Disinfo: The Porton Down Laboratory was involved in the poisoning and attempted murder of Sergey Skripal and his daughter

Summary

The Porton Down Laboratory was involved in the poisoning and attempted murder of Sergey Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. It is worth remembering that the famous Porton Down laboratory, specialised in the study, development and countering of chemical and bacteriological weapons, is located near Salisbury. Western media are silent about the involvement of the Porton Down laboratory in the Skripal poisoning and about the Novichok that could be hidden in this laboratory. Instead of serious investigative journalism, Western media have published an increasing number of Russophobic and fantasy-based “spy novels” and “detective stories” about the Skripal case.

Disproof

Conspiracy theory. No evidence is given. Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Skripal poisoning in the UK claiming that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in Porton Down, a UK Ministry of Defence agency, was somehow responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury and that the Laboratory might have manufactured Novichok. This conspiracy theory is one of the many competing and contradictory narratives promulgated by Russian state-controlled media, to confuse their audience and exclude any possibility of Russian involvement (see our article on EU vs Disinformation). British police and intelligence investigations have produced hard forensic evidence which was sufficient to charge two Russian nationals, identified as officers of the Russian Military Intelligence, GRU, for the attack on the Skripals. Parts of the material have been released to the public. The toxin used in the attack was identified as a nerve agent at the Porton Down Laboratory. The Laboratory has not done tests with nerve agents since 1989 but is still able to identify these toxins, to protect British civilians and troops from attacks. The nerve agent has been identified as Novichok (which means newcomer in Russian). It is known to be more powerful than VX and was developed in Russia in the 1970s and 1980s. Novichok is so unusual that very few scientists outside of Russia have any real experience in dealing with it and no country outside of Russia is known to have developed the substance. Read similar cases claiming that the Porton Down Laboratory might be responsible for the Salisbury attack and that Novichok might have been manufactured in the Porton Down Laboratory

Go to search

publication/media

it.sputniknews.com (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 176
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 05/12/2019
  • Outlet language(s) Italian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: UK, Russia
  • Keywords: novichok, Sergei Skripal, Chemical weapons/attack, Conspiracy theory
see more

Disinfo: The coup prompted Crimea to restore its Russia identity

The Ukrainian capital of Kyiv lost control of Crimea and Donbas after the coup in 2014, which prompted the people of Crimea to demand the restoration of Russian identity and return in the arms of Russia while the people of the Donbas region pushed to declare independence from Kyiv by establishing two popular republics in the region.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Euromaidan, the illegal annexation of Crimea, and the war in Ukraine.

There was no coup d'état in Ukraine. The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was an organic reaction by numerous parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013.

Disinfo: NATO promised not to expand to the East

After the collapse of the Warsaw bloc, NATO made promises that they would not expand to the East. But this did not happen. And with all the expansion of NATO that took place, they brought the bloc closer to Russia’s borders.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the West encircling Russia via NATO. NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement. This promise was never made, as confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev, then-president of the Soviet Union. Central and Eastern European countries began seeking NATO membership in the early 1990s. NATO actively sought to create a cooperative environment that was conducive to enlargement while simultaneously building special relations with Russia. NATO does not "expand" in the imperialistic sense described by pro-Kremlin media. Rather, it considers the applications of candidate countries who want to join the alliance based on their own national will. As such, NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. NATO's "Open Door Policy" is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area". Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security and one to which Russia has also subscribed. For similar cases, see here and here.

Disinfo: NATO enlargement poses a threat to Russia

USSR and Warsaw Pact no longer exist but NATO not only exists but is developing as well. NATO enlargement and development of its infrastructure near Russian borders is one of the potential threats to Russia’s national security. Russia has done everything to cooperate with NATO in order to deal with real problems such as international terrorism, local military conflicts, uncontrolled spread of weapons of mass destruction. But Russia-NATO cooperation was actually cut.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

The statement contains multiple recurring pro-Kremlin narratives on NATO. The first narrative is NATO as a relic of the Cold War. This narrative aims at undermining NATO's role as a defensive military alliance. Concerning the claim, that NATO is the relic of the Cold War, at the London Summit in 1990, Allied heads of state and government agreed "to keep standing together, to extend the long peace". This was their sovereign choice and was fully in line with their right for collective defence. Since then, thirteen more countries have chosen to join NATO. Twice since the end of the Cold War, NATO has adopted new Strategic Concepts (in 1999 and 2010), adapting to new realities. Thus, rather than being disbanded as a relic, NATO adapted, and continues to change, to live up to the needs and expectations of Allies, and to promote their shared vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace. See the identical case about NATO here. The second narrative claims that NATO poses a threat to Russia. NATO has many time underlined that it is a purely defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect its member states. In direct response to Russia's use of military force against its neighbours, NATO has deployed four multinational battle-groups to the Baltic States and Poland. These forces are rotational, defensive and proportionate. They cannot compare to the three divisions Russia has established in its Western Military and Southern Military Districts. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no plans to deploy Allied troops to the eastern part of the Alliance. See other cases on NATO posing threat to Russia here, here and here. The last narrative implies that NATO refused cooperation with Russia. NATO has reached out to Russia consistently, transparently and publicly over the past 29 years. NATO and Russia worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. However, in March 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. The NATO - Russia Council is still active.