Vladimir Putin authorised the Salisbury poisonings ‘as a public demonstration of Russian power’ globally, an inquiry heard.
The despot is said to have sent two GRU (Russian military intelligence) agents to the Wiltshire city in 2018 to smear nerve agent Novichok on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal’s door handle in a twisted show of strength.
He and daughter Yulia fell seriously ill in hospital, while member of the public Dawn Sturgess later died after coming into contact with the fake perfume bottle used to smuggle the poison into the UK, dumped by the assassination team.
An inquiry into the ‘astonishing reckless’ attacks today found ‘the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin’.
Lord Hughes of Ombersley, the inquiry chairman, said: ‘It is clear that this attack showed considerable determination and was expected to stand as a public demonstration of Russian power.
‘Attackers willing to run the risk of being seen approaching the front door by the occupants or by neighbours – and who must have been willing to accept that the use of a nerve agent would soon be discovered – were not likely to be deterred by cameras, hidden or otherwise, if their plan was to be on a plane leaving the country the same evening.’
It found ‘thousands’ of people could have been killed due to the actions of GRU duo Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who arrived in the UK on March 2, and travelled to Salisbury two days later to spread Novichok on Mr Skirpal’s home.
They left for Moscow shortly after, later giving a much derided interview to state television in which they denied involvement and said they were in Salisbury to visit its cathedral.
But Lord Hughes pointed the finger firmly at Putin.
He said: ‘The conduct of Petrov and Boshirov, their GRU superiors, and those who authorised the mission up to and including, as I have found, President Putin, was astonishingly reckless.
‘They, and only they bear moral responsibility for Dawn’s death.’
Welcoming the report, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: ‘The Salisbury poisonings shocked the nation and today’s findings are a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives.
‘Dawn’s needless death was a tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression.
He added: ‘The UK will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is.’
Mr Skripal, now 74, was sent to the UK in 2010 as part of a prisoner swap, having received a presidential pardon.
He had intended to quietly live out his days on a suburban cul-de-sac where neighbours included former police officers and servicemen.
He also turned down the offer of extra security such as cameras and alarms.
The inquiry found that whilst there was ‘some risk of harm’ to Mr Skripal at Russia’s hands, ‘the considered analysis that it was not likely was one at which it was reasonable to arrive’.
Lord Hughes said: ‘The attack on Sergei Skripal by Russia was not, it seems clear, designed simply as revenge against him, but amounted to a public statement, for both international and domestic consumption, that Russia will act decisively in what it regards as its own interests.
He added: ‘It is clear that this attack showed considerable determination and was expected to stand as a public demonstration of Russian power.’
He said the attack demonstrated ‘considerable recklessness indeed brazeness’, and concluded ‘that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin’.
Several people including police officer Nick Bailey fell seriously as a result of exposure to the Novichok. The Skripals collapsed on a park bench in the city centre hours after unwittingly touching the poison.
Three months later, in nearby Amesbury, local man Charlie Rowley found a bottle of Nina Ricci perfume and took it home to give to his partner, mother-of-three Ms Sturgess.
She sprayed the colourless substance on her skin and immediately fell ill. She died in hospital on July 8.
In a statement this afternoon outlining his findings, Lord Hughes criticised the way the GRU duo callously discarded the fake perfume bottle.
He said: ‘They recklessly discarded this bottle in some public or semi public place.
‘They can simply have had no regard at all to the hazard thus created – the hazard of death or serious injury to an uncountable number of unconnected and innocent people.’
Successive Governments have long accused Russia of responsibility for the attack, with today’s report further underlining the Kremlin’s willingness to target the West.
The 174-page report – the culmination of an inquiry costing £8.3 million to date – does not directly mention MI5, M16 or the British security services.
But it does hint at spooks’ ‘failings’.
In particular, the report states there was a lack of ‘regular written assessments’ of Mr Skripal’s status as a former Russian spy.
Lord Hughes wrote: ‘However, I do not think that the assessment that Sergei Skripal was not at significant risk of assassination by Russian personnel can be said to have been unreasonable, although, of course, events unhappily demonstrated that it was wrong.’
He said the ‘only measures’ which could have avoided the attack would have been to ‘hide him (Mr Skripal) completely’ with an entirely new identity, and to prevent him and his family from having any continued contact.
Lord Hughes said: ‘As at 2018, the risk was not so severe as to demand such far-reaching precautions.’
Indeed Mr Skripal told the inquiry he did not wish to live under such conditions.
He was not called to give evidence, but in a statement Mr Skripal said that he believed he had been offered protection, including changing his name, but he ‘decided against it’, because he had received a presidential pardon.
He said he ‘wanted to lead as normal a life as possible, including maintaining my personal and family relationships.’
He also declined recommended CCTV ‘because i did not want to make my house conspicuous or live under surveillance’.
Lord Hughes declined to compare Mr Skripal’s case with that of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident and vocal critical of the Putin regime, who was fatally poisoned in London in 2006.
He said: ‘Alexander Litvinenko was a defector who campaigned energetically and noisily against the Russian state, and against Mr Putin personally. He had never been held accountable by the Russians.
‘There was a strong Russian interest in stopping him doing what he made his mission and he was, from the Russian point of view, unpunished.
‘On the other hand, Sergei Skripal was not a defector who had eluded retribution.’
An international arrest warrant was issued for Petrov, Boshirov and a third Russian, Sergei Fedotov.
However, the Russian constitution does not allow the extradition of its citizens it is unlikely they will ever stand trial.
President Putin has always denied responsibility.
The Foreign Office announced that the GRU has been sanctioned in its entirety by the UK in the wake of the Sturgess inquiry report.
