Coming back to the topic, many problems lie with the assertion that the supposed (but until now unproven) use of Novichok would necessarily puts the blame on Russians. There are many unanswered questions relating to the substance, and indeed even its existence is not assured ; but if w accept it, then its availability is not much of a trouble for Western secret services :
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/theresa-mays-novichok-claims-fall-apart.html
…...
There is no independent evaluation of the alleged poison. The British government claims that its own chemical weapon laboratory at Porton Down, only a few miles from where the incident happened, has identified the poison as one of the 'Novichok' chemicals.
But in 2016 a leading chemist at Porton Down had doubts that such chemicals exist. (Paul McKeigue, Professor of Statistical Genetics and Genetic Epidemiology at Edinburgh University, Piers Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University and the former British Ambassador Craig Murray
point this
out):
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
The Scientific Advisory Board of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has
not recognized Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. The U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this evaluation:
[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)
The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanyanov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the 'Novichoks', now lives in a
$1 million home in the United States. The
AFP news agency just
interviewed him about the recent incident:
Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said
he is convinced
Russia carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir
Putin.
"Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They
kept it and are still keeping it in secrecy."
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas
in his book to make such a weapon.
"Russia did it", says Mirzanyanov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".
The book was published in 2008 and is
available as hardcover, paperback or for $8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas which, Mirzanyanov says, could be used to produce those chemical agents. But neither Porton Down nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may believe that Mirzanyanov is just full of it.
One customer reviewing Mirzanyanov's book
remarked:
[Needs] an editor to throttle back his epic "i'm an epic awesome martyr" stuff and
stick to the science.
Another reviewer
wrote:
State secrets is by far the most long winded and painfully slow novel on chemical
weapons written by a disgruntled defected scientist from Russia I have ever read!
If you want to hear an employ with delusions of grandeur moan about every
person he ever worked with then this is the book for you, otherwise don't waste
your sweet time. Seriously! Nothing happens except Vil somethingkov helps make
things that kill people for 30 years, gets a (sort of) conscience, defects, and
constantly whinges about.....everything.
Vil Mirzanyanov promoted his book
in a 2009 video. Shortly after he published his book he
blogged an explanation why he included formulas in it:
While I was writing my book “State Secrets: An Insider’s Chronicle of the Russian
Chemical Weapons Program”, some people from Washington persistently advised me
not to include the formulas of the chemical agents of the Novichok series in my
book.
...
I asked why it would be a bad idea to publish this information, since it would be for
the safety of all people. Then the governments would work to have those chemical
agents and their precursors included into the Control List. They responded,
“Terrorists could use them for their criminal actions.” This kind of reasoning is used
all the time now to scare people and prevent any discussion. We are already used
to ignoring a lot of real problems thanks to that.
Mirzanyanov further points out that experienced personal in well equipped laboratories would be able to use his formulas. State actors have such laboratories, like the British Porton Down, but terrorists do not have such capabilities.
Mirzanyanov urged to included the substances he described into the OPCW list of controlled material. But the OPCW, as seen above, rejected that. Neither its scientific board nor the head of the Porton Down detection laboratory were convinced that these substances or the Soviet program Mirzanyanov described existed at all.
The Soviet chemical weapon laboratory in which Mirzanyanov had worked was in Uzbekistan, not in Russia as Theresa May falsely claims. The laboratory was dismantled with the
active help of the United States.
Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for the Skripal incident is obviously bollocks.
The existence of the substances as described by Vil Mirzanyanov is in serious doubt. But if he is right then any state or company with a decent laboratory and competent personal can produce these substances from the formulas and descriptions he provides in his book. That is at least what Mirzanyanov himself says.
But most disturbing about the case are not the false claims Theresa May makes. She is in deep political trouble over the Brexit negotiations and other issues and needs any political diversion that she can get. Blaming Russia for 'something' is en vogue and might help her for a while.
No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that May's claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims. The only paper that is somewhat skeptical is the
Irish Times which
finds it highly unlikely that the Russian government is behind the poisoning.