Imagine finding a bottle of perfume on the street, spraying it on your wrists, and dying hours later from one of the deadliest nerve agents ever created. That isn’t the plot of some Cold War spy thriller. It actually happened to Dawn Sturgess in the quiet English town of Amesbury back in 2018.
Seven years later, the full truth is finally out – and it’s every bit as chilling as people feared.
Putin Personally Approved the Salisbury Attack
Last week a long-awaited public inquiry delivered its verdict: Russian President Vladimir Putin personally authorized the attempted assassination of former double-agent Sergei Skripal using the military-grade nerve agent Novichok. The same poison later killed innocent bystander Dawn Sturgess when she came across the discarded container.
The judge leading the inquiry didn’t mince words. The operation, he said, showed “astonishing recklessness” from the very top of the Russian state right down to the three GRU officers who carried it out.
In plain English? This wasn’t some rogue operation. It was a state-sponsored hit ordered from the Kremlin itself.
What Actually Happened in Salisbury
March 4, 2018. Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia are found slumped on a park bench in the cathedral city of Salisbury. Both are in comas. A police officer who went to help – Nick Bailey – also falls seriously ill.
Investigators quickly discover the pair were poisoned with Novichok, a Soviet-era chemical weapon so lethal that a single drop can kill. Traces are found on the front door handle of Skripal’s home. Someone smeared it there deliberately.
Four months later, in nearby Amesbury, Charlie Rowley finds what he thinks is an expensive bottle of Nina Ricci perfume. He gives it to his partner, Dawn Sturgess. She sprays it on her wrists. Within minutes she is having seizures. She dies in hospital a week later.
The “perfume bottle” was actually the delivery device used by the Russian hit team – carelessly discarded after the failed Skripal assassination.
The Three Men from Moscow
British authorities identified the culprits quickly thanks to CCTV and passport records:
- Alexander Petrov
- Ruslan Boshirov
- Sergey Fedotov (the unit commander)
All three are serving officers in Russia’s military intelligence directorate – the GRU. They flew into London on Russian passports, stayed two nights, and flew out again the day after the attack. Classic in-and-out deniable operation.
When confronted by Russian media months later, Petrov and Boshirov claimed they were just innocent tourists visiting Salisbury Cathedral “to see the famous 123-metre spire”. Nobody bought it.
The Inquiry’s Damning Conclusion
“The attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal must have been authorized at the highest level, by President Putin.”
Lord Justice Hughes, Chair of the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
That single sentence, delivered in December 2025, marks the first time a formal Western judicial process has placed direct responsibility on Vladimir Putin for an attack on European soil.
And the judge went further. He said the GRU team acted with “astonishing recklessness”, leaving behind a weapon that later killed an entirely innocent British citizen who had zero connection to espionage or Russia.
Britain’s Immediate Response
The British government didn’t waste time.
On the same day the report dropped, London announced fresh sanctions targeting:
- The entire GRU (Unit 29155 – the sabotage and assassination directorate)
- Eight named cyber-military intelligence officers
- Three additional GRU operatives linked to attacks across Europe
The Russian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office and handed a formal protest over what London now calls Moscow’s “ongoing campaign of hostile state activity” against the UK and its allies.
Russia’s Predictable Denial
Moscow’s reaction was pure theatre.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova dismissed the inquiry as “tasteless tales from the English crypt” and promised “inevitable retaliatory measures”.
She also raised the strange case of Yulia Skripal – who survived the attack but has not been seen publicly since 2018 – asking why she hasn’t spoken out. It’s a question many people quietly wonder, but coming from the Russian government it rings rather hollow.
Why This Matters in 2025
You might think: okay, terrible event, but it’s old news. Why rake it up again now?
Because the Salisbury attack wasn’t a one-off. Since 2018 we’ve seen:
- Explosions at ammunition depots in Czechia (later tied to the same GRU unit)
- Poisoning attempts on Bulgarian arms dealers
- Cyber attacks on Western hospitals during Covid
- Arson and sabotage across NATO countries blamed on Russian operatives
The Novichok attack was the most blatant example of a pattern that continues today. And with Russian troops still fighting in Ukraine, Western governments feel they can no longer pretend this is “business as usual”.
The Bigger Picture for Investors and Markets
Whenever Russia–West relations take another nosedive, markets notice.
Energy prices twitch (even though Russian oil still flows to some countries via loopholes). Defense stocks quietly rise. Gold often gets a safe-haven bid. And anyone holding Russian assets – bonds, shares, whatever – braces for another round of pain.
The new sanctions themselves are largely symbolic – most serious measures were already in place – but they signal that UK policy toward Russia has hardened further under the current government.
In my experience watching these cycles, symbolic sanctions often become real ones six to twelve months later when the next incident inevitably occurs.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The honest answer? Probably nowhere good.
Russia shows no sign of pulling back from what it calls “active measures” abroad. Western countries show no sign of lifting sanctions while the war in Ukraine continues. And innocent people – like Dawn Sturgess – remain caught in the crossfire of a conflict most of us thought ended when the Berlin Wall fell.
Perhaps the most depressing part is how little surprise any of this generates anymore. We’ve almost become numb to state-sponsored assassinations on European streets.
But every now and then a story like Dawn’s cuts through the noise and reminds us what’s actually at stake. Real lives. Real families destroyed. And a rules-based international order that feels increasingly fragile.
The sanctions announced last week won’t bring Dawn Sturgess back. They probably won’t even trouble Vladimir Putin’s sleep. But they do send one clear message:
We remember. And we’re not looking away.
Sometimes that’s the most any government can do.
