If one had been reading America’s leading newspapers and magazines over the past several weeks the series of featured stories suggesting that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is some kind of latter day Lucrezia Borgia would have been impossible to avoid. Putin, who was simultaneously being branded as some kind of totalitarian monster, apparently does not just go around chopping off heads. Instead, he prefers to slip military grade poison into people’s tea or wipes it onto their doorknobs. The case of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in England is being cited as evidence that poisoning is a routine way of cleaning out the closets, so to speak, together with that of Aleksandr Litvinenko, who died in England in 2006 under mysterious circumstances after reportedly drinking a radioactive isotope that had been placed into his cup of tea while dining at a sushi restaurant in London. Apparently the raw fish had nothing to do with it.
There are, of course, parts of the story that just don’t fit no matter how hard one tries. The Skripals, father and daughter, lived in Salisbury within walking distance of Britain’s chemical and biological weapons lab located at Porton Down, an option for poisoning that was never fully explored. And there was no real reason to kill them in 2018 as they no longer posed any threat to Russian interests, having escaped [in a spy swap] to England twelve years before. In fact, they did not die, which in itself seems odd since the lethal agent was eventually reported by the British to have been Novichok, which may have been smeared on their from door latch. Novichok is designed for battlefield use and reputedly kills instantly.
Poisoning is certainly a convenient short cut when one is unable or unwilling to persevere with the basic principle of politics among nations, often referred to as Diplomacy 101. The first rule in Diplomacy 101 is that you prioritize your interests so that you are not wasting your time and energy by pursuing objectives that are either essentially inconsequential or even meaningless at the expense of authentic vital national interests. By all accounts, Vladimir Putin is an astute politician who would recognize that killing political opponents is counter-productive. Far better to let them live to demonstrate that Russia is truly a country that allows dissent.
At the same time, if one wants to witness ignorance and hubris combined in news reporting, at its worst, it is only necessary to journey through the stories on Russia and Putin that comes out of the strange world inhabited by the punditry at newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post.
Bret Stephens, a self-proclaimed conservative voice at the New York Times, makes no attempt to conceal his hostility to nations like Russia, China and Iran. His latest foray into the unknown is to advocate congressional legislation to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin. He calls it the “Navalny Act.” The eponymous Navalny is Alexei Navalny, a leading Russian dissident who is currently in Germany being treated for what has been described as a poisoning carried out by unknown persons using a somewhat unidentifiable poison for an unknown objective, which is presumed to be killing him as he is a critic of the Putin regime.
Stephens advocates a law by Congress that would empower the U.S. government to both initiate and increase sanctions while also placing travel bans on those individuals who might be implicated in the claimed poisoning of Navalny. It is, in effect, direct interference in a foreign government’s domestic activities, which might have the consequence of inviting foreign governments and the U.N. to start inquiring into just how the U.S. does business. Stephens goes beyond sanctions and travels by further advocating linking his Navalny Act to the Senate’s proposed Defending American Security From Kremlin Aggression Act, or DASKA, that is being promoted by none less than Lindsey Graham. It would require inter alia that intelligence agencies issue available to the public reports on Vladimir Putin’s personal wealth.
There are inevitably a number of problems with the blame Putin narrative. As Israel Shamir observed shortly after the fact, it was at first by no means completely clear if Navalny was actually poisoned at all. He fell ill while flying from Siberia to Moscow and was tested for poisons before it being determined that he might have suffered a diabetic attack. When in Germany for treatment, a mysterious water bottle was produced by his family that the Bundeswehr labs are now claiming had traces of Novichok on its surface. If Novichok truly were on the bottle Navalny, his family and the air crew would all be dead, as well as the Bundeswehr technicians.
If Putin was behind the poisoning of a prominent dissident, it would have served no purpose beyond freeing oneself up from a political nuisance, so there would have been little in the way of motive. Quite the contrary, as Russia is, in fact, in the final stages of setting up the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project with Germany, which with be highly profitable to both countries and is being strongly opposed by the Trump regime.
The White House has been trying hard to kill the project on “national security grounds” to benefit potential U.S. gas suppliers, so much for Trump being a tool of Putin. That rather suggests that the U.S. might have more motive than the Kremlin to poison Navalny, namely to create a cause celebre damning Putin. At the moment, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in fact reported to be hesitant about completing the project due to the Navalny furor and pressure from Washington.
Interestingly, Stephens quotes his good friend Bill Browder, who was enthusiastic about the prospects for a new piece of legislation to beat Putin over the head with. Browder, the original darling of the war party who has described himself as Vladimir Putin’s “number one enemy,” was the driving force behind much of the original legislation to punish Russia, but his story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
Browder is much loved by Congress as he embodies Russo-phobia. He is a major hedge fund figure who, inter alia, is an American by birth. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 in exchange for British citizenship to avoid paying federal taxes on his worldwide income. He is what used to be referred to as an oligarch, having set up shop in Russia in 1999 as Hermitage Capital Management Fund, a hedge fund registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It focused on “investing” in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Russia’s drunkard President Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Similar to the proposed Navalny Act and central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment of alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia. Browder has sold a narrative which basically says that he and his “lawyer” Sergei Magnitsky uncovered massive tax fraud and, when they attempted to report it, were punished by a corrupt police force and magistracy, which had actually stolen the money. Magnitsky was arrested and died in prison, allegedly murdered by the police to silence him.
