No probe was conducted into Salisbury incident by Bellingcat, says Russian diplomat

According to the Russian diplomat, what Bellingcat presented as its own findings in fact were materials provided by Western intelligence services

3
1832

[Editor’s note: The moment I heard the Bellingcat/Salisbury story on the news I said that this was an example of the intelligence agencies (in this case, the British SIS) using a front to disseminate a false narrative – the information coming from Bellingcat was obviously being fed to them by the spooks. The Russian ambassador agrees with me, so naturally, I think he is correct. Ian]

_________
TASS
No probe was conducted into Salisbury incident by Bellingcat, says Russian diplomat

Bellingcat, a UK-based open source and social media investigation site, has conducted no investigation of its own into the Salisbury incident, instead it released data leaked by intelligence services ahead of the British delegation’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the Rossiya-1 television channel.

“Bellingcat conducted no probe into the Salisbury incident. Belligcat had been silent for six months, saying nothing about what had happened there. They simply released information they had been given ahead of the British delegation’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly,” she said.

According to the Russian diplomat, what Bellingcat presented as its own findings in fact were materials provided by Western intelligence services. “But there is no investigation either into the Salisbury or Amesbury incidents. It is nothing but the use of pseudo-mass media as a tool to circulate such fakes,” she said.

If the British version of the affair is to be believed former Russian military intelligence (GRU) Colonel Sergei Skripal, 66, who had been convicted in Russia of spying for Great Britain and later swapped for Russian intelligence officers, and his daughter Yulia, 33, suffered the effects of a nerve agent in the British city of Salisbury on March 4. Claiming that the substance used in the attack had been a Novichok-class nerve agent developed in the Soviet Union, London rushed to accuse Russia of being involved in the incident. Moscow rejected all of the United Kingdom’s accusations, saying that neither the Soviet Union nor Russia ever had any program aimed at developing such an agent.

On September 5, British Prime Minister Theresa May briefed parliament on the investigation’s findings to declare that two Russians carrying passports issued in the names of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov were suspected accomplices in the assassination attempt. Britain regards both men as GRU agents. Petrov and Boshirov in an interview to the RT television channel dismissed the charges.

In late September, The Daily Telegraph claimed it knew the real name of the person suspected of the assassination attempt against the Skripals. The newspaper said that the man originally identified as Ruslan Boshirov was in reality Russian Colonel Anatoly Chepiga, a holder of several government awards. Later on, a Bellingcat representative told the British parliament that the real name of the man identified as Petrov was Alexander Mishkin.

Russian president’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said following this publication that he had “no information that a man by this name has ever received any award.” Following Bellingact’s revelations about ‘Mishkin,’ Peskov said that the Kremlin would refrain from debates about medial allegations about Russian ‘GRU agents.’.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

Previous articleExposing yet another Anti-Russian disinfo website
Next articleWhat Happened to the F-22s at Tyndall?
Biography
Assistant Managing Editor
Ian Greenhalgh is a photographer and historian with a particular interest in military history and the real causes of conflicts.

His studies in history and background in the media industry have given him a keen insight into the use of mass media as a creator of conflict in the modern world.

His favored areas of study include state sponsored terrorism, media manufactured reality and the role of intelligence services in manipulation of populations and the perception of events.

3 COMMENTS

  1. One of the problems with this kind of story is that it doesn’t lose its interest just because some if not many come not to believe its veracity. Since the event is in the past and we have not heard from anyone who was there we are reduced to accept what the script offers or, unhappy with its probability, to put forward alternative scenarios equally devoid of evidence. Mrs May’s purpose appears to be the demonisation of Russia since, even were her account accurate, the whole thing could have been handled discretely instead of becoming a costume drama played out on the streets of Salisbury. The Skripals themselves are scarcely relevant, merely the starting point in an ongoing saga, like the heirs to Downton Abbey lost with the Titanic. The sensible thing would be simply to turn it off. But that’s not so easy since new episodes continue to emerge, and by the time everyone is fed up with it its damage will have been done.

  2. ” This Skripal thing is getting tiresome. ”
    The way they see it, “Keep lying”. Eventually it will turn into a turdy truth.

  3. Ms. Zakharova dyed her hair blonde! This Skripal thing is getting tiresome. It’s time to move on to a better false flag event. I wonder what the next one will be?

Comments are closed.