By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The family of Dawn Sturgess, who died after being exposed to a nerve agent, has criticized the UK state for failing to protect the public and prevent such tragedies. They expressed concern that the inquiry into her death did not provide sufficient plans to prevent future incidents. The family noted the report did not contain any recommendations, especially regarding the lack of risk assessment of Sergei Skripal and the inadequate protective measures, which put the British public at risk. Furthermore, the family also criticized the police for initially mischaracterizing Sturgess as a drug user and highlighted the need for more widespread training on nerve agent symptoms and improved public health advice.
Read the original article here
Putin ‘morally responsible’ for Dawn Sturgess’s novichok death, an inquiry has concluded, and frankly, that’s not surprising. It’s a conclusion that feels less like a shocking revelation and more like a grim confirmation of what many already suspected, if not outright knew. The audacity of the act – using a nerve agent, a weapon of war, on British soil – is staggering. But, more so is the carelessness that leads to Dawn Sturgess’ death. This tragedy wasn’t just a consequence; it was a direct result of decisions made at the highest levels.
It’s truly a shame that a woman, completely uninvolved in any geopolitical games, became an innocent victim. The fact that the novichok was supposedly smuggled into the UK in a perfume bottle, left carelessly after the assassination attempt, paints a picture of a sloppy operation. It suggests a certain contempt, a lack of respect not just for international norms but for human life itself. This lack of morals is a constant theme, isn’t it? It appears the alleged perpetrators were more concerned with carrying out the mission and moving on than with the consequences.
The inquiry’s finding reinforces a deeply disturbing reality – that someone in charge, someone with immense power, authorized an act of chemical warfare. This wasn’t some rogue agent acting on their own; it was a calculated move, a deliberate act of aggression. To think that a foreign power would carry out a biological weapons attack on innocent British people on British soil and then essentially dare the world to respond is both infuriating and chilling. It’s the kind of behavior that strips away any illusion of goodwill and reveals the true nature of those involved.
So, when confronted by someone, a “Vatnik”, who blindly supports such actions, armed with their Red Z flag, remember this. The attack was targeted at British citizens, and the disregard for life is evident. It’s important to have these facts at your fingertips when attempting to engage with those on the other side. This is not about political gamesmanship; it’s about acknowledging the consequences of actions and holding those responsible accountable, at least morally, if not legally.
Sadly, the inquiry’s conclusion, while a step toward justice for Dawn Sturgess’s family, feels like a drop in the ocean. The world is often slow to react to such blatant acts of aggression. The fact that economic interests, the price of gas, and entangled wealth can influence responses to such atrocities is deeply troubling. The world seems to shrug, and politicians and business leaders often prioritize protecting their own assets and positions of power.
It seems that Putin will most likely view this as a strategic win, another successful instance of intimidation. Intimidation works, and it appears to have worked here. That alone is reprehensible. These tactics involve not just intimidation, but also the exploitation of secrets. Many rich individuals and powerful leaders have financial and political ties that they are unwilling to risk. Putin has a vast arsenal of “uncomfortable secrets” that he can leverage to maintain control. This is the playbook of a dictator: control the wealthy, and you control the narrative.
The use of chemical weapons, particularly a neurotoxin like novichok, should require no further explanation of the moral implications. The use of chemical weapons, in general, is morally reprehensible and a violation of all human rights and moral norms. But beyond the actual act is the aftermath. This incident leaves a mark, a record of resistance. It signifies that not everyone was compliant or complacent in the face of such aggression. It offers a sense of hope, even if the wheels of justice turn slowly.
It’s crucial to remain accurate in the face of disinformation. We have to clarify that this was a neurotoxin, not a virus, and to not let that misinterpretation become fuel for counter-arguments. When those who seek to deny or minimize this event are presented with factual information, it is hard for them to maintain their disinformation campaigns.
Ultimately, the most the inquiry can offer is public acknowledgement of responsibility, which, in a world often dominated by darkness, is a valuable service. It provides a means to remember, to honor, and to resist. While justice might seem elusive, a record of this action remains. It reminds us of who they are, how they act, and what they believe. And this, maybe, is the first step toward true accountability.