In 13 years of running my blog I have never been exposed to such a tirade of abuse as I have for refusing to accept without evidence that Russia is the only possible culprit for the Salisbury attack. The abuse has mostly been on twitter, and much of the most venomous stuff has come from corporate and state media “journalists”. I suppose I am a standing rebuke to them for merely being stenographers to power and never doing any actual research, but that hardly explains the visceral levels of hatred exhibited.
Today they are all terrifically happy and sharing amongst themselves a lengthy twitter thread by a Blairite and chemist called Clyde Davis in which they all say I am “owned” and my article disproven. There are two remarkable things about this thread.
The first remarkable thing is the remarkably high percentage of those who are sharing it with commendations who are mainstream media journalists. Last I saw was George Monbiot five minutes ago, but there are dozens. I suppose it is important to them as validating their decision to support uncritically the government line without doing any actual journalism.
The second remarkable thing is that the thread they are all sharing misses out almost all my side of the conversation. An objective observer might think that made it hard to say who “won” the argument. To be fair, that is probably not deliberate but appears to be a result of how twitter does threading. Here I reconstruct by paste the thread with my responses. It may give a better idea of whether Mr Davis completely “destroys” my article, as the “professional” journalists are all claiming. And as Mr Davies is critiquing my article, perhaps you might refresh yourself on that first here.
Neither my reply nor Davies’ rejoinder are included in the thread which the mainstream “journalists” are circulating. Note that Davies responds to being challenged, with a riposte which is untrue. The OPCW have never changed their position on the physical existence of “novichoks” from the position I gave and referenced in my article. By contrast, Mr Davies gives no reference for his claim the OPCW has changed its mind. Personally I find it problematic that somebody like Mr Davies who blusters so loud on scientific method, responds to a challenge to his position with an apparent invention.
It is indeed true that Porton Down (which here means the British government), however, have changed their position since 2016 when, as I again demonstrated in my article with references, they said there was no evidence for the physical existence of “novichoks”. Now apparently they have said not only do they have one, but it is indubitably Russian. If a “novichok” is indeed in the possession of Porton Down, of course scientists, like diplomats and the others involved, will change their position on the existence of Novichoks. As will I. But that, in any sense, that will prove it is of Russian manufacture is a totally different question.
Then along came the man who really did put me to shame. A Mr Kevin Smyth who completely demolished Davis with a simple polite question:
That part of the exchange is also missing from the thread being circulated so gleefully at the moment.
So what does Davies tell us in this article delivered by twitter which “demolishes” my article.
1) Davies acknowledges that until recently Porton Down and OPCW doubted the physical existence of “novichoks”. He says they have now changed their minds. [Porton Down has indeed undergone a remarkable change of mind in the last week , but the OPCW has yet to see the evidence].
2) Davis states that chemists can tell if a compound corresponds to one of the “novichoks” described by Mirzyanov, but Davis specifically accepts that does not prove Russian manufacture.
3) Davis nevertheless states strongly it is Russia because he believes Russia has form and motive.
Nothing here can remotely be said to be conclusive. The question that puzzles me, is why are so many mainstream media journalists gleefully seizing on this series of tweets as a destruction of the need for sceptical inquiry? A possible answer:
1) Davies by claiming credentials as a chemist conforms to the corporate media urge for an appeal to authority. He validates the government line and he is a chemist. He can throw in the names of chemicals and molecular diagrams. That kind of thing impresses journalists. That he explicitly admits the chemistry cannot prove Russia did it, is apparently irrelevant.
2) Davies thus provides a smokescreen of respectability by which they can continue to advance their careers by cutting and pasting the government line without question.
In fact, all of Davies’ “chemistry” in this exchange sets out to prove something which was never disputed – that chemists are able to identify whether or not a substance is one of the “novichok” compounds described by Mirzyanov. But as he published the formulae two decades ago, and has been living in the USA, and as the US dismantled and studied the Nukus plant, and as Porton Down had never seen any evidence the Russians actually succeeded in synthesising “novichoks, this in no way adds up to evidence of Russian manufacture. As Davies, to his credit, finally acknowledged when confronted by an interlocutor for whom he did not have automatic hatred.
I can’t say the midgies bother me that much. But they are interesting to study.
