No 10 hits back after lab says: We can’t prove poison came from Russia
Porton Down can’t pin nerve agent to Russia But No10 still insists Kremlin is responsible
VLADIMIR PUTIN last night claimed 20 countries could have poisoned Sergei Skripal after Porton Down said it could not prove the nerve agent used had come from Russia.
The head of the military research facility said it had not yet been possible to say where the Novichok used in the attack was made.
Gary Aitkenhead confirmed the poison had been produced by a ‘state actor’, saying: ‘It’s a military-grade nerve agent which requires extremely sophisticated methods in order to create – something that’s probably only within the capabilities of a state actor.’
But he told Sky News it was not Porton Down’s role to work out its origin and said the Government relied on ‘a number of different input sources’ in coming to its assessment that this was highly likely to be from Russia.
Mr Aitkenhead flatly denied bizarre Russian claims the substance could have come from Porton Down itself.
Downing Street last night said Mr Aitkenhead’s comments made no difference to the Government’s assessment that the attack emanated from Russia, which was based only partly on the evidence from Porton Down. Sources said allies, who have expelled more than 100 Russian diplomats in response to the attack, had already been briefed on the intelligence assessments that put the blame on Moscow.
But there was irritation in Whitehall at Mr Aitkenhead’s ‘clumsy’ intervention, as ministers privately braced for a fresh wave of Kremlin propaganda.
Last night Mr Putin seized on the admission to call for a full inquiry, saying ‘the speed at which the anti-Russian campaign has been launched causes bewilderment’. He claimed the nerve agent could have been made in any of 20 countries.
The Russian Embassy in London said: ‘We understood from the very start that UK Government statements on the nerve agent having been produced in Russia were a bluff. Now this has been confirmed by the head of the secret lab.’
But Salisbury MP John Glen said he had ‘absolutely no doubt’ about Russia’s involvement, adding: ‘I don’t mind what propaganda emerges from the Kremlin.’
Government sources stressed the chemical analysis from Porton Down was only ‘one part of the intelligence picture’ in the decision to point the finger at Russia.
A Government spokesman said: ‘As the Prime Minister has set out in a number of statements ... since March 12, this includes our knowledge that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichok; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views former intelligence officers as targets. It is our assessment that Russia was responsible for this brazen and reckless act and, as the international community agrees, there is no other plausible explanation.’
There was irritation at Mr Aitkenhead’s decision to give an interview that could allow the Kremlin to sow further disinformation.
One Whitehall source said Mr Aitkenhead had ‘not realised what he has said’, adding: ‘The scientists’ job is to determine what the chemical is. Intelligence agencies and other bodies ascertain where it is from. There is no other explanation than this has come from the Russian state.’
The row came ahead of a meeting in The Hague today of the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to discuss the Salisbury attack. The meeting was called by Russia to ‘address the situation around allegations of non-compliance’ with the chemical weapons convention made by the UK against Moscow.
The Foreign Office dismissed it as a ‘diversionary tactic’. Meanwhile, retired Russian lieutenantgeneral Evgeny Buzhinsky warned that relations between Russia and the West could ‘end up in a very, very bad outcome’.
Asked to elaborate, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘A real war, worse than a cold war ... it will be the last war in the history of mankind.’
Commenting on his remarks, No 10 said: ‘As the Prime Minister has made clear, the UK would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules. But this attack in Salisbury was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour.’
‘No other plausible explanation’