By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK government believes Vladimir Putin ordered the Salisbury nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal due to Skripal’s possession of information about Putin’s alleged embezzlement of profits from metals production. A leading intelligence official accepted Skripal’s assertion that this information was the motive, citing Skripal’s GRU background and the pervasive corruption within the Russian government. The inquiry heard that Foreign Office experts deemed Putin’s direct involvement likely given the audacious nature of the attack. While Putin dismissed Skripal as a traitor and downplayed the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess, the intelligence official characterized Putin’s comments as callous and dismissive.
Read the original article here
The poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England, in 2018 remains a chilling reminder of the lengths to which some governments will go to silence dissent. British officials strongly believe that the attack wasn’t some random act of violence; rather, it was a targeted assassination attempt orchestrated at the highest levels of the Russian government, likely stemming from what Skripal knew.
The sheer audacity of the attack – using a military-grade nerve agent in a bustling British city – speaks volumes about the perpetrators’ confidence and their disregard for international law. It was a brazen act, one that sent shockwaves through the international community. This wasn’t a clumsy attempt; it was a calculated and meticulously planned operation. The precision of the attack reinforces the belief that eliminating Skripal was the primary objective.
The theory that Putin himself ordered the hit is certainly a strong one, considering Skripal’s past as a double agent for the UK’s intelligence services. His knowledge of Russian intelligence operations, personnel, and possibly even sensitive secrets, would have made him a significant threat. Eliminating him would have silenced a potential source of considerable embarrassment, or even worse, a catastrophic leak of sensitive information. The risk of exposure would have been far too great for the Kremlin to tolerate.
It’s crucial to consider the context of Skripal’s defection. This wasn’t simply a case of a disgruntled employee quitting his job. He was a high-ranking intelligence officer who had access to deeply sensitive information about Russian operations. His betrayal represented a significant intelligence loss for Russia, and his subsequent cooperation with British intelligence would have only intensified the Kremlin’s desire for retribution.
The use of Novichok, a nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union, further supports the theory of state-sponsored involvement. The sophistication of the weapon and the specific method of its deployment point towards a level of expertise only available to a state-sponsored entity like the Russian military or intelligence services. It’s hard to imagine any other plausible explanation for the use of such a weapon. It wasn’t just some rogue actor; it was a calculated, strategic choice to ensure Skripal’s death.
Many have speculated about the specific information Skripal possessed that could have warranted such a drastic response. While the exact details remain shrouded in secrecy for obvious reasons, the very act of attempting to eliminate him suggests something highly compromising was at stake. It’s reasonable to assume that the information could have exposed corruption, illegal activities, or potentially compromised Russia’s national security in some substantial way.
The aftermath of the attack, including the international condemnation and sanctions imposed on Russia, highlighted the gravity of the situation. The UK’s response was swift and decisive, and the international community largely rallied behind Britain’s assessment of Russia’s culpability. This demonstrated a united front against state-sponsored terrorism, highlighting the significant implications of this particular case.
It’s also important to remember that the Skripal poisoning wasn’t an isolated incident. Russia has a history of using violence and intimidation against those deemed to be threats, be it domestic dissidents, exiled critics, or former intelligence officers. This incident fits into a pattern of behavior that reflects a willingness to use lethal force to silence opposition, both at home and abroad.
In conclusion, while definitive proof may remain elusive, the circumstantial evidence strongly points towards a deliberate attempt to eliminate Sergei Skripal due to what he knew. The use of a military-grade nerve agent, the precision of the attack, and the Kremlin’s history of eliminating dissidents all paint a compelling picture. British officials are undoubtedly correct in their belief that Putin may have directly ordered Skripal’s assassination, a horrifying testament to the lengths some will go to protect their power and secrets. The case remains a stark reminder of the dark realities of international espionage and the potential consequences of betraying one’s country. The lack of an openly happy ending underscores the severity of the situation and the ongoing geopolitical tensions it continues to represent.