The Moscow Skripal Investigation: A Critical Analysis of Faults and Controversies

Introduction

The Moscow Skripal incident has been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. The nature and purpose of the investigation into the alleged use of the Novichok nerve agent have raised numerous questions and have been marked by several significant flaws. This article aims to critically analyze these shortcomings and their implications for transparency, international cooperation, and the handling of potential state-sponsored incidents.

Faulty Chain of Custody Papers

The integrity of the evidence, particularly the blood samples collected from Sergei and Yulia Skripal, is a critical aspect of the investigation. Recently, a Freedom of Information request revealed that the chain of custody papers for these blood samples contained significant flaws. This raises serious concerns about the possibility of contamination, which could undermine the entire case if Novichok was indeed the agent used.

The UK Defense Ministry has reported that the samples could have been manipulated, further complicating the matter. The absence of a clear and unaltered chain of custody undermines the credibility of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it.

The Chemical Weapons Convention and Theresa May's Ultimatum

At the heart of the investigation lies the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlines strict responsibilities for member states. Despite this, Theresa May's ultimatum to Russia posed multiple issues:

It was factually inaccurate, as Novichok could have originated from various sources, including laboratories in the UK itself. The UK did not adhere to the Convention by sharing information or allowing Russia access to the Skripals for analysis. The refusal to share samples with Russia and the compliance with a 24-hour deadline instead of the required 10 days are significant deviations from standard procedures. Denying Russia the opportunity to examine the CCTV footage and request additional information such as fingerprints and passport numbers further undermined transparency.

Extradition of the Suspects and Political Grandstanding

The process of extraditing suspects appeared to be politically driven rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service's handling of the case has been criticized for prioritizing political over evidential concerns.

This raises the question of whether the entire incident was staged as a false flag event to embarrass and alienate Russia. The lack of transparency and adherence to international norms has fueled suspicions that the outcome was predetermined for political reasons.

Other Sources of Novichok and the Involvement of NATO States

Several NATO states, including Germany, were reportedly involved in the research and development of Novichok in the 1990s. The involvement of the US Department of Defense further complicates the narrative, as the US had access to the laboratory that created Novichok and even published the chemical formula of the nerve agent in the NIST Mass Spectral Library.

The defection of Dr. Vil S. Mirzayanov to the US also brought the chemical formulas to light, leading to a cover-up by the British and American delegates. The confirmation of the US Novichok program by the OPCW chairman Matousek, who was subsequently silenced, adds another layer of complexity to the investigation.

The Role of Porton Down

Given that the UK's DTSL Porton Down had Novichok samples prior to the Skripals' attack, it is highly likely that Novichok was one of the tested nerve agents. Porton Down's refusal to confirm the use of Novichok without access to a reference sample is particularly suspicious.

Gary Aitkenhead, chief of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, did not provide definitive information when questioned by Sky News, further complicating the case and raising concerns about potential cover-ups.

Conclusion

The Moscow Skripal incident, while tragic, has been marred by numerous flaws that undermine the integrity of the investigation. The handling of evidence, adherence to international norms, and the political motivations behind the case all contribute to a narrative that is far from transparent. As the full truth remains obscured, it is crucial for all parties involved to address these concerns and restore trust in the process of uncovering the truth.