by Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook:
As the West rallies around recent allegations by the UK against Russia regarding the alleged poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer-turned British spy – Sergei Skripal – it is crucial to point out the alarming lack of actual evidence involved.
It is also important to point out the history of the accusers predicating entire wars on allegations now confirmed to have been intentional lies.
The Skripal Incident
The alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, UK on March 4 led to a lighting-fast escalation with Russia. Not even two weeks after the attack, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared a deadline for Russia to provide an “explanation” for the incident the UK had squarely blamed on Moscow.
The Kremlin’s explanation was simple – it had nothing to do with the attack. Russia also offered to aid in the investigation, requesting samples of the poison used in the alleged attack.
However, the UK failed to produce any samples of the alleged poison – a Soviet-era nerve agent known as Novichok – either to the Russians to examine or to relevant international organizations as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The UK also failed to explain why Russia would have carried out such an attack – or how the UK could have confirmed the use of Novichok agents without first possessing samples of the agents themselves. If the UK possessed Novichok agents to compare samples taken from the attack with, the entire rationale of accusing Russia because it is supposedly the only nation in possession of the agents is revealed as entirely false.
US, UK Certainly Have “Novichoks”
The Daily Beast in its article, “Soviet Scientist Who Developed Novichok Poison Used on Sergei Skripal: ‘I’m Sorry’,” would admit:
For the prime minister to be able to publicly accuse the Russians of using a nerve agent like a novichok, British authorities at least must have had access to novichok’s unique chemical signature—which it legally could have had despite the Chemical Weapons Convention, due to the clause of countries being able to hold samples for testing in these incidences.
Testing for novichoks, even based on a formula published by Mirzayanov in a memoir based on his work in the 1980s, is a potential sign that the British have potential access to newer variants of the nerve agent.
The Guardian too would admit in an article titled, “Novichok nerve agents – what are they?,” that:
The fact that so little is known about the novichoks may explain why Porton Down scientists took several days to identify the compound used in the attack against the Skripals. And while the agents were invented in the Soviet Union, other labs with access to the chemical structures would be able to manufacture them too.
The fact that the alleged creator of Novichok agents – Vil Mirzayanov – fled to and currently lives in the United States suggests the West has both knowledge of and the means to create Novichok agents themselves.
The UK’s presumption that “only Russia” could have produced the agents when the creator of Novichok lives in the United States – and British labs clearly have access to the poison – is at face value contradictory and dishonest.
Since the UK has refused to produce any tangible evidence, including producing samples under its obligations to the Chemical Weapons Convention, all that is left for the international community to consider is the source of these accusations.
Consider the Source: The West Has a Sordid History of WMD Lies
In the lead up to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the Western media sold the global public tales of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).
Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell sat before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) presenting fabricated evidence to the world in an effort to build a case for the upcoming US invasion.
Powell would claim (emphasis added):
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he’s determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?