The Dawn Sturgess Inquiry, conducted by The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley, has concluded that Vladimir Putin, along with “all those who sent them (the Russian agents who delivered the poison in Salisbury)”, is responsible for Dawn Sturgess’ death.
This is a conclusion that many in Britain had already reached long before the Inquiry reported. It is not the first time the Russian state has used chemical or radioactive agents on British soil, nor is it the first time Putin’s regime has assassinated those it deems inconvenient.
In 2006, former Russian intelligence official Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-21. Beyond our borders, journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in her apartment block’s lift, following her reporting on Russian war crimes in Chechnya, and Russian liberal opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead in Moscow, following his condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its invasion of Donbas. These are not isolated incidents, but are the operating logic of a state that sees murder as a foreign and domestic policy.
The ruling reached in the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry, however, is not just confirmation of what so many knew. It is assigning moral responsibility to the highest level of the Russian state. It asserts, plainly and publicly, that a British citizen died because a hostile foreign power decided that chemical weapons were an acceptable instrument on UK streets.
This flies in the face of our liberal values. Valuing life, liberty, and the rule of law is vital to maintaining liberal democracy. When a dictatorship feels it can export such gross political violence onto our streets, it is not only an attack on individuals, like the late Dawn Sturgess and her family, but on our very democracy.
It forces us to face a question we have, for so long, wanted to avoid: what does it mean for our democracy if a nuclear-armed totalitarian regime feels able to poison and murder on British streets with impunity
For we liberals, that question is not abstract. Our political tradition rests on the belief that individual life has inherent worth; that law constrains power; and that democracies have a duty to defend those principles at home and abroad. Our response cannot be half-hearted. Polite diplomatic language or appeals to shared global norms will no longer suffice.
The British government now faces a moral test. Sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and strong words are not, on their own, sufficient. A credible response to this inquiry would include completely closing loopholes that allow Russian money to flow through London, strengthening our commitments to NATO, supporting Ukraine’s defence as a matter of both morality and national security, and working closer with our European allies to ensure Britain is never again a soft target for Kremlin aggression.
Dawn Sturgess was not a political pawn. She was a woman who deserved a whole life, a safe home, and a government capable of protecting her. The Inquiry’s findings honour her memory by speaking truth to power. Our task now is to ensure that her death is not simply treated as some unfortunate anomaly, but a stark reminder of the dangers posed by those who view human life as expendable in the pursuit of power.
If we genuinely believe in liberal democracy, then we must be willing to defend it. The Inquiry has done its part. Now Britain must do the same.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
11 Comments
I agree with the thrust of this article though I would suggest that this is more than just about totalitarian regimes. For example, in 1985 France was responsible for an attack on the Rainbow Warrior, a Greenpeace ship berthed in New Zealand, that resulted in the death of one person. And in 1990, Israel’s Mossad organisation is thought to have been responsible for assassination of Gerald Bull in Belgium.
As liberals, we should condemn all extra-judicial killings carried out by any state – democracy or not – and especially if those actions occur in a different country.
@Jenny Smith
While I agree with the sentiment you’ve put forward, the reason for focusing on Russia at this moment is because of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the work of the Russian state, in the UK, targeting a typical, everyday private citizen.
If the countries you mentioned want to deal with the above situations, that is their right. And in this case, it is our right to discuss the Russian state’s diabolical actions on British soil specifically.
It is where my attention will remain until the Russian state is held accountable for what it has done, both here and abroad. Should you wish to write your own pieces discussing the topics you’ve mentioned above, I would love to have a read of them 🙂
“Our political tradition rests on the belief that individual life has inherent worth; that law constrains power; and that democracies have a duty to defend those principles at home and abroad. Our response cannot be half-hearted. Polite diplomatic language or appeals to shared global norms will no longer suffice.” Jack, that is well written though I start to wonder how widely shared are the global norms especially with Trump showing no respect for international institutions. We must speak against Trump’s approach and show more strongly by the kind of actions you suggest that we stand up against Putin’s similar disregard for norms and in defense of Europe and the European way of government.
@Nigel Jones
Funnily enough, my next piece is going to tackle the topic of Trump, considering today’s news regarding his views on European involvement with NATO and Ukraine.
Watch this space!
“For example, in 1985 France was responsible for an attack on the Rainbow Warrior, a Greenpeace ship berthed in New Zealand, that resulted in the death of one person. And in 1990, Israel’s Mossad organisation is thought to have been responsible for assassination of Gerald Bull in Belgium.”
None of which are comparable. This is dishonest whattabouttery that misdirects us from facing up the enormity of what Russia did.
If the bottle that contained the Novichok was full it would have had enough to kill hundreds of people indiscriminately. This is WMD territory. To follow this up the Russians even spied on the International Chemical Weapons inspectorate in the Hague. Extra-judicial killings against one person should of course be condemned. But they do not compare to this.
Thanks Jack. Prof Tim Snyder (formerly of Yale now at Munk School in Toronto) has done great work documenting Russia’s nefarious activities like this. These last 3-4 years have upended the world as we knew it. Russia rattles its saber of nuclear weapons and openly says they are ready for war with Europe (not NATO, Europe, because they have USA in their pocked under Trump).
@Zachary Adam Barker
“ If the bottle that contained the Novichok was full it would have had enough to kill hundreds of people indiscriminately”
Yes, but it wasn’t so it didn’t. If France had blown up the Rainbow Warrior with a nuclear bomb rather than the bomb they chose to use, it would have wiped out much of New Zealand. But it wasn’t what they did, so it didn’t happen as it could have if they had!
Yes Russia must be condemned for its unacceptable actions – but I do not give a free pass to other countries who act in unacceptable ways because they would normally be regarded as ‘on our side’ or sharing our values’. I trust you don’t either.
@Jenny Smith
Again, this isn’t about giving a free pass, it’s about looking at a current major threat in the world and saying “no more”. I would appreciate it if you were to write your own piece on this, as you’re clearly very passionate about it, and I would love the opportunity to read what you have to say in long-form version.
@Jack
Thanks Jack, but if I were to attempt to write a piece, it would not be about Russia per se but about the issue of ensuring principles in international affairs are applied consistently.
For example, not recognising changes to international borders brought about by force is often quoted as a principle of international law – and mentioned repeated in the context of current peace negotiations about the Russia/Ukraine war. However, we seem to conveniently and quickly forget that, in 2019, the USA recognised Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. We also seem to forget that Kosovo only exists as an independent country due to NATO bombing Serbia until it withdrew its forces from that part of Serbia that has since been recognised as the independent country called Kosovo.
How can we expect other countries to follow principles which we ourselves violate?
@Jack – part 2
Maybe to add an answer to my own question…
I think we need to actively demonstrate our opposition to countries annexing territory belonging to other countries to illustrate that we are serious that this fundamental principle of international law must be upheld. For example, maximum economic sanctions should be applied to any country that formally annexes territory that is internationally recognised as belonging to another country, as well as to any country that recognises such an annexation. We should therefore be applying sanctions against Russia which has formally annexed a fifth of Ukraine, and any country that recognises those territories as part of Russia, as well as against Israel for formally annexing the Golan Heights in 1981, and against the USA (and any other countries that may follow) for recognising that annexation.
We have sanctioned Russia in line with this principle, but not …yet…Israel or the USA.
@Jenny – we shouldn’t forget China with its annexation of Inner Mongolian and Tibet…
Fundamentally, the issue of borders is about recognising the post-WWII borders, with some adjustments eg. The breakup of Yugoslavia, that recognise that some borders were imposed by the occupying colonial powers.