The Magnitsky Act asserts American “rights” to punish crimes occurring anywhere in the world, a right that is claimed by no other nation. By it, the U.S. asserted its willingness to punish foreign governments for human rights abuses. The Act, initially limited to Russia, has now been expanded by virtue of 2016’s Global Magnitsky Act, which enabled U.S. sanctions worldwide. The proposed Navalny Act coupled with Lindsay Graham’s DASKA would together go well beyond even that bit of draconian legislation.
The basis for the Magnitsky Act was essentially fraudulent, just as might turn out to be the case with the Navalny story. Contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to carry out the deception.
The pending legislation dreamed up by Stephens is undeniably driven by extreme hatred of Putin and of Russia, using contrived and evidence-free scenarios to condemn the Russian government for crimes that do not even make sense from a risk-gain perspective. The Magnitsky Myth alone has already done more even than the contrived Russiagate to launch and sustain a dangerous new Cold War between a nuclear-armed United States and a nuclear-armed Russia.
It would perhaps not be too off base to suggest that the Navalny poisoning has the smell of a possible false flag operation by the U.S. with the possible collusion of anti-Russian elements in Germany. Moscow had no real motive to kill Navalny while the White House is certainly keen on terminating Nord Stream 2. That the U.S. media also continues to be attracted to schemes like Stephens’ is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia current in America and Europe has robbed people of their ability to see what important even when it is right in front of them. Good relations with Russia are more important than either getting involved in Moscow’s politics by validating Navalny or selling gas. To suggest that yet more foreign meddling as advocated by Brent Stephens of the New York Times could well lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement.
September 13, 2020
Posted by aletho |
False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | New York Times, United States, Washington Post |
Leave a comment
The Alexei Navalny saga continues, with Russia essentially saying it has nothing at all to hide, now telling Germany it wants to send Russian investigators to assist in establishing what happened.
Moscow further says it’s established a timeline of Navalny’s movements ahead of the alleged poisoning incident, with a crucial witness also being sought.
“Russian police have traced opposition politician Alexei Navalny’s movements and what he drank before falling ill in Siberia last month, and are trying to locate a witness who has left the country, the interior ministry said on Friday,” Reuters reports.
“This request will include an application for the possible presence of Russian internal affairs investigators… and a Russian specialist when German colleagues are conducting investigations with Navalny, doctors and experts,” the ministry said in a statement.
All of this comes after Navalny is said to have emerged from a coma days ago after the alleged Aug.20 incident, after which he was transported by emergency flight to German medical facilities. Media reports say he can now speak, and investigators are no doubt seeking answers. Sky News reports:
“Der Spiegel and Bellingcat understand that Navalny can speak again and can likely remember details about his collapse,” the publication wrote, crediting its investigative website partner.
“His statements could be dangerous for people behind the attack.”
The Kremlin has vehemently rejected the charge emanating from the West that Putin or any security services were responsible for poisoning the Russian opposition politician and anti-corruption activist.
Despite a representative of Navalny insisting he had [not] consumed any alcohol, the Russian timeline finds that:
Transport police in Tomsk had established a timeline of events leading up to Navalny falling ill, the ministry said. It listed a hotel, restaurant, flat and coffee shop Navalny had visited, and said he had drunk wine and an alcoholic cocktail.
Meanwhile Germany has said he was poisoned with Novichok agent, which includes nerve agents developed under the Soviets in the 1970s through 1980s. Critics of the German narrative say the idea that Putin would order the opposition activist’s poisoning via Novichok is too “obvious”.
September 12, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | Germany |
Leave a comment
As Renewables Falter, Environmentalists Stand Up For Nuclear
Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources as better for nature.
But a new study suggests that the expansion of mining for the materials to make solar panels and wind turbines may pose a greater threat than climate change to endangered species.
“Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production,” note the authors in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications. And, they add, “these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”
The study comes at a moment when the expansion of solar and wind energy is increasing local opposition, raising electricity prices, and contributing to electricity shortages.
Recent electricity outages in California forced the state’s governor to acknowledge the dangers posed by attempting to rely on unreliable sources of renewable energy.
“We cannot sacrifice reliability,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said on August 17. “We have to sober up to the reality that… we’re going to have to do more, and be much more mindful, in terms of our capacity to provide backup and insurance.”
The problem with relying on solar panels is that the sun sets during peak demand, which is between 5 pm and 10 pm, requiring a massive ramping up of natural gas power plants. And the same lack of wind behind the heatwaves has also meant a lack of electricity from industrial wind turbines.
Meanwhile, environmental resistance is blocking and slowing the expansion of industrial wind and solar energy projects.
In Britain, Greenpeace has opposed a massive new solar farm, “arguing that ‘vast continuous fields of panels on agricultural land” are not “the best way to go solar.’” New York environmentalists, meanwhile, “say large-scale solar installations will spoil beautiful farmland,” reported Financial Times.
As renewables have faltered, pro-nuclear environmentalists have become increasingly vocal, even in Germany, the world’s most anti-nuclear nation.