Gosh, Craig, you really took it badly.
You must be 100pc on the button to be subjected to all this abuse.
Keep it up!
I could not believe first what our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had to say, it was like a silly port-laden after-dinner speech. Next Gavin Williamson (Private Pike) our Minister of Defence told Russia to go away and shut up. His only qualification appear to be that of having sold fireplaces and getting out of the fireplace business for office philandering. I have no problem with his youth, only with his imbecility.
What has happened to our political class? Where have they gone?
The number of people who don’t seem to realise this could be made in a lab anywhere in the world is worrying.
OK, and the motive here is what?
The U.S. and/or Britain poisoned ex-Russians in Salisbury to frame Russia for what purpose? To extract some piddly sanctions against 19 Russian nobodies?
I mean, getting caught in an assassination is a HUGE risk to one’s reputation.
Murray would have us believe they incurred this risk for peanuts?
It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Conversely, Russia’s reputation is already in the dirt.
And with apologists like Murray everywhere, they have low risk for their assassinations.
Motive? Let me see. Desperate attempts to convince the masses that Russia is a threat to justify trillions of dollars of spent on “defence” and intelligence budgets, just when the current narrative is collapsing (with the US House committee investigating Russian collusion concluding that it did not occur)? Or, perhaps this was one of the Russian sources of the Steele dossier, and it was helpful to shut him up before he could be questioned on the veracity of whatever he said?
In America, people love money spent on defense, and in fact, secretly wish there were military parades.
There doesn’t need to be any manufactured justifications.
Is Britain not the same?
The only “motives” I could see would be sanctions and/or upping the war in Syria.
Since the sanctions are piddly, that doesn’t seem to be the motive.
War in Syria perhaps could be a motive.
I doubt Steele dossier is a motive. That was over a year ago. They’re just killing him now? That makes no sense.
lots of “wins” for the Govt here.
a crack at the Russian, deflection from brexit (in fact distraction from loads of stuff) Maybot gets to look tough, Corbyn is put through the grill, increased military spending, helps build case for bombing syria, possibly ties up some loose ends re: steel dossier – there’s probably loads more
Bob, there are many plausible motives for killing these two people and, separately, doing it in such a way as to point the finger at the Kremlin:
1) American arms manufacturers can use the attack to justify increased spending;
2) Isreal is in conflict with Russia over the latter’s successful defence of the Assad regime which Isreal, the USA, UK and many others were trying to overthrow. Isreal, as we all know, as many times assassinated opponents on foreign soil;
3) The ex-spy is reported to have helped Christopher Steele produce two damning dossiers on alleged Trump collusion with Russia to throw the US election. This can argue towards a motive to Russia but also to Trump supporters who might want to silence witnesses.
4) France might have wished to galvanize opposition to Russia in response to Russian interference in the most recent presidential election, particularly its support for le Penn.
Meanwhile there are several good reasons while Russia wouldn’t have attempted this attack:
1) There was no need for them to wait eight years after the ex-spy left their service in order to retaliate. It could more easily have been performed whilst he was in their custody;
2) His killing damages the system of spy prisoner exchanges which both sides benefit from;
3) it would obviously lead to sanctions which they had up till now avoided Trump signing into law and no country likes those.
Craig is not an “apologist” for Russia. He does not apologies for their human rights abuses. He is just asking for logic and evidence, both of which your response lacks.
Yes.
i like adam garries perspective on this…
signing onto un security res 2401 put all the supporters of the moderate headchoppers in a bind.. this is plan B….
http://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/03/15/lets-talk-motive-skripal-case-lets-talk-syria/
“Porton Down has no doubt changed its opinion”
“opinion” sounds fairly short of a scientifically proved fact to me.
I’m sure he’s a capable chemist, but what a charmless fucking bore. His prevarication speaks volumes when it comes to the specific argument.
Plus, what a moron that chemist Clyde Davies is. The ingredients are toxic and corrosive, so it couldn’t be made by someone “in a hotel bedroom”. And that implicates… the Russian government? Hmmm: not in a hotel, therefore, the Russian government! What a rube.
… but anyway, those who live by Twitter die by Twitter.
When it was first launched the media hyped Twitter – quoted tweets, listed celebrity twitterati, encouraged us to join in. I thought “what is the point of it, how can you say anything meaningful in 140 characters.” Then I got it. It is designed to encourage shallow thinking.
