ZeroHedge Search

Russian Spy Poisoning Story = Iraq WMD Scam 2.0

Update:

 

By Craig Murray, former British intelligence officer, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, and Rector (i.e. Chancellor) of the University of Dundee. Originally published at CraigMurray.org.uk.

As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.

In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry

Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.

The world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:

[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)

OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013

Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks” but doubts he succeeded.

Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of “Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.

Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.

Why?

A second part of May’s accusation is that “Novichoks” could only be made in certain military installations. But that is also demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were allegedly designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial chemical facility – that was a major point of them. The only real evidence for the existence of Novichoks was the testimony of the ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually wrote.

One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.

Vil S. Mirzayanov, “Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider’s View,” in Amy E. Smithson, Dr. Vil S. Mirzayanov, Gen Roland Lajoie, and Michael Krepon, Chemical Weapons Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects, Stimson Report No. 17, October 1995, p. 21.

It is a scientific impossibility for Porton Down to have been able to test for Russian novichoks if they have never possessed a Russian sample to compare them to. They can analyse a sample as conforming to a Mirzayanov formula, but as he published those to the world twenty years ago, that is no proof of Russian origin. If Porton Down can synthesise it, so can many others, not just the Russians.

And finally – Mirzayanov is an Uzbek name and the novichok programme, assuming it existed, was in the Soviet Union but far away from modern Russia, at Nukus in modern Uzbekistan. I have visited the Nukus chemical weapons site myself. It was dismantled and made safe and all the stocks destroyed and the equipment removed by the American government, as I recall finishing while I was Ambassador there. There has in fact never been any evidence that any “novichok” ever existed in Russia itself.

To summarise:

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

With a great many thanks to sources who cannot be named at this moment.

Please Also Read My follow-up to this article: “Bothered by Midgies”

 

Comments

Kafir Goyim DaiRR Sat, 03/17/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

You're not "just sayin'", you're just babbling.   Just as Assad would never be stupid enough to use chemical weapons when he's already winning bigly, Russia would never be stupid enough to use chemical weapons on a has-been spy, when there's a hundred other ways to kill him.  Anybody who insists on the chemical weapons narrative in either of these cases is pushing a narrative, not having a discussion.  Why are you pushing this narrative, I wonder, my little  5 month old "Warrior for freedom."?

In reply to by DaiRR

Bemused Observer DownWithYogaPants Sun, 03/18/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.

Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Snaffew pawn Sun, 03/18/2018 - 16:41 Permalink

I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad.  They spit out whatever the government feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public.  Damn, I can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics and truthfulness of the US gov't.  Morons---

In reply to by pawn

gregga777 alexcojones Mon, 03/19/2018 - 04:32 Permalink

Cui bono? Who benefits? Yes, that's always the first question to ask:

 

The leaders of the Anglo-Zionist Empire of Lies and ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) met recently in the capital city of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, Tel Aviv (soon to be Jerusalem), discussing the defeat of ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) in Syria by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. 

Bibi: We have to teach our enemies in Russia, Iran and Hezbollah a lesson that we are not to be trifled with. What can we do?

ISIS head: We can make use some of our reproduction Soviet-era nerve gas agents and poison some unsuspecting Russian émigrés in the U.K. or USA. 

Bibi: (Evilly rubbing his hands with glee) Oh, purrfect. When can you begin?

ISIS head: As soon as we identify a target, preferably in the U.K.  There are lots of exiled Russian Oligarchs and former spies there.  

Bibi: What happens after we poison them?

ISIS head: We order our vassals in London, Washington, Paris, Berlin, etc., to pin the blame on the Russians and specifically on Vladimir Putin. 

Bibi: Won't the U.K. And EU be concerned that the Russians will cut off all of their natural gas supplies resulting in them freezing their asses off

ISIS head: No, the gyim sheep can't think that far ahead. 

Bibi: Oh, yes, quite right. Proceed.

 

So, there you have it. Once again, it's all a question of who benefits the most from a false flag attack.

 

In reply to by alexcojones

Itdoesntmatter Kafir Goyim Sun, 03/18/2018 - 13:23 Permalink

your just babbling...Putin doesn't care, they want russian people to know that they can be killed anywhere, anytime. With Trump as president, this gets wiped off the front page in minutes.  He gives cover to the worst governments around the world to do whatever they like....sad really.  America has become the National Inquirer, and a large minority of Americans are stupid enough to defend this shit.  The WMD lie was led by Republicans you idiots...

In reply to by Kafir Goyim

lakecity55 Kafir Goyim Sun, 03/18/2018 - 21:00 Permalink

The only "issue" the Atlanticists can bring up in the "Press" are CWs against the RF and Syria.