Europeans Protest Greenpeace
Last Saturday pro-nuclear activists organized by the German pro-nuclear organization Nuklearia dropped a banner in front of Greenpeace’s Germany headquarters. It read, “Climate Crisis? Nuclear energy!”
Pro-nuclear activists similarly protested in front of Greenpeace’s Paris headquarters in late June, denouncing the NGO’s role in replacing nuclear plants with fossil fuels.
“Several dozen protesters — wearing face masks — carried banners in front of the Greenpeace headquarters in Paris, with slogans such as ‘Less nuclear means more coal,’” reported Reuters.
“In the following weeks, there will be similar rallies,” reported the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) last week, “where the five other German nuclear power plants that are still running but whose operating licenses will soon expire.”
Over the next six weeks, there will be over forty pro-nuclear demonstrations around the world organized by the Nuclear Pride Coalition. (My nonprofit organization, Environmental Progress, is a member of the coalition, but did not organize the demonstrations in Germany, France, or other nations.)
The chairman of Nuklearia is Rainer Klute, a computer scientist and eco-modernist. That’s someone who, according to FAZ, ”wants to save the world by relying on modern technology, not on using jute bags.” FAZ noted that Klute is finding allies “among those who oppose wind turbines out of concern for noise and the landscape.”
It wasn’t the first pro-nuclear demonstration in Germany. In December 2019, 120 people from Germany, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic rallied near the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, forty-five minutes from the French border, which the German government had forced to close prematurely.
While Klute emphasizes the need for nuclear to combat climate change, Peters stresses the need for nuclear energy to avoid over-dependence on imported natural gas from Russia. … Full article
September 11, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | Germany, Greenpeace |
Leave a comment
Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach has been sanctioned by the US, and his publication of alleged phone calls between the Ukrainian president and the US vice president declared ‘Russian interference’ in the US election.
Derkach “has been an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services,” the US Treasury Department declared on Thursday, sanctioning the member of parliament for “foreign interference in an attempt to undermine” the upcoming presidential elections. In addition, three alleged employees of the Internet Research Agency, also referred to as the St. Petersburg ‘troll factory,’ were placed on the sanctions list.
The move against “four Kremlin-linked officials” was hailed by the State Department as “a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate interference or influence” in the upcoming vote.
No evidence was offered for the allegation that either Derkach, or the IRA trio – identified as Artem Lifshits, Anton Andreyev and Darya Aslanova – were actually in any way connected to the Russian government.
Instead, the Treasury claimed that Derkach had “waged a covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning US officials.” Between May and July this year, he released “edited audio tapes and other unsupported information with the intent to discredit” US officials, they allege.
Derkach released several hours worth of audio tapes purporting to be conversations between former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and former US Vice President Joe Biden from 2014-2016, including references to investigations of the gas company Burisma, which had given Biden’s son Hunter a lavishly compensated seat on its board.
Poroshenko has denounced the revelations as “fabrications” and “part of a large-scale hybrid war” by Russia, and it appears the US Treasury has taken his word at face value. There was no indication any of Derkach’s claims, the tapes, or the documents he offered to the press have been investigated; instead, the Treasury simply asserts that everything he said was “unsubstantiated.”
Similarly, Derkach’s “reliance on US platforms” is taken as proof that he “almost certainly targeted the US voting populace, prominent US persons, and members of the US government.”
The Treasury’s explanation of why Derkach was sanctioned basically claims that any effort to investigate Biden – now the Democratic presidential nominee – or his son amounts to “interference” in US elections, which was the main premise of the Democrat-led effort to impeach President Donald Trump back in September 2019.
September 10, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Russophobia | Joe Biden, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
As the 2020 presidential race tightens, reports of allegedly massive cyber activities targeting the United States have typically surfaced, reminiscent of the events of 2016, when the Democratic Party almost immediately played the “Russian meddling” card to explain its defeat.
Microsoft Corp is claimed to have alerted an election campaign advisory firm working with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that it had been allegedly targeted during the last two months by suspected ‘Russian state-backed hackers’, according to three sources cited by Reuters.
Staff at Washington-based public affairs and political consulting firm SKDKnickerbocker, which works with Biden and other prominent Democrats, was believed to have been the target of the attack.
The hackers, however, failed to infiltrate the company’s networks, a source is cited as saying, adding:
“They are well-defended, so there has been no breach.”
According to the report, it was unclear whether the cyberattack sought to target Joe Biden’s campaign or to gain access to information about other SKDK clients.
The managing director of SKDK, Anita Dunn, was formerly communications director during the White House tenure of Barack Obama. Dunn currently serves as a senior adviser to the Biden campaign.
After flagging the hacking attempt that reportedly included phishing, Microsoft suggested the suspected culprits were most likely connected to the Russian government, claim sources cited by the outlet.
Besides the popular hacking method that attempts to manipulate users into revealing passwords, other methods were reportedly used to try and infiltrate SKDK’s network.
SKDK is closely associated with the Democratic Party, having worked on six presidential campaigns and numerous congressional races, while back in 2018 it worked on successful governor’s races in Kansas and Connecticut.
There has been no comment on the report from Microsoft.
SKDK and the Joe Biden election campaign have similarly not offered any statements in connection with the report.
Claims of Meddling
As the date of the November presidential elections in the US draws near, the country’s intelligence agencies have been raising concerns over possible efforts by foreign governments to interfere in the ballot.