Twitter provides sound-bites in a format where they can’t be adequately examined. Favoured opinion-formers are promoted, algorithms ensure ‘the message’ goes viral. “Don’t take the word of the BBC news-reader, look that nice Stephen Fry says the same thing.”
Twitter’s purpose is to influence opinion; Facebook’s is information gathering. Neither has evolved to suit those purposes. They were created to fulfill those purposes.
100% Agree!
I don’t know Node. Donald Trump seems to be running the United States of America’s internal and foreign policy using his tweetmobile. 🙂
In a recent interview Megyn Kelly mentioned that Donald Trump tweeted his policy to the world and asked Putin if he had any thoughts about doing such a thing and whether Trumps was right to do it. Putin, a great statesman, did not laugh or treat the remark flippantly, as I might have done, but said Mr Trump has his way of running the country and I have mine. What I noticed with this interview was that Putin, as far as I can recall, answered the question he was asked. When Kelly did not get the answer she wanted she asked the same question in a different way. Patiently he answered the question without sidetracking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhi_AyQAyw
Why have we no statesmen or stateswomen like Putin? Ours are, by and large, an embarrassment.
Twitter character limit is now 240 and Davies’ response to Murray was made up of 25 tweets.
Hang on in there Craig. I admit to being sceptical regards the stance of Westminster. I note with bemused interest that msm is viewing those with views which differ from the state view as conspiracy theorists
It’s been pointed out that the phrase was invented by the CIA after the reception of the Warren commission report. I posted the actual memorandum somewhere on the 9-11 thread. Here’s former CIA analyst Ray Mcgovern expanding on the theme. Enjoy.
https://twitter.com/RedactedTonight/status/974365113032507397
Sky News Live
‘Russia deny that they have ever produced nerve agent’
On the timeline –
‘Police statement after PM’s visit
Wiltshire Police’s Chief Constable Kier Pritchard issues a statement following Theresa May’s visit to Salisbury.
He said: “It was a privilege and an honour to introduce our first responders to the Prime Minister today. She told them how pleased she was with the speed and professionalism of the police and emergency response to the incident.
“We spent some time visiting the cordons in the city centre, visiting local businesses and talking to the officers on scene guard.
“These officers have come from all over the country to support us, and we have 15 other forces offering mutual aid at the moment.
“She acknowledged the contribution of these forces and how we’ve all come together to ensure that day to day policing in Wiltshire is unaffected whilst this investigation continues.
“She also visited DS Nick Bailey in hospital and spent some time with him privately and I know that both he and his wife really appreciated this time with her.”:
What a sainted lady!
Gong for the Chief Constable.
She wouldn’t visit the Grenfell survivors; a bit too dark-skinned and poor for her, no doubt.
Has anyone considered that Mr. Skripal might have had this toxin already within his home, for his own use if he needed it? Then he mishandled it and paid the price. Most likely remains a false flag operation which was bungled both in terms of failing to assassinate and in terms of creating a credible background story to implicate V. Putin.
Whatever the truth, it now feels ever less likely that it had anything to do with V. Putin. The media coverage has exactly the same smell as the shameful fabricated prelude to the Iraq War – I remember it well. Maybe we’ll have to endure another Colin Powell style presentation at the U.N.? If Gavin Williamson or Boris Johnson does it, then it might be quite an AmDram laugh.
Politicians lying through their teeth brings me up in allergic spots, but when they proceed to launch WW3 on the pretext of their lies it is obvious to all that something else is going on. Fact is that one smiley Saudi came to see Mrs May last week and told her from his dad that Saudi Arabia has been conned. They were told they would get Damascus for their now wasted trillions, they were told they’d get diplomatic cover for their unbelievable brutality against the Syrian people, and all they get is labelled as head-choppers.
Because they don’t have freedom of speech and religious freedom in their own country, they don’t like the fact that they are still allowed in this country. Even Craig is finding the heat in the kitchen is getting to him; what about a Saudi prince being accused of murdering Yemeni children. Unfortunately if Saudi Arabia pulled the plug on Tory-Rule Britannia she’d sink financially to the bottom and Britons would end up as slaves.
