, and not objectively by what is.Actually, it’s worse than this though. It’s not just the loss of a sense of objective truth – its actually the loss of the idea that there even *can* be objective truth.But this rampant individualism has, ironically, now moved to produce a kind of hideous collectivism. If you object to same-sex marriage, for instance, you are an outcast. If you question the UK Government’s claims around the Skripal case, you are practically a traitor. The move towards subjectivism, rather than objective truth, has produced a groupthink of grotesque proportions, which those in power have moved to exploit.For me, one of the most important quotes of the 21st century so far was one uttered by Karl Rove, Chief of Staff in the George W. Bush administration. Here’s what he said:“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”That’s basically it. After decades of Cultural Marxist ideas seeping into the collective consciousness of the West, the powers that be now feel confident in doing what they want, and how they want, essentially shaping their own reality. Only repentance and a return to objective truth will stop the rot.This is not me saying I know what happened to the Skripals. Like you, I keep open several possibilities. But it is my lament that Western civilisation has become such a disgusting, putrid mess, that many are now susceptible to propaganda on a level I doubt that the world has ever seen before.Best wishes,Rob