On 12 April the OPCW released a report stating that it had confirmed the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury…
The report said nothing about the origin of the so-called «toxic chemical».
The British accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive.
The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used against the Skripals was of high purity.
Was it a nerve agent?
Oddly, the OPCW published report avoids a straight answer.
If it was a nerve agent, being of high purity, it should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately.
Yet both have survived at the time of this writing.
Something does not make sense.
Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.
There may be a simple explanation.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow provided the answer.
The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a substance known as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately.
The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so.
Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it.
Moreover, according to the Russian embassy in London, considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning; Could British authorities have tampered with the samples?
The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a «toxic chemical».
Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a well-known Swiss lab, which promptly reported back its surprising results?
The OPCW authorities thus lied when they said that the tests confirmed the British identify of the «toxic chemical».
Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent.
The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading.
Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorize a false flag attack against the Skripals, or was it authorized by the British cabinet or by the prime minister alone?
Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles?
The trail of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A prima facie case can be made that the British government is lying about the Skripal affair.
Suspicion always falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical smokescreens.
British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can’t be publicized.
Nevertheless, the British government appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror put out a story about a Russian secret assassins’ training manual.
These stories are laughable.
Is the Tory government that desperate?
Is the British every man that gullible?
The secret assassin’s manual reminds me of the 1924 Zinoviev Letter, a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist revolution.
It was early days of fake news.
Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labor party.
It was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm.
The Tories won a majority government.
Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now.
In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide.
It took seventy-five years to determine that “the letter” was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if they have something to hide.
It is Deja vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth?
Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus.
The London Metropolitan Police have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals.
They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an unknown location.
They have until now denied Russian consular authorities’ access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements.
Is there any chapter of international law, which the British government now respects?
British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal’s family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia’s cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her.
Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative?
Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate?
Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money?
Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father?
Based on a statement attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it begins to look that way.
Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a fake?
The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is.
What is certain is that British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide.
Even German politicians, amongst others, have criticized the British rush to indict Russia.
Damage control is underway.
Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe anything the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
«They are liars.
And they know that they are liars, the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Najeb Mahfouz once wrote:
»And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying"…
Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the same, he could have been.
Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?
The Tories are trying doggedly to maintain control of the narrative.
Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilizing European, indeed world peace and security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called.
Then, the British electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who risk provoking war against the Russian Federation.
Michael Jabara Carley