Regarding that statement by Lavrov of the report from Spiez to OPCW :
Lavrov:
--
I will now be quoting what they sent to the OPCW in their report. You understand that this is a translation from a foreign language but I will read it in Russian, quote: “Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursor which are second category chemical weapons. BZ is a nerve toxic agent, which temporarily disables a person. The psycho toxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in the armies of the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state and also products of its degradation.” End of quote.
I don't know about the 'traces' of BZ, but notice the section in bold.
As a scientific lab, investigating a substance, Spiez would NEVER write that in their report to OPCW. They don't know, and they were not asked about it either.
So we know at LEAST about that part of the 'quote' from Spiez' report, Lavrov is lying.
Rob, since you're the protector of truth and facts here, can you please answer these questions:
Why would Spiez NEVER write that in their report? Spiez are experts in chemical weapons.....
That requires a bit of logic reasoning and a bit of experience with scientific reports.
Let me walk you through it :
First of all, OPCW would not ask any of their labs to comment on where a particular substance came from, since, as Gary Aitkenhead, the chief executive of the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down stated : That's not their "job".
The job of the scientific lab is to analyze a substance and report what is in there.
Not to speculate where it was fabricated.
Secondly, if anyone has a database of which chemical weapons are fabricated or stored, it is the OPCW herself. After all they are the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Thirdly, Stefan Mogl , who is the head of the Department of Chemistry in the laboratory Spiez stated : (from your link, and translated) :
https://www.nzz.ch/international/kein-zweifel-am-nowitschok-resultat-ld.1374775Can the exact provenance be determined by checking the substance used? Mogl makes it clear that this is not possible at today's level of knowledge. In this respect, too, is the excitement about the statements of the boss of Porton Down missed, who had stated on Tuesday that his institute could not prove that the substance originated in Russia. According to Mogl, such a finding had never been expected either: Little is known about the method of preparation of the Novichok poisons, so that no conclusions can be drawn about the country of origin or even the responsible laboratory. This distinguishes this case from that in Syria: There it could be determined that the sarin used in Khan Sheikhun most likely came from Syrian army stocks due to contamination in the investigated warfare agents and by means of comparative samples.
So, what Mogl is saying here is that normally the origin of the sample cannot be determined. However, sometimes, based on the impurities or contamination in the samples, as compared to reference samples, it can, as they could for the Khan Sheikhun attack.
Note that the REASON for the assertion of allocation to a source of a sample is from evidence obtained in the sample itself. Not from any other information.
Which leads us to the last argument :
Finally, the statements that Lavrov 'quotes' from the alleged report from Spiez to OFCW are entirely non-scientific. Once again :
This composition was in operational service in the armies of the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents.
You will never find such statements in ANY scientific report.
There would always be a reference to the source. Something like :
Based on the impurities in the samples, compared to the reference samples, we can conclude that ....or
As reported in the following scientific report, the origin of this substance is likely ...
or SOME kind of reference to where they obtained the information.
Especially the claim that
"The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents" is non-scientific, since it contains NO reference to the source of the information, and Spiez for sure did not investigate ALL of Russia for locations where they could potentially store BZ toxins.
So there you have it. Logic reasoning and even a little bit of experience with the scientific process and scientific reports, we can with a high degree of certainty conclude that Lavrov was lying about at least this part of the 'quote'.
Also, think about it : Lavrov can easily lie about anything that is in that report from Spiez to OPCW since Spiez will NOT challenge Russia, because :
1) that report is almost certainly under a non-disclosure agreement with OPCW, and
2) they are a science lab, and they don't want to end up fighting a propaganda war with Russia, and
3) they are in Switzerland, which wants to remain neutral on ANY subject involving international disputes.
Does all of this makes sense ?
Let's wait what OPCW has to say about it. I understand there is going to be a meeting tomorrow.
Personally, I don't think that OPCW will de-classify their reports either, and only declare that their own labs (Spiez included) confirm the findings from Porton Down (being Novichok).
But we may be surprised.