Putin would have authorised Novichok poisonings, senior officials says

Vladimir Putin would have authorised the assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal because of the “enormous” reputational risk the Novichok poisonings would have posed to Russia, a senior Foreign Office official has said.

Jonathan Allen, director general of defence and intelligence at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) told the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry that Russia would have been “shocked” by the speed of the international response to the attempted killings in Salisbury.

He said Russia was “on the back foot from the start” after the UK was quick to accuse the country of being behind the assassination attempt.

Mr Skripal, his daughter Yulia and former police officer Nick Bailey were poisoned by the nerve agent in the Wiltshire city in March 2018.

Ms Sturgess, 44, died on July 8 2018 after she was exposed to Novichok, which was left in a discarded perfume bottle in nearby Amesbury.

Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, both identified to be Russian military intelligence officers (GRU), denied being the culprits and said they were tourists who wanted to visit Salisbury Cathedral during an interview on RT in September 2018.

At the inquiry on Thursday, Mr Allen said the government had “learned from the (Alexander) Litvinenko experience”, in which he said Russia had “played all sorts of game” and “dragged its feet”.

Russian defector Mr Litvinenko died after being poisoned in 2006.

Asked if it was a strategy for the government to seek international assistance after the poisonings, he said: “I think there was indeed a strategy to move internationally, and I think there were a few reasons for that.

“First of all, if I put it this way, I think we learned from the Litvinenko experience, in which Russia played all sorts of games, dragged its feet, played with both the police investigation and ultimately the inquiry, pretending that it was going to co-operate and never doing so.

“So there was absolute clarity from the start, we were not going to let Russia string this out in the same way.

“I think the second reason for internationalising, or going on this international strategy, was really to build quickly a coalition of countries who could both understand the risk and then take steps themselves to protect their own countries, but also could ultimately act together to deter and degrade Russia’s ability to do this in future.”

Mr Allen was then questioned by counsel to the inquiry Andrew O’Connor KC whether the assassination attempt was intended to be “entirely covert”.

He told the inquiry: “I think the Russian state would have expected us, the UK, to put two and two together and say this was the Russians.

“What I suspect they would not have been anticipating was how thoroughly and quickly we were able to set out what had happened, and the speed of which we internationalised, or made an international response happen – and therefore the speed in which Russia felt very serious consequences.

“If I think back to the Litvinenko inquiry and affair, the Russians were, I think I described it as, ‘stringing along’ the UK.

“Statements produced, offers made, I think the police were unable to go to Moscow and then found it very hard to interview anybody – they put such distance between the act and final consideration of it.

“In this instance, the government went on the front foot quickly, after just a day, for the Russian side.

“The response with the… 153 Russian intelligence operatives who were expelled from across countries, would I think have really shocked the Russian state.”

He said the expelling of the intelligence officers would have “severely dismantled their network”.

Mr Allen continued: “So the Russians, I think because we moved quickly, were on the back foot from the start – and that’s part of the reason you see all these competing narratives coming out and desperate attempts to throw mud about.

“They want to slow the government down, I think.

“And of course, there was a very good police operation and we were ready within a few months to announce charges.”

Questioned on who may have authorised the attack on Mr Skripal, Mr Allen said: “In terms of the geopolitical risk, this is such a significant thing to be doing – not least after the Litvinenko case where Russia was found to have carried that out.

“So to be using a nerve agent entirely prohibited under international convention, from even being possessed let alone used, to then go to a capable actor like the United Kingdom with an effective law enforcement system, a permanent member of the security council, a Nato country, the risks involved in that reputationally are so enormous that it’s my belief that that would not have been capable of being taken at the level of the head of GRU, or indeed the boss of that, which is the defence minister.

“It would have gone, in my view, to President Putin.

“They are such big issues, such big risks to be taking.”

The inquiry continues.