The chemical attack in Syria is an indictment of the international community's failures

Another horrific chemical weapons attack in Syria is believed to have killed dozens of people and injured hundreds in the town of Douma, Eastern Ghouta, the last remaining rebel stronghold on the outskirts of Damascus.

It appears that the attack targeted underground bomb shelters where families thought they would be safe during the siege by Russian-backed Syrian forces. It happened a day after the breakdown of negotiations which might have resulted in civilians and rebel forces leaving the area. Yet again, hope of an end to the bloody seven-year civil war have cruelly dashed.

More than 1,600 people have been killed in the region since February, where an estimated 170,000 people are served by a small number of doctors and medical staff. Television pictures of the victims, so gruesome that they had to be censored, included desperate attempts in a makeshift medical unit to hose people down with water, and inhalers being put in the mouths of children. It was a chilling contrast with the immediate expert treatment that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were given after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury five weeks ago, from which they are now mercifully recovering.

There was a predictable response to the latest events in Syria from its government, which described reports as a “fabrication”, and its ally Russia, which said they were “bogus”. Given Russia’s cynical and at times bizarre propaganda blitz about Salisbury, we know that its reaction deserves to be treated with contempt.

In 2013, Syria claimed it had destroyed its chemical weapons arsenal. But there have been four suspected attacks since. A year ago, a sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun killed 89 people, including 33 children, and injured more than 400. Although the United States responded with a cruise missile strike at a Syrian airbase, the latest incident is an indictment of the international community, which has failed to enforce the ban on the use of chemical weapons. If it had done so, Syria might not have deployed them again.

We should not jump to conclusions by assuming the gas used in Douma was supplied directly by Russia. It is possible that Syria produced it. However, that would not absolve Moscow of the charge of involvement, given that it props up the country’s murderous president Bashar al-Assad. As the US State Department pointed out, Russia ultimately bears responsibility because of its unwavering support for the regime. According to the US, Russia has breached its commitments to the United Nations and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The list of questions for Vladimir Putin to answer is growing.

Russia’s intervention in Syria is another reminder of the lengths to which the Putin regime is prepared to go. It should certainly remind people in Britain – including politicians – not to lose sight of the big picture as they contemplate the Salisbury attack.

Instead, the government and opposition seem more interested in petty point scoring. Boris Johnson has branded Jeremy Corbyn as “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” for not saying unequivocally that the Russian state was to blame for Salisbury. Labour’s Angela Rayner has returned the insult, pointing to the foreign secretary’s sloppy language about what scientists at Porton Down had said about the attack. Mr Johnson should certainly have chosen his words more carefully; the man in charge of Britain’s diplomats should belatedly start to learn their language. But his misspeaking, while handing Labour some ammunition, does not change the facts about Salisbury.

The much more serious attack on helpless families in Douma should put political squabbles at home in perspective. Perhaps political rivals could break with tradition and at least speak with one voice about that.