Two weeks ago in Salisbury, less
than 10 kilometres from the UK’s Porton Down chemical weapons establishment, a
Russian and his daughter appear to have been poisoned. Sergei Skripal was a
former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a spy for the UK’s
MI6. In 2006, he had been tried and convicted for high treason by the Russian
authorities, but was released in 2010 as part of a ‘spy swap’ with the UK and
settled in Britain. Skripal and his daughter remain in a critical condition,
with medical staff reporting that they had been poisoned with a nerve agent.
The British government has
claimed that the Skripals were poisoned with the nerve agent ‘Novichok’. But in
the past two weeks it did not release any proof of this either to the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), or to the Russian
government that it blames both for producing the agent and for the attack.
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary and blathering embodiment
of a power in decline, has just revealed that the OPCW will investigate from
tomorrow.
Not to be taken: Novichok
Novichok is the name given to a
class of extremely toxic nerve agents reported to have been produced by the
former Soviet Union and Russia up to 1993. The production took place in several
locations, and, with the break up of the Soviet Union, supplies of it and/or
knowledge of how to manufacture it could also have been passed on to other
countries. It is likely that Porton Down has such knowledge, since that would
have been necessary for them to claim the attack on the Skripals was with
Novichok rather than something else.
Who dunnit?
Claims that Russia initiated the
attack rest on some shaky foundations. It is not clear why such a specialist
method was used that would inevitably be linked to the Russian state. Or even
why there would be an attempt at assassination at all, unless Skripal had
continued to work for the UK intelligence services. However, one could argue
that a Russian link was deliberately used to deter other Russian spies who
might consider collaborating with the UK – with the message that ‘Eventually,
we will punish traitors’.
Less plausible is the view that
Putin needed this episode to marshal support in today’s presidential election
that will likely result in his fourth term in office. Less plausible still is
the Russian argument that the Brits did it to smear Moscow, although
anti-Russian hysteria has a long history in Britain so that was a natural
reaction.
One notable feature of the UK’s
mainstream media coverage of this event was how there was an immediate and
unanimous condemnation of Russia, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn denounced
when he called for evidence.[1]
Such is the operation of the ‘free press’.
Winding up
If Russian policy was to poison
Sergei Skripal, then, apart from its role as a deterrent, that action could
best be understood as a political wind up. The Salisbury location reminds
people that the holier-than-though UK also deals in chemical weapons. The rationale
for the timing is less clear; although in the wake of Brexit and Trump’s
America First policy, the UK is in a weak position to do anything more to
Russia than has already been implemented. NATO’s encirclement of Russia is more
or less complete, but Russia has now developed new missile systems that
undermine this threat. Effective economic sanctions against Russia have
probably also reached a limit, because Europe does not want to cut off Russian
energy supplies.
Russia can embarrass the UK, an
anti-Russian stalwart of the Anglosphere, with little cost. Such an action
would also demonstrate that it is not to be trifled with, as already shown by
its actions in Syria. By comparison, the Brits have a more appropriate
international ambassador than they might have thought in Boris Johnson.
Tony Norfield
18 March 2018
[1] Somewhat
inconsistently, Corbyn also agreed with the UK Government’s expulsion of 23
Russian diplomats.