This is the reason she, Mrs Muppet-Cameron, has decided to prove for once and for all to the Saudis that she, Britannia. is not in cahoots with the Russians.
Even so, after this Salisbury farce, I might take a little more convincing, if I was King Salman. Even Corbyn has been drafted in to make it look more convincing. After all, workers interests would not be, fanning the idle Saudi princes in tasselled bikinis and pulling their golden rolls royces through the sand-dunes , if the Saudis called their debts to the UK in.
Strange that some people should accuse Craig of ad hominem attacks; he has the odd pop, but under the provocation of Davies’ relentless, rude derision, this is pardonable. Davies is much the guiltier of the two here.
Craig also manages to extract an admission that the Russian provenance of the chemical agent used against Skripal cannot be proven merely from its formula.
That said, Davies’ other, more inductive arguments, are still more convincing, in my opinion, than most of Craig’s speculative suggestions (if in doubt, blame Mossad).
My only information is from English- and Russian-language open sources. MK interviewed an unnamed chemist who worked with Vil Mirzayanov at the chemical weapons institute in Uzbekistan. Incidentally, this person claims that Mirzayanov did not actually work on Novichok — contrary to Western sources, some of which even call him the inventor of this new class of substances. True, the unnamed chemist can only speculate as to how, in that case, Mirzayanov came by the formula for Novichok, which he then published in the Russian press.
Mirzayanov claimed in his book published in English in 2008 that Moscow failed to reveal the existence of the Novichok programme, as it was required to do under the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum. Most importantly, he claims that Russia continued to produce these substances until at least the end of 1992.
The unnamed chemist claims that the Novichok substances are binary weapons — in other words, they are brought into “battlefield condition” directly before their use. He claims that the reagents, which are kept separately, are “as a rule” not dangerous until they are brought together, which directly contradicts Davies’ claim that they are invariably harmful. This seems to be corroborated by Mirzayanov’s claim that the Russians synthesized a pesticide with a similar structure to Novichok, which could then be used as a component of the binary weapon.
The prima facie evidence points to Putin. One argument used to cast doubt on Russia’s guilt is that special service professionals would surely have used a less conspicuous means of assassination, one that didn’t so obviously point to Russia (or indeed, whose use was so dangerous to the operatives themselves).
This misses the point. The Russians want us to know they did it, I feel, and, even more, they want their own potential defectors and oligarchs to know it too. Wherever you go, this action says, we can and will reach you, even if you have served your sentence and have been “swapped.”
Remember, too, that the purpose of propaganda in this post-truth era is not to persuade the other side, but to sow division and erode the faith of other country’s public in their own officials (not difficult in post-Iraq Britain).
There was a saying in the Russian KGB, and it holds true in its successor institutions: You never leave the special services. Putin was, is, and will always be a Chekist, through and through; a Chekist first, and Russian President only second. This, in my view, is not even so much about Russia’s interstate relations as about the corporate amour propre of the Chekist estate. Betraying the Motherland is one thing, but you betray the Corporation at your peril. Poisoning is Russia’s trademark punishment for double agents.
Another weak argument is that Russia would hardly do this on the eve of its hosting of the World Cup. Putin doesn’t care about this. He knows few Western dignitaries will come to Russia for the World Cup anyway. Who cares, Xi will be there, Lukashenka will be there, etc. It is more important for him to up the ante in cold war tension with the West, preparing Russians for his fourth term, which will be very much “guns, not butter.” The man who bragged about his new, deadly weapons before the assembled houses of the Russian parliament two weeks ago is hardly worried about upsetting the British by the use of one of these weapons on UK soil.
Well said.
Clivejw
” The unnamed chemist claims that the Novichok substances are binary weapons — in other words, they are brought into “battlefield condition” directly before their use. He claims that the reagents, which are kept separately, are “as a rule” not dangerous until they are brought together ”
I am far more convinced of Russia’s guilt by your authoritative understanding of the mentality of the intelligence services, than by anything professor Davies or PM May has said.. in fact one of the reasons why both of their arguments look so daft may be that they don’t want to disclose anything secret they have been told by the intelligence services. so thanks for that. For those who are allergic to lies, the absence of disclosure of parts of their witness immediately sets my lie-alarms off, and also Jeremy Corbyn’s. Thanks for shedding light on that.
