Key Highlights
- Vladimir Putin was found “morally responsible” for Dawn Sturgess’ death due to the Novichok poisoning.
- The attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal was considered a public demonstration of Russian power, harming innocent individuals as collateral damage.
- Emergency service first responders could not have saved Dawn Sturgess despite better information about opiate overdose symptoms.
- There were failings in managing Sergei Skripal as an exchanged prisoner but it wasn’t deemed unreasonable to think he was at high risk of assassination.
The Novichok Poisoning: An Inquiry Reveals Putin’s Role and Failures
A major inquiry has concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “morally responsible” for the fatal poisoning of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury, UK. The report, released at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, found that the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal – former Russian intelligence agents – was intended to send a public statement about Russia’s readiness to act decisively in its own interests.
Sturgess’s Tragic Death
Dawn Sturgess, 44, a mother of three, died on July 8, 2018, after spraying herself with Novichok, a Russian nerve agent left in a discarded perfume bottle. The report emphasizes that her condition was “unsurvivable from a very early stage.” The care she received from ambulance and hospital staff was deemed entirely appropriate by Lord Anthony Hughes.
Sturgess’s death was described as collateral damage in the plot aimed at making a public statement about Russian power. Her mother, Caroline Sturgess, paid tribute to her daughter, saying: “She always cared deeply for her family and many friends that surrounded her… Dawn’s death was a tragedy to us all but the fact that her daughter was not killed as well is a solace that we often revisit.”
Failings in Managing Skripal
The inquiry found several failings when managing Sergei Skripal, who served as a member of Russia’s military intelligence. Regular written assessments were not carried out despite his known fears about potential reprisals from Putin. Lord Hughes noted that while there were “failings,” it was not unreasonable to think Mr.
Skripal was not at high risk of assassination.
The report suggests that if Mr. Skripal had been given a new identity, this may have avoided the attack. However, he would not have agreed to such a move and placing him in a gated community could have posed greater danger to innocent individuals. Additionally, CCTV was unlikely to deter attackers willing to risk being seen by eyewitnesses.
Denials from Russian Government
The Russian government has consistently denied any involvement in the Salisbury poisonings. Two men accused of the attack appeared on Russian TV, claiming they had visited Salisbury as tourists and not for any nefarious purposes. The Russian embassy’s response to repeated inquiries was silence.
Lord Hughes concluded that everyone involved in the attempt to assassinate the Skripals – including Putin who authorised the attack at the highest level – was “morally responsible” for Sturgess’ death.
The care provided by emergency services was appropriate, as no medical treatment could have saved her life according to Lord Hughes.
The inquiry’s findings will be crucial in understanding the broader implications of state-sponsored attacks and the role of intelligence agencies in global security. As details continue to emerge, the public awaits further updates from key players involved in the investigation.