Earlier, in July, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden claimed he had been warned by US intelligence of foreign interference in the upcoming presidential elections.
“We know from before and I guarantee you I know now because now I get briefings again. The Russians are still engaged in trying to delegitimise our electoral process. Fact,” he said during a fundraiser, as cited by The Hill.
Biden also made references to alleged interference that involves “China and others”, referring to “activities that are designed for us to lose confidence in the outcome”.
The allegations of ‘meddling’ come as a throwback to the 2016 US election race.
At the time, the ‘Russia card’ was played, as the US Democratic Party sought to explain its loss after their candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated by Republican Donald Trump, despite polls suggesting a different outcome.
In 2016, the US peddled claims that Moscow had “meddled” in the nation’s presidential elections, alleging that “Russian hackers” had infiltrated the Democratic National Committee’s servers.
US President Donald Trump was later accused of “collusion” with Russia. However, as the allegations were probed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the latter’s report said that insufficient evidence had been found to support the claims.
Russia, for its part, has vehemently denied any interference in the US elections, calling the accusations part of America’s “domestic political struggle”.
September 10, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | United States |
Leave a comment
International law has gradually been replaced with trial by public opinion and states have become obsessed with narrative control. Information wars and “fake news” are the natural consequences and trust in the media is collapsing.
Much focus is devoted to the polarisation of media coverage in domestic politics, although what is the state of affairs in the coverage of international politics? In the current information war, all sides appear to have dirty hands. Russian media is constantly criticised, and sometimes the criticism is just. Yet, how has the information war with Russia affected the way Western media obtain, analyse and disseminate information?
The favourite source for Western media in Syria has long been the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which despite its extravagant name is merely a blog. The Guardian exposed in 2012 that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights consists of one man, Rami Abdulrahman, located in Coventry, UK. During the day, he runs a clothing store with his wife, and in the evening from his kitchen, he is the leading information source for the Western world regarding events on the ground in Syria. Why is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights such an authority on Syria?
If the Western media needs information about Russian troops in Ukraine, chemical weapons in Syria or any other major conflict that involves Russia – the go-to-man is Eliot Higgins, a blogger for a website called Bellingcat. Previously an employee in the ladies’ underwear industry, he gained legitimacy in the Western media by reporting exactly what it wanted to hear about Russia.
In an interview with actual experts, Spiegel magazine revealed that Higgins did not use the digital analytical tools correctly to “investigate” MH17 and his evidence was dismissed as “nothing more than reading tea leaves”. Higgins denounces his critics as Russian agents, often followed by vulgar requests to “suck his balls”. How did Bellingcat become a credible source for the media?
The media did not seem interested when it was revealed that a senior official in the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had demanded the “removal of all traces” of a document that contradicted the key “evidence” that blamed the Syrian government being behind a gas attack. Instead, the media turned to its favourite bloggers/ “analysts”.
Self-censorship was also evident when former British Navy Admiral Lord West in an interview with the BBC expressed his doubts that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack in Douma. The BBC journalist interviewing him quickly interrupted to reprimand the admiral: “Given that we’re in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it’s inadvisable to be stating this so publicly”.
Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine also poked a hole in the strange narrative about the death of Sergey Magnitsky, which led to the US passing the Magnitsky Act against Russia and pushing it on the world. The storyline that Western governments and press embraced with exuberance was concocted by Bill Browder, the man who earned the media’s love by branding himself as “Putin’s Number 1 Enemy”.
Der Spiegel recognises it is doubtful that Magnitsky was killed in a grand conspiracy, rather they point to Browder’s loose relationship with the truth, the multitude of contradictions and falsehoods about the narrative of Browder’s ‘lawyer’ Magnitsky, who it turns out was not actually a lawyer. Yet, as Spiegel notes, the thrilling anti-Russian narrative was too compelling to be obstructed by the lack of evidence.
Following the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK, the focus on Western “solidarity” similarly undermined the possibility for objectivity. Former UK ambassador, Craig Murray, had several questions that seemingly eluded the media: The Skripals had different ages, genders and weights, yet several hours after being poisoned they both passed out at the exact same time so neither of them could get help. Instead, they were found by one of Britain’s leading chemical weapons experts, the Chief Nurse of the British Army.
The information about the rescuer’s identity was revealed accidentally months after the incident and it was not clear why it was concealed. The Skripals, who survived, could be asked these questions directly but the media appears content with the government’s narrative.
The press similarly has not let facts influence the narrative over Russiagate. The servers of the Democratic National Committee were never hacked according to the former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney. However, it was proven that the political party that lost the election hired the former British spy Christopher Steele, who provided the sensational and fraudulent information that kick started the investigation.
Declassified information also revealed that the FBI knew the Steele dossier was fake, representing an actual collusion that should have caught the interest of the media. Yet, the Russiagate narrative remains resilient and contesting it is classed as the gravest of all crimes – supporting the narrative of the Kremlin.
One cannot help but to get a sense of déjà vu from the Georgian conflict in 2008, when Western media reported anything the Georgian government stated as indisputable facts. Even after the EU’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission in Georgia concluded that Saakashvili had thoroughly lied, the narrative of a Russian invasion remains strong to this day.