Once my noisy lie-alarm has been re-set, because most of us are not used to dealing with spook-speak or corporate-bollocks on a daily basis, do I believe your theory about Russia doing this heinous act?
No. but it does convince me that Mrs May and Professor Davies are genuinely convinced. Mrs May has been wound up gradually by her secret service minders to believe that Russia is hostile to the UK, but who are her minders? and does she have the moral resilience to resist or question what their motives are for telling her this?
To me it still looks like Mrs May has been groomed for decades into believing that Russia and China are our enemies. Like the Novochuk, or araldite , there are two main components, a McCarthyian socialist threat which is in my opinion wholly synthetic, and a murder scene which is possible real and possibly fake. She sound completely bonkers , talking with conviction about stuff her audience is very sceptical about. But I’m sorry if one brain-washed lady’s clear conviction is enough to convince me of anything except the fact that she’s been had.
My first father-in-law who was an Etonian, London-dwelling, artisan picture restorer, told me a story about when he was working in a posh off licence in Knightsbridge. A lady came in to make a purchase. ” I’ve ‘ad ‘er ” says his mate. I often use disgusting language as a metaphor for the dirtiness of politics. I can’t find anything else to describe the concept of paying false Islamists to terrorise the civilian population of a country we, USUKIS, want to colonise. Our crimes are IMHO far worse that Putin’s. In fact Putin seems to be the policeman, not the criminal in Syria. I think Craig’s right about Mrs May and the Zionists. She’s been ‘ad.
“The Russians want us to know they did it, I feel, and, even more, they want their own potential defectors and oligarchs to know it too.”
This is where your lengthy analysis falls apart.
1. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Russians would want me, or you, to know they did it. Why on earth would they care about that?
2. Accepting the second part of the statement. If the Russians seriously wanted “their own potential defectors and oligarchs to know they did it”, then why on earth would they choose such a clumsy, complicated, controversial, and ultimately, as it appears, unreliable method?
Skripal could perfectly easily have been assassinated by a simple double-tap to the head, that could not possibly have been proven to come from Russia. Do you seriously think that all the “potential defectors and oligarchs” would have said to themselves: “Wow. What an unfortunate accident to befall Comrade Skripal. Luckily this double-tap to the head could not possibly have originated in Moscow. It really is just the oddest coincidence that he’s been assassinated. So I know that I’m perfectly safe and I’m just going to carry on being a potential defector/oligarch…”
Interestingly, almost the same story was aired in a TV show called Strikeback:Retribution just a few weeks before, episodes 50 to 52:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Back:_Retribution
Oh, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Those happen all the time.
The hysterical response to this tells you all you need to know. I am glad that a few people like Craig and Dimitri Orlov aren’t being sucked into this vortex. May shows, yet again, she isn’t fit to be PM.
Odds-on that the evil dictator Assad will use the same stuff against the innocents in East Ghouta within, the next few weeks.
Unlikely as even according to arch pro-jihadi stenographer Martin Chulov in the Guardian, Ghouta is about to fall. The rebels have got to come up with something in a couple of days, not a few weeks. There was a video of a home-made chemical plant captured by the Syrians on AlMasdar yesterday.
You appear to be applying logic. Saudis bring down the twin towers. Solution – destroy Afghanistan. Iraq has no terrorists. Solution – destroy Iraq and inroduce terrorists.
Actually, my only surprise is that the Skripals weren’t subject to a White Helmets video, where they rush towards Zizzi with a winsome child in their arms, and save the day with only some chewing gum and ointment.
Clyde Davies seems to be good at copying and pasting from wikipedia which is where he got the formulas.
In my book, if someone writes like an arsehole, thinks and reasons like an arsehole, then he’s a bloody arsehole.
Dr Davies postulates he’s bound by scientific method but then reaches his conclusions by taking assertions as fact, with no recourse to evidence.
Keep it up Craig. Your site is one fo the places I go to check if I am being bamboozled. I have become increasingly horrified by The Grauniad in recent years. Many thanks.
hmm, i posted a lonk to your first article to this in the guardian gb comments, later that day in a follow up article where anyone who did not tow the russia did it line was being accused of owning and wearing a tin foil hat, the same article was being posted by various people, you have ruffled feathers
“In my book, if something looks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck….”
