This is a setup from Johnson! British media include background in Skripal case
“Boris Johnson is once again a source of trouble for Britain. Why hasn’t he been fired yet?”
Under this headline in a popular British newspaper The Guardian An article was published on the lies of the British Foreign Secretary, who accused Russia of involvement in the poisoning of former British spy Sergei Skripal.
“He may have distorted the truth about the Porton Down center and the Novichok source, and was also harassing Russia. However, this foreign minister gets away with everything,” the publication writes.
The publication cites a fragment of an interview that Boris Johnson gave to a TV channel last month on the topic of whether the poisonous substance used in the Salisbury attack was produced in Russia:
“Boris Johnson: Let me be very open with you... When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from the Porton Down center, the laboratory...
Deutsche Welle: So they have samples...
Boris Johnson: Yes, they have them. And they are absolutely adamant, and I asked the guy myself, I asked, “Are you sure?” And he replied that he had no doubt about it.”
The author of the article points out that recently Gary Aitkenhead from Porton Down center said in an interview with Sky News that the “exact source” of this toxic substance has not been established.
“One of these people is wrong. Can a scientist who professionally engages in the impartial and in-depth study of evidence be wrong, or can the British Donald Trump, with his ridiculous hair, unintelligible statements, and his careless handling of facts, be wrong?
The British press could have answered the question of whether the Foreign Secretary had lied to the world about the actions of another country, but, unfortunately, our media "beacons" were too busy with another question: in their opinion, Jeremy Corbyn's attempts calling for caution are evidence of some astonishing lack of patriotism,” the publication writes.
It is pointed out that British foreign policy in this situation had two options: one based on the study of evidence and the use of diplomacy, while the other consists of hastily and recklessly escalating a conflict with a well-armed superpower.
“Our Foreign Minister chose the second option: he chose to be careless with the facts in order to get his way. Whereas the first - the one we would now probably call preferable - was mocked by much of the media, by Conservatives, and by supposed Labor Party moderates as divisive and unserious. Most of these people turned into armchair generals when the Iraq War was discussed, which - predictably - became Britain's biggest foreign policy disaster in 30 years.
In answering them, I can only paraphrase the words of Clement Attlee: “a period of self-reflection on your part would be most appropriate.” What was inevitable happened: Russia reacted with feigned pathos to the Porton Down comment, as well as to the accusations of such a heinous act, and relations with Britain became even more tense. And yet Boris Johnson, who happily stoked the fire just two weeks ago, remains in office.
Isn’t one of the most basic requirements for a foreign minister not to lie in the international arena and not to worsen relations with other countries?” the author asks.
“In any case, the straw must surely break the camel's back - and perhaps it will happen now? – The Guardian summarizes. “If lying to the country on such a serious issue does not return Johnson to the bench, then what will it take?”
As PolitNavigator reported, the British Foreign Office deleted from my Twitter account a message that the Novichok gas, which poisoned spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, was produced in Russia.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.