Feverish speculation in
the British media of Russian state involvement in alleged poisoning of Sergey
Skripal and his daughter is unwarranted
March 7, 2018, 16:33
Once again the British
media is going through a James Bond moment following the discovery on Monday of
two Russians – Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia – seriously ill and
poisoned on a bench in the town of Salisbury.
The story has dominated
the media for two days, the British cabinet’s COBRA committee has met, there
have been portentous (and quickly retracted) announcements by British Foreign
Secretary Boris Johnson concerning a British intention to boycott the World Cup
in Russia, a further (calmer) announcement today by British Home Secretary
Amber Rudd (one of the few relatively level headed politicians left in
Britain), and it seems that a statement to the House of Commons by British
Prime Minister Theresa May is expected shortly.
Meanwhile the media has
been pouring out stories asserting “Russian state involvement” in the poisoning
of Skripal and his daughter as fact, along with speculations about whether or
not the substance which poisoned them is radioactive (it isn’t), with comparisons
being made between the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter and the murder by
polonium poisoning in 2006 of the exiled Russian ex-policeman and FSB officer
Alexander Litvinenko.
It needs to be said
clearly that all these speculations are at the present time both groundless and
unwarranted. So far not a scintilla of evidence has publicly appeared
linking the Russian state to the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.
Moreover in one important
respect the reporting is demonstrably wrong.
Skripal is invariably
described in the British media as a “Russian spy”. It should be said
clearly that he is no such thing. Just as Alexander Litvinenko was never
a spy (he was a law enforcement officer tasked by the FSB with combatting
organised crime) so Skripal is not a “Russian spy”.
Skripal is a former
Russian army officer who beginning in December 1995 started accepting payments
from the British in return for information. He was a British not
a Russian spy.
Skripal became an
informer for British intelligence at a time when the influence within British
intelligence of Christopher Steele – the compiler of the Trump Dossier – was
approaching its peak. As Business Insider says, it is likely – though not
proven – that he was a member of Steele’s network.
In the event the Russians
discovered in 2004 that Skripal was working for the British, and he was
arrested and jailed by them in that year. As John Helmer has pointed out, shortly after in 2006 the
Russian counterintelligence agency the FSB rolled up what was left of Britain’s
intelligence operation in Russia. Skripal himself was pardoned and
exchanged by the Russians in 2010 in return for the ‘illegals’(Russian
deep cover agents) infiltrated by Russian intelligence into the US, who were
arrested by the US that year. The glamorous Anna Chapman was
one of these Russian ‘illegals’.
Why the Russians would
want to murder an ex-spy who they had previously pardoned and allowed to go to
the West after they had caught and jailed him is not obvious.
As several British media
commentaries have rather grudgingly admitted, by the time Skripal was poisoned
he had been thoroughly exposed and debriefed by both the Russians and the
British, and was living a quiet life in retirement in Salisbury. At the
time of his poisoning he posed no conceivable threat to Russian intelligence or
to Russia.
Theories that his
poisoning was some sort of act of ‘revenge’ against Skripal for his previous
activities, or was intended as some sort of warning by the Russians to Steele,
are not only entirely unsupported by evidence but would be wholly out of
character for Russian intelligence, and should be discounted.
Though there is in fact
very little publicly available evidence at the present time upon which to base
speculations about the case, such evidence as there is if anything points away
from Russian state involvement.
Though the substance
which poisoned Skripal and his daughter has apparently so far not been
conclusively identified, some reports suggest that it is fentanyl, a
powerful opoid drug, which is widely available in Britain where it is used both
for medical and for recreational drug use.
The fact that traces of
this substance were found on the bench where Skripal and his daughter were
sitting when they were found suggests – though it does not prove – that they
ingested the substance themselves.
If the substance was
fentanyl then that might suggest either a case of recreational drugs use which
went horribly wrong – and fentanyl has been linked in Britain to the deaths of large numbers of recreational drugs users –
or sadly to something darker.
It is a commonplace that
defectors cut off forever from their home country often fall into depression
and engage in suicidal thoughts – here is an article discussing this condition amongst North Korean
defectors – and Skripal has in addition recently suffered the double blow of
the death in 2012 from cancer of his wife and of the recent death in July last
year of his son.
Assuming that his
daughter shared his grief it is not impossible that this is a joint suicide
attempt.
Let me stress that I do
not know whether either of these two theories is true, just as I do not know
that the substance which poisoned Skripal and his daughter is fentanyl – other
theories suggest that it might have been a nerve agent – though I would say
that the accounts of witnesses of the appearance of Skripal and of his daughter
when they were found which I have seen do seem to me to be consistent with
fentanyl poisoning.
I only bring up these
theories because there have been so many other theories which look to me far
less grounded in the facts of this case as they are so far known.
If – as is to be
earnestly hoped – Skripal and his daughter recover from their poisoning,
perhaps they will tell us what happened and we will know the truth.
In the meantime there is
no justification for the orgy of unsubstantiated speculation about this case
which we are currently witnessing in Britain and elsewhere.
Nor – given that only two
people are involved – is there any justification for the preposterously over
the top publicity which is being given to this incident.
In Britain sad to
say people die from drugs overdoses every day – with
fentanyl responsible for a large proportion of these deaths – making it absurd
to focus on just two cases of poisoning until more is publicly known about this
incident which justifies treating it as something more sinister.
Certainly convening the
COBRA committee and getting the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the
Prime Minister to make statements at this stage in the case is profoundly wrong
and frankly ridiculous.
What unfortunately it
shows is how extreme the atmosphere of Russophobia in Britain has become that
speculation like this can run rife and dominate the headlines for days in the
complete absence of any facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment