The report of the OPCW may turn against the UK


Доклад ОЗХО может обернуться против самой Британии

Britain declares that the Organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons (OPCW) has officially confirmed the conclusions of the London about the case Skripal: traces of the alleged conduct in Russia. But what really contains in the published report of the OPCW, could be an indirect indictment of the British authorities themselves.

On Thursday, the OPCW has partially published its report on the results of his investigation, which the international organization was in Salisbury from March 19. The public part of the report (there are still secret) reports: Skrypali poisoned nervously-paralytic substance. But it already knew everything and few have challenged it. More importantly: the experts could not name the country of origin.

“The results of analyses of biological samples and environmental sampling, made by the selected OPCW laboratories, confirm the conclusions of the UK on the chemical toxic effect that was used in Salisbury and which seriously injured several people,” write the experts. At the same time, the report of the OPCW stated that they have collected samples contains toxic chemical “high purity”. This was for the TV channel Sky News as an opportunity to conclude that the specialists allegedly identified the substance as a “Newbie”.

In fact, the name of the substance and its formula in the OPCW established, but these data are contained in the secret part of the report, which is available only to members of the OPCW. Russia also received a full report of the OPCW, confirmed our permanent representative at the organization of Alexander Shulgin. According to the statement, Deputy foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, Russia is to refrain from assessments of the report before its detailed study.

It is impossible to clearly determine which country produced the substance, said Deputy Minister of industry and trade of the Russian Federation Georgy Kalamanov, who until December was in charge in Russia, the work on elimination of chemical weapons stockpiles. “Any unique markers capable of unambiguously indicate the country of manufacture applied against Skrobala substances that can not be” – he said “Interfax”.

However, the head of the British foreign Ministry Boris Johnson has demanded to convene two meetings of the UN security Council and OPCW Executive Council. He added that the meetings in the Kremlin “need to give answers” in the case Skrobala. The OPCW immediately responded to the request of Johnson, appointing a meeting on the morning of April 18.

On this subject



· The cases of Litvinenko and Skripal fit into the overall picture

· The cat Skrobala had little chance of survival

· In the “Skripal” OPCW tipped in favor of Britain

Johnson repeated his assertion that “only Russia has the means “motive and a relevant past” in order to carry out the operation in the poisoning of ex-garesnica and his daughter. On this basis, his office was quick to say that the findings of the OPCW to confirm the position of the British: the substance produced “haili licly” (i.e. very likely) “state participation”.

Meanwhile experts notice that such evidence did not prove “Russian trace”. “The report says only that the OPCW confirmed the findings of the UK on the identification of toxic substances”, – says an expert on chemical weapons, a former UN inspector in Iraq, Anton Utkin. He stressed that the report of the OPCW “we are talking exclusively about the structure of” poison.

Candidate of Sciences, specialty “biological chemistry” Ilya duhovlinov have carefully studied the public part of the report on the official website of the OPCW.

“The report is very General, formal. The information itself is presented very carefully and vaguely. There is no specifics. It is not clear that the samples presented to the English lab. Unclear methods of analysis. No proper test protocols, there is no clear formula of what is received, said duhovlinov the newspaper VIEW. From this material it is impossible to draw a conclusion about what particular matter is it”. The chemist said that it could be any fosfororganichyeskii Union, and added:

“And, given the fact that the UK is one of the world leaders in the development of combat fosfororganicheskikh substances, the origin is represented to expert organization of samples may be from the UK”.

As the newspaper VIEW, in late March the head of the British military lab at Porton Down Gary Aitkenhead actually confirmed that they are developing chemical weapons agents. Aitkenhead did not deny the existence of stockpiles of chemical weapons, including, apparently, the substance A234, known as a “Beginner”. The presence in Britain of such samples hinted Johnson himself in an interview with Deutsche Welle on March 19.

Utkin also drew attention to this nuance: the British handed over to the OPCW a second toxin, stating that this is “Newbie”. But where did they come from, is not explained. In this regard, Utkin does not exclude that submitted to the OPCW the sample was made by the British. Because the substance is free of impurities, which indicates the laboratory of origin.

“The longer Britain is silent about the origin of matter, the more there versions. If the result of an official British investigation has revealed information that is not in favor of Russia, then London with pleasure for it to use that. But because the UK says nothing about the intermediate results of the investigation, (it) means that there was no incriminating data to Russia”, – said Utkin.

By the way, on Thursday the representative of the Russian foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova expressed surprise at the fact that a month after the incident in Salisbury, no one has presented any very British spy Sergei Skripal, nor his daughter Julia, who, as reported by the authorities, has recovered.

Utkin also wonders why Julia Skripal was not allowed to communicate with relatives or the press.

“What’s the problem to Julia Skripal said something at the press conference?

What’s the problem just to talk about the readings, which gives police Julia or her father? But this is nothing. And this may mean that the information the British do not fit in the context of accusations against Russia,” – said Utkin.

Probably some of the questions will find their answers after it is declassified, the main part of the report of the OPCW. Probably, it also will not indicate the country of manufacture of the poison, but at least it should show you exactly what poison was used.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here