Isn’t that Netanyahu’s catch phrase, complete with graphics in the UN, when in fact there was no evidence that Iran had developed WMD?
SA
Wasn’t it Lavrov on USUKIS proxy terrorists in the War on Syria?
Brilliant keep up the great journalism
It seems to me that this is part of the ‘Assad Government Forces’ used CW ‘against their own people’ lying propaganda. They have been lying intentionally about that since 2012. Never mind that stockpiles of CW have been found from overrun headchopper positions, or that Turkey arrested headchoppers carrying Sarin in Turkey, and the total imbecility of assuming Assad would risk using these weapons, even if he had them after getting rid of them, in the face of Obama’s ‘Red Line’. This ‘Red Line’ had obviously been threatened in order for the headchoppers to use the CW’s in ‘False Flag’ attacks, to be blamed on the Assad forces. Indeed, Trump used just such an incident (whether ‘False Flag’ or just a conventional attack which hit the headchopper’s CW stocks, exploding and releasing them) to rain cruise missiles down on a Syrian airbase, with Sweet FA evidence; even a US Intelligence officer recently admitted they had no evidence Assad used CW’s.
The headchoppers are still planning to use them; recently three truckloads of Chlorine were observed passing into Syria from Turkey, and both Syria and Russia have warned that the headchoppers (sorry, British and other scumbag mercenaries):
( https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-government-prepared-war-in-syria-two-years-before-2011-protests-frances-former-foreign-minister-roland-dumas/5494871 ) are planning other ‘False Flag’ attacks in the very near future (they may delay them for a bit, now that they have been rumbled).
So what does this have to do with Skripal and his daughter? Simple – just getting the public to associate Russia with CW use, so when the West’s proxy headchoppers next use CW’s to frame the Assad government, they will easier accept the government and MSM lies that it was Assad who had used them, with possible attacks to follow (the only reason the ‘Coalition’ is bombing Syria, and setting up bases was from the outset to further their plans for Balkanising Syria (and Iraq, with their bombing campaigns there).
There have been many Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian reports of ‘Coalition’ aircraft and helicopters delivering arms and ammunition to IS/ISIS/Al Nusrah and all.
Russia has just sent an advanced anti ship, anti submarine frigate to join it’s fleet off Syria – the headchoppers haven’t been given ships or subs yet, so I wonder what signal that is meant to send?
https://sputniknews.com/world/201803131062468402-russia-admiral-essen-frigate-mediterranean/
Bottom line: if HMG has seen fit to knowingly lie about Assad using CW’s, and to continue assisting their headchopper mercenary proxies, with all the death and destruction that has caused, and continues to cause, then faking an attack or even carrying one out themselves on Skripal and his daughter in order to smear Russia, would be small beer.
Excellent comment
The “triangulation of motive, means, and opportunity” argument in the Twitter thread seems speculative and logically unpersuasive. It also articulates the underlying foundation of the whole alleged “case”, or more accurately, the “charges” which have been levelled at the Russian government. I have seen at least four corporate media articles refer to something Putin said in 2010 as somehow constituting “evidence”. The notion advanced today in the “joint statement” – that Russia must be guilty because it did not respond to the ultimatum to confess – is likewise just silly.
Means, motive, and opportunity to produce a false flag, or to take advantage of an unexplained incident to achieve the same, logically cannot be dismissed as, in this case, the accuser has its own recent history of stampeding global opinion with knowingly false reports (and far beyond a handful of assassinations, used these false reports to destroy another country, destabilize an entire region, and ruin the lives of millions of people).
The lack of perspective of those joining the stampede is obvious.
Personally I think WikiLeaks did it.
They’re hackers. We’ve seen they have no problem extracting data, methods, formulas.
They probably hacked the Russians and got the Novichok formula.
And it’s designed to be simple to make, from household stuff.
So there you go.
Perfect for WikiLeaks.
Congratulations, but that doesn’t sound very hygienic.
Why oh why, can I not keep images of show trials out of my head.
Why oh why, can I not keep images of people with their hand on their heart saying “I am not now nor have I ever been……….
Why oh why can I not keep images of Jack Straw and Tony Blair out of my head…_
Chemical weapon that has the signature of a state actor, but can be made without any chemical facilities.
Huh. Sounds like the ideal weapon for a non-state actor, like WikiLeaks.
Russians wouldn’t leave formulas behind at an abandoned production facility in Uzbekistan for Americans to find and copy. That’s silly.
If Russia didn’t do this, it’s pretty clear who did.
WikiLeaks. They’re in the best position to have acquired Russian formulas, considering they’re a brokerage for stolen government secrets.
If you were ever going for ‘credibility’, I’d suggest you just lost it entirely.
It comes with the territory, Craig, so just get used to it, when you stick a red-hot poker up an open, raw wound It drives the official spooks and private trolls wild.
As usual very well researched and presented Craig, I know why I admire you as a peer review source in clearing up truth from false news , what a sad world that scientific proof is no longer trusted , did this start with paid scientists from the tobacco industry manipulating facts preparing us all for distrust? How do we get back to sanity
Craig, I am really enjoying your posts on this subject. Sometimes I think you go further than the evidence you cite really justifies – but at least you are looking for actual evidence. I am astonished by how eager even intelligent people seem to be to be led by the nose once again towards another war. (I dare say you read the recent article in ‘Foreign Policy’ by Micah Zenko of Chatham House, titled ‘America’s Military Is Nostalgic for World Wars’. It’s chilling stuff.)
Several things really puzzle me. Has anyone addressed these questions?
• If the nerve agent involved is really 10 times more lethal than sarin, how come the two Russians aren’t dead by now? If they were sufficiently contaminated with it to endanger the life of a passing policeman, surely they’d have been dead within minutes? Or don’t nerve agents work like that?
• Your interlocutor the chemist (or, as he might put it, “the chemist”) seemed to suggest that the complete formulae for ‘novichoks’ have been published, which is why Porton Down can identify one. That can’t be right, can it? Or is the point that it doesn’t matter if the formulae are public knowledge because these compounds are incredibly difficult to manufacture and the way the Soviets found to manufacture them is *not* public knowledge? But of course that wouldn’t preclude any number of other states from working out how to do it, would it? I note that the Israelis like to boast of their world-beating biochemical prowess, and of course they have a track record of using poisons to assassinate their enemies.
• Has anyone suggested a serious motivation for the Russians to do this? I see that James O’Brien – another ‘expert’ on international diplomacy ha ha ha! – has said it is obvious, they wanted to ‘cock a snook’ at Britain! Why? ‘Because they hold us in contempt!’ Yes, but why do it just before the World Cup? ‘Because they hold us in complete and utter contempt!’ Has anyone suggested a reason why Russia should want so badly to ‘cock a snook’ at Britain in particular?
• Why would anyone be inclined to believe anything the British Government says? It’s only a few days since a Tory ‘vice chair for youth’ had to make a grovelling apology for publishing an outrageous lie about the Leader of the Opposition. He hasn’t been sacked for it. David Davis and Boris Johnson both appear to have no grasp of the concept of truth. Gavin Williamson has been described by his own colleagues as ‘a real slimeball’ and ‘a self-serving cunt’. At least Tony Blair had the gift of sounding convincing – everyone now seems to be falling over themselves to believe these charlatans, and indeed to ‘stand four-square’ with them. What has come over everyone?
Thank you Jiusito.. A very informative post which has put me right. The Tory ‘vice chair for youth’. Yes, I get it now. I had glanced at some thing about ‘vice’ and Tory youth, and I had got completely the wrong end of the stick.
They’re probably not going to reveal how their methods for keeping these two alive.
I did read that they “were only able to treat the symptoms” – whatever that means.
My guess is that that means they find a way to keep your heart beating and lungs breathing.
VX is 10x more lethal than sarin. Maybe they were confused.
Or they’re speaking colloquially.
I don’t think you can actually scientifically assess “lethality” without seeing how it effects a population.
Excellent comment.
It would seem that Russophobia is a disease which affects the victim’s ability to reason and perform critical thinking; a disease which is spread by contact with propaganda.
What benefit do these fiends gain by poisoning a released prisoner on the soil of a strident antagonist? What devilishly clever calculation are we supposed to belief is at work here?
Well it keeps anyone else from spilling secrets to the West, that’s for sure.