It's patently obvious the entire affair is a FF and made up out of a bolt of whole cloth.

The Atlanticists' claims are Pure Bullshit.

((They)) want Russia, and they will kill, lie, cheat and steal to get her back.

WE will pay the price unless they are stopped.

In reply to by Kafir Goyim

Griffin JohannSennefelder Sun, 03/18/2018 - 13:36 Permalink

It is interesting that the incident took place only 12 km from Porton Down, a government run top secret facility that works on chemicals.

Maybe this was a accident, and the target was supposed to be something that would have had a more powerful impact.

It looks to me that its not entirely impossible that May may end up eating a big slice of humble pi.

 

In reply to by JohannSennefelder

Snaffew DaiRR Sun, 03/18/2018 - 16:37 Permalink

why would the Kremlin do a hit on an old double agent and leave their fingerprints on an exotic nerve agent only to leave the agent and his daughter still alive?  I would think that if the Russians wanted someone dead...they could easily finish the job.  This is ridiculous.  It reeks of a false flag event along with the plethora of false flag events concocted lately to blackball Russia all in the name of the Deep State getting their Qatari pipeline through Syria and into the European markets and doing whatever they can to prevent a capitalist endeavor of Russia who is an ally of Syria from running their pipeline through Syria and into the European markets.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a loony---just sayin.

In reply to by DaiRR

null DaiRR Mon, 03/19/2018 - 08:49 Permalink

Well, I mean c’mon ... 

If it is obvious to an idiot, then what, Putin trying to send message to idiots or Putin trying to look like idiot?

But I agree with your sentiments. I can have tons of respect for Putin and Russia and still be very disappointed in the “friends” they keep; friends who may make it difficult for Russia to make Better Friends; friends who may simulate the Russians to keep Russia from making Good Friends.

In reply to by DaiRR

Reptil DjangoCat Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

@DjangoCat, yes, they're losing grip on the public discussion. But a cornered rat...... :-/
There's a lot of idiots that are willing to believe some foreign force is responsible, without asking for evidence.
I really doubt this will go as far as an Article 5 invocation (NATO). The bluff failed, I think.

In reply to by DjangoCat

ConnectingTheDots Pernicious Gol… Mon, 03/19/2018 - 09:20 Permalink

"The vast majority of the population doesn't want to pay any attention to events outside their mobile device."

If the full story is longer than 140 characters, (which is probably the limits of the attention span of most of the sheep,) it is too much effort to inform oneself of the facts.

If the whole story can't fit on a bumper sticker, you have lost a huge swath of the population.

In reply to by Pernicious Gol…

Squilliam Fancyson GreatUncle Sat, 03/17/2018 - 16:31 Permalink

Unfortunately I agree. Here's my locker room conversation last weekend. One of my buddies (he's a teacher) fabulated about Russia/Putin poisoning yet another agent abroad. When I snorted with laughter and asked, do you believe this BS, he almost got angry at me and lectured me on "our free press" that is "just slightly one-sided". Another sports companion joined in and supported the ignorant fool by triumphantly adding "and Navalny was not allowed to the elections". Usually I tend to be outspoken and adamant when it comes to irrefutable facts but I refrained from telling them that Navalny doesn't have the slightest chance of winning and there is no need to ban this loser for political reasons but I abstained and went home knowing that this fight is over. We lost the information war. Cankles was ranting absurdities like all leftists do whenever they move their lips.

In reply to by GreatUncle

Dame Ednas Possum Squilliam Fancyson Sun, 03/18/2018 - 00:09 Permalink

I empathise... yet I am less inclined to bite my tongue... I will happily 'debate (ridicule) the clowns who breathlessly regurgitate their indoctrination... friends, family, business associates.

I've earned myself quite the reputation for being an agent provocateur.  One of my supersilious, sanctamonious business partners almost choked between crackles announcing that I was a fully fledged member if the KGB to a client representatives. 

It has almost broken my marriage as my wife sees me as a social pariah... incapable of watch It a vaccuous chick flick with her. 

 

Fuck the idiots.  They can all go to hell (except the Mrs... I'm rather fond of her). 

In reply to by Squilliam Fancyson

Itdoesntmatter Beowulf55 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 13:30 Permalink

There is something seriously wrong with a person who relishes the role of social pariah in their circle of family and friends.  Seriously, you don't see an issue with that?  How that fact would make the natural coping mechanism feeding your ego disagreement.  And in your self-aggrandizement in that role, you look for reasons to disagree as opposed to looking for things that you agree with your family and friends....You don't a problem  see this?  You must be so fun to be around...

In reply to by Beowulf55