The latest media circus over the poisoning of Navalny similarly reveals the multitude of priorities that journalists are elevating above the task of informing the public. Navalny is an anti-corruption activist who enjoys miniscule support among the Russian population and was expelled from the liberal party Yabloko in 2007 due to xenophobic statements. Although, among Western journalists his critical stance against Putin has earned him the title as a “leading opposition politician” and a place alongside Browder as another “Putin’s Number 1 Enemy” that we simply cannot resist.
The media does not attempt to answer why the Russian government suddenly decided the activist needed to be assassinated with a high-profile chemical weapon, only to be treated at a state hospital and then allowed to transfer to Germany. Yet, the consensus that appears to have formed is that the Kremlin was behind the poisoning and it is now the prerogative of NATO, an anti-Russian military alliance, to investigate and punish – although not necessarily in that order.
Past incidents indicate that the rush to consensus will not be slowed down by inconvenient facts, and the conflict between the West and Russia will continue to intensify.
Glenn Diesen is an Associate Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
September 9, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | NATO |
Leave a comment
So now the Navalny poison episode takes on a new twist with German military intelligence subsequently claiming they found traces of Novichok on a bottle of water the Russian dissident had purportedly been drinking from. Rather, it sounds more like the authors of this false-flag operation have “bottled” – meaning became unnerved by the absurdities inherent in their own narrative.
Last week the German government announced that a Bundeswehr military laboratory had detected Novichok in the body fluids of Sergei Navalny. That promptly led to charges that the Kremlin was responsible for the attempted murder of Navalny using the Soviet-era nerve poison.
The trouble for the German side was that their narrative soon ran into contradictions from the Russian toxicologists who first treated Navalny when he apparently fell ill on a flight from Siberia to Moscow on August 20. The Russian medics said they had tested Navalny for a whole range of poisons, including organophosphate-type chemicals which attack the nervous system. The Russian doctors affirmed they found no poison traces. They concluded Navalny’s coma was induced by an existing medical condition, presumably diabetes. Furthermore, the doctors at the hospital in Omsk where Navalny was taken to on August 20, said they have original samples of his body fluids.
It’s the latter detail which seems to have obliged the Germans to elaborate their narrative with the new element of a poisoned bottle of water. If indeed the Russians have Navalny’s biological samples showing no presence of toxins then the German version falls apart as a fabrication. That could only mean that the claimed detection of Novichok by the Germans was the result of deliberate contamination of his body fluids while he was being treated in the hospital in Berlin where he was airlifted to on August 22 from Russia.
It is reported by Der Spiegel that Navalny’s family relatives kept the alleged bottle after he fell sick on the flight from the Siberian city Tomsk. They purportedly did not hand the bottle over to the Russian toxicologists in Omsk, but rather provided the bottle instead to the Germans when Navalny arrived in Berlin two days later.
This “bottle twist” is a convenient and necessary foil to avoid the potentially damning contradiction from the Russian side. The Germans can now claim to have evidence that was not available to the Russians.
But such a ploy creates more questions that still make the German narrative implausible, if not absurd.
If Novichok was used in poisoning Navalny, the 44-year-old dissident would most likely be dead by now. Also, the aides and flight attendants who came into close contact with him during his flight would have shown symptoms of poisoning. It is inconceivable that a bottle contaminated with the deadly nerve agent could have been transported by Navalny’s family to Germany without them being stricken.
The strange Navalny affair has an unerring resemblance to the equally outlandish Skripal affair. Yet the latter is cited as a precedent for the former in order to “substantiate” incrimination of Russia. The alleged Novichok weapon seems to have an amazing ability to lose its deadly potency on bystanders. The immediate victims apparently go into mysterious comas and are not seen or heard of again in public, detained in secret by the British and now German government. There is also the curious introduction of bottles in both cases: the perfume bottle which allegedly conveyed the Novichok weapon in the Skripal incident in England in March 2018, and now the water bottle in the Navalny incident.
As with the alleged assassination attempt on MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal, the latest incident involving Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny is undoubtedly a false-flag provocation to foment Western sanctions and hostility against Moscow.
Immediately following reports of alleged German detection of Novichok in Navalny’s body, there were predictable calls for the cancellation of the Nord Stream-2 gas project between Russia and Germany. It is no secret that pro-Washington German politicians have long been opposed to the ambitious energy trade with Russia.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has up to now been resolute in wanting Nord Stream-2 completed in spite of immense pressure from the Trump administration and the U.S. Congress to abandon it. The American agenda is transparently to replace Russian gas energy supplies with American exports.
Navalny’s apparent poison-assassination fits neatly with this strategic American agenda. Given the allegiance of German military intelligence and certain politicians to the transatlantic axis it is not difficult to conceive of how a false-flag provocation against Moscow could be orchestrated.
The problem is that in their haste to set up Navalny as a victim in order to sabotage Nord Stream-2, the authors overlooked the unfortunate anomaly of Russian doctors potentially disproving the claim of detecting Novichok in Navalny’s body. Realizing their clumsy mistake, the authors are obliged to invent another twist in the story involving a contaminated water bottle. In terms of credibility, however, their invention doesn’t hold water.
This has grave implications for the survivability of Navalny. As an opposition figure long lionized and exaggerated by the West as the nemesis of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Navalny is more valuable dead than alive as a propaganda weapon. With its false-flag narrative failing, the temptation may be to up the ante dramatically by amending the script to Navalny “succumbing” to Novichok.
September 8, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | Germany |
Leave a comment
Timing is everything, they say. Never more so was it crucial in the case of Alexei Navalny, currently coming out of a coma in the Charité hospital in Berlin, Germany, where he was transferred last month from Omsk in Russia after collapsing on a plane. Timing in this detective story is vital to understanding the motive behind the alleged poisoning.
For the West, it is a cut and dried case. Navalny, the Russian opposition activist, was poisoned by a nerve agent ‘Novichok’, probably in a cup of tea he drank at Omsk airport. The German military, after liaising with scientists at the UK’s Porton Down laboratory, came to that conclusion after carrying out tests. The implication is that the Russian state is responsible. In what was an unusually defiant tone, Angela Merkel said that Germany was awaiting answers from the Russian government regarding Navalny’s plight. Heiko Maas, the German Foreign Minister, went further at the weekend to say that he hoped Russia would come up with a response to the allegations of Novichok poisoning, or it could affect the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.
And herein lies the rub for the western version of events. For if the Russian state was indeed guilty of poisoning Navalny, why on earth would it allow his transfer to Germany? And why would it carry out such a criminal act during the last phase of the Nord Stream pipeline project, in which so much has been invested? Politically and geopolitically, such an act would absolutely backfire. By eliminating an opposition member such as Alexei Navalny, it would no doubt produce a furious reaction from both foreign powers and domestic opposition, only encouraging anti-government activism.
So why therefore have we not seen protestors take to the streets in Russia in support of Navalny? Partly, it is because many Russians are sceptical of the West’s allegations. Given that Russia would have so much to lose from such a state-sponsored act, the motivation is not there. There are just as many holes in the western narrative as there were with the Skripal case back in 2018. As was the case back then, the Russian state was accused of the poisoning of ex double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, yet no evidence of Russian state involvement was provided. We have yet to hear from the doctors treating Navalny in the Charité hospital in Berlin, just as we didn’t hear from those involved in the Skripal case. As in the Skripal case, the timing of the incident couldn’t be worse for the Kremlin. Then, it was just before the Russian world cup; in this case, it is just before the completion of Nord Stream 2 and when the Trump administration has spoken of meeting with Putin later this year. Why would the Russian state risk such an act at this time? Furthermore, if it was the nerve agent Novichok, a potent chemical up to eight times stronger than VX, why were other people around Navalny not affected? And why did he not exhibit any of the spasms associated with such nerve agents?
On the contrary, as the doctors treating him in Omsk reported, there was no indication that Navalny was suffering from poisoning by a nerve agent. They suggested various possibilities, including one of a pancreatic disorder which would fit the results of the investigations carried out, and the symptoms exhibited. Why the German experts have come up with a completely different diagnosis is not clear, as they have not released any information. The lack of transparency and in particular, lack of communication with Moscow on the detail of analyses taken, only adds to scepticism about the western narrative.
Furthermore, it’s worth considering Navalny’s popularity and reach within Russia. According to a recent poll by Levada, the opposition activist would gain around 2% of the vote in a presidential election was to be held, compared to 56% who would re-elect Vladimir Putin. In a further survey which asked people to select a candidate which they trusted the most, Navalny only came 7th, with Vladimir Putin in 1st place. Such polls reflect the consistently high approval ratings Vladimir Putin has had for years now. Navalny on the other hand, has not gained the popularity he might have hoped given his years of journalism and anti-government activism – another reason why we haven’t seen demonstrations on the streets of Moscow since his hospitalisation. Why would the Kremlin seek to annihilate someone who didn’t pose any real threat to established power?
If Navalny was indeed poisoned, then we have to look elsewhere for a motive. And here the old adage ‘Cui Bono?’ comes to mind. In the last week the headlines have been dominated by the idea that the Navalny poisoning could end the Nord Stream pipeline. What is more interesting however is the extent to which the current US administration has been fixated with the idea of stopping Nord Stream 2, no matter what. And don’t take my word for it. Mike Pompeo himself said in July this year that the US would ‘do everything’ it could to prevent Nord Stream 2. He told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee “We need further tools. We’re prepared to use those tools should you provide them to us”. Just what exactly these tools would consist of, other than support for sanctions, is unclear. But it’s no secret that the US has tried everything in the book to stop this pipeline which would guarantee Europe’s energy supply and greatly reduce US chances of competing and exporting its own fracked gas. From sanctions, to pressurising companies and individuals, no stone has been left unturned. Now, by some twist of fate, an issue has arisen to put maximum pressure on the German government to abandon the project. The timing is extraordinary.
We don’t know yet what happened to Alexei Navalny; there just hasn’t been enough evidence released. Until it is, the western narrative cannot be taken at face value, there are simply too many things that don’t add up.
Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.
September 8, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | Germany, Nord Stream-2 |
Leave a comment
The Kremlin has ridiculed the suggested creation of a ‘Navalny List’ that would impose more sanctions on Russians, following accusations that Moscow is responsible for the alleged poison attack on opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
On Saturday, the American conservative journalist Bret Stephens wrote in the New York Times that the US should pass a ‘Navalny Act,’ similar to the 2012 Magnitsky Act, in order to punish Russian authorities for the poisoning of the political blogger.
“There are many absurd initiatives, both on the right and on the left,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, explaining that it is “unacceptable” to associate the Russian leadership with the alleged attack on Navalny.
According to Stephens, the proposal has been backed by vulture capitalist Bill Browder, who is wanted on criminal charges in Russia, who suggested that a long list of officials should be punished simultaneously by the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, and Australia. Browder is best known for pushing governments worldwide to impose sanctions in retaliation for the death of Russian auditor Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Moscow prison in 2009, eight days before he was due to stand trial for alleged financial offenses.
Since Magnitsky’s death, Browder has courted politicians from all corners of the globe to punish those he deems responsible. In 2012, this prompted the US to adopt the Magnitsky Act, which allowed the US to sanction numerous Russian officials and businessmen over alleged human rights violations. Despite allegations that Browder has fabricated parts of the auditor’s story, which have been largely ignored by US/UK media, similar legislation has also been passed in Canada and Britain.
“It would be strange if a person like Browder, who is wanted by Russia for tax and other crimes, did not agree with such absurd proposals,” Peskov pointed out.
Navalny, a well-known protest leader and anti-corruption campaigner, was taken ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow, which was forced to land in the Siberian city of Omsk. After being taken to the hospital, Navalny’s associates asked that he be transferred for treatment in Germany. Two days later, he landed in Berlin, where on Monday he was described as steadily emerging from a medically induced a coma in that city’s Charité clinic. According to the German authorities, the opposition figure was poisoned with a nerve agent from the Novichok group.
September 7, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
Russian doctors have proposed to their German colleagues that they establish a joint group on the case of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, the president of Russia’s National Medical Chamber, noted paediatrician Leonid Roshal, told reporters on Saturday.
“Many people are concerned about Navalny’s fate, and the National Medical Chamber has now appealed to the German Medical Chamber … in order to create an expert group with them to study the main reason for Navalny’s condition,” Roshal said.
The paediatrician added that the reasons were not clear yet, noting that Russian doctors treating Navalny did their job very well and saved the patient. Studies carried out in Russia did not show that the politician was poisoned though, he noted.
“Let us gather calmly — the representatives and specialists of Russia, as well as toxicologists and specialists from Germany — and we will discuss whether or not [Navalny was poisoned], because if it turns out that Navalny was, indeed, poisoned, we believe that it is necessary to initiate a criminal case in Russia,” Roshal said.
According to Roshal, the Russian side has sent a request to German law enforcement agencies, as well as German doctors regarding the situation with Navalny, but there has been no answer yet.
On 20 August, Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny fell gravely ill during a domestic Russian flight. Following an emergency landing in the Siberian city of Omsk, he was taken to a local hospital and, according to regional doctors, he arrived just 17 minutes after landing.
For the next 44 hours, doctors waged an uninterrupted struggle for his life, as he went into a coma and was put on an artificial lung ventilator.
Immediately after Navalny fell ill, his spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh claimed that he might have been poisoned.
Upon conducting multiple tests, Russian medics established that no traces of poison had been found in his system, saying that Navalny’s condition was caused by an abrupt drop of glucose in his blood due to a metabolic imbalance.
On 22 August, Navalny was flown to Berlin for further treatment. German doctors claimed that they had found traces of a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors in his body, which the Russian doctors denied, referring to his test results.
September 5, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | Germany, Russia |
Leave a comment
Russians are dumb. Hopelessly stupid. They are amateurs of the worst kind. Ignoramuses on steroids. Why?
Well, for one, their so-called super-dooper biowarfare agent “Novichok” seems unable to kill anybody. The Russians must have realized that. This is why, when they tried to kill Skripal (after freeing him from jail) they put that Novichok thing all over the place: on the bench near Salisbury, on Skripal’s door handle, even in some bottle of perfume a local addict found in the trash. Probably all over the Skripal home, and this is why the Brits initially said that they would tear down the extremely toxic place (yet both the Skripal cat and their hamster survived – tells you how utterly useless that pretend biowarfare substance really was…).
One would have thought that after this total cluster-bleep the Russians would have learned their lesson.
But no. They are clearly too dumb for that.
So they decided to poison Alexei Navalnyi, a well-know “dissident”.
And they failed.
Again!
Not only did they use exactly the same “Novichok” (or so says the German media), they allowed Navalnyi’s aircraft to make an emergency landing and the FSB did nothing to prevent an ambulance to bring Navalnyi to a hospital. Apparently, the FSB does not even have the authority to prevent such urgent treatment of the man they want to kill. Heck, they can even create a traffic jam to prevent Navalnyi from getting to a hospital.
How incompetent!
Even worse, these accursed Russki doctors gave Navalnyi atropine, the exact same substance the Germans gave him. Makes me wonder if these doctors were not all CIA/BND agents trying to save Navalnyi’s life…
Clearly, the FSB are also stupid: they can’t even get aircraft or doctors to obey them…
But it gets worse. In spite of the fact that Navalnyi has broken the terms of his suspended sentence and in spite of the fact that such a person cannot leave the country, these Russian imbeciles allowed him to fly to Germany while his body was still full of Novichok sloshing around.
All the Russians needed to do to kill Navalnyi would have been to give him a heart attack using any one of the many untraceable agents in existence (say, potassium chloride).
In despair, the clueless FSB might have caused Navalnyi do die in a car “crash”.
But they can’t even do that. Shame on you, FSB!
And since Navalnyi is diabetic, killing him ought to be fantastically simple: just give him the wrong dose of meds and, voilà, bye-bye Navalnyi. But not, these idiots decided to use the now infamous Novichok.
Obviously, Russians are the dumbest, most incompetent, idiots on the planet! Russian special services and biological research institutes are especially known for the crass incompetence.
Right?!
Just like the so-called Russian hackers (another Russian category famous for its extremely low IQ!) could not even try to hack DNC computers or steal the 2016 election without leaving their Russian sounding aliases all over the place. Heck, these hackers even worked only during Moscow time office hours.
I am telling you – the Russians are fantastically stupid, the dumbest people on the planet.
Especially their intel and security officers, their biowarfare specialists and their hackers. Morons. All of them!
Let’s all repeat it together: the Russians are dumb! the Russians are dumb! the Russians are dumb!
That is very “highly likely”!
September 5, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | Germany |
Leave a comment
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has all but accused the Russian government of attempted murder in the strange case of Alexei Navalny, the dissident figure who reportedly remains comatose in a Berlin hospital.
Merkel spoke after a German military laboratory announced earlier this week it had “unequivocal proof” that Navalny had been poisoned with “Novichok”, a Soviet-era military-grade nerve agent.
“It raises serious questions that only the Russian government can and must answer,” Merkel told media reporters. The chancellor’s assertions were immediately reinforced by the United States, Britain and the head of NATO, each demanding Moscow to be held to account.
The Russian government rejected the accusations, saying they were being made improperly. It noted that the German authorities did not inform Moscow of its claims directly, but rather communicated first with its Western allies. There is more than a suggestion that the Western response is being coordinated to railroad accusations against Russia without Moscow being afforded due process. There is a presumption of guilt which violates due process and diplomatic protocol. And, of course, this is not for the first time when it comes to Western contemptuous relations with Russia.
Contrary to Western assertions about Russia having to answer questions about the Navalny case, the onus is very much on the German authorities to explain their “findings” and to back them up with verifiable evidence. Otherwise it amounts to hearsay and innuendo.
First of all, the Germans say they have “unequivocal proof” that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, reportedly from tests carried out on his blood samples. But the German military laboratory and doctors in Berlin have not provided any biomaterials to Russia for the latter to independently verify the alleged detection of Novichok.
Secondly, the Russian doctors who first treated Navalny after he suddenly fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20 have affirmed that they carried out comprehensive toxicology tests on his biological fluids and organs, and they detected no traces of toxins. Specifically no traces of organophosphate nerve agents. The Russian medics concluded that Navalny may have become ill from a metabolic disorder, such as extremely low blood sugar.
The Russian doctors who treated Navalny, and possibly saved his life by their quick intervention, said they detected the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors which affect the nervous system, but such substances can be caused by a wide range of clinical pharmaceuticals, including those used for the treatment of diabetes which Navalny reportedly suffers from.
However, the crucial point is this: the Russian toxicology tests found no presence of Novichok or any other such nerve poison in Navalny’s body. The Russian medics reportedly still possess the original body samples taken when Navalny was being treated in Russia. It is the Germans who are claiming they have detected Novichok, but so far they have not provided verifiable proof. It is their word for it, that’s all.
There are more questions needing answers. Navalny was airlifted from Russia to Berlin on August 22 under heavy pressure from Germany and other Western states for Moscow to permit his relocation. Why the urgency to do so? Why did Moscow relent in allowing this strange foreign intervention in its internal affairs?
If, for argument sake, the Kremlin had in some way plotted to cause Navalny harm with Novichok or some other poison, why would Moscow permit his relocation to Berlin where toxicology tests would uncover the purported plot? That scenario is illogical.
Navalny’s aides immediately claimed he was poisoned when he fell ill. They said he may have been poisoned from drinking tea at Tomsk airport before his flight. But CCTV footage shows Navalny being handed the drink by an aide. So, if anyone intended Navalny’s intoxication from the beverage, they wouldn’t have known he was to be the person who received the drink.
Furthermore, the Russian scientists who invented Novichok have stated categorically that if the nerve agent was somehow involved in the Navalny case, then he would most likely be dead by now and not in a coma. Also, they say, his aides and those who treated Navalny onboard the flight from Tomsk, would inevitably have been contaminated and sickened, so deadly is this chemical weapon.
Let’s recap. Navalny did not have toxins in his body and specifically not organophosphate nerve agents of the Novichok type, according to the Russian toxicologists. Let’s give them benefit of doubt. The poison was only detected – allegedly – by the German military laboratory five days after Navalny was received at the Berlin hospital last weekend. Yet the Germans – and this is crucial – are not sharing their bio-evidence with Russia. They have instead rushed to make grave accusations against Moscow, along with their Western allies. Without a chain of verifiable evidence, this is a travesty of due process.
What this all relies on is presumption of guilt, as well as large prejudice stemming from Russophobia, and the invocation of dubious past unproven cases such as the 2018 alleged poisoning of British double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury. The whereabouts of Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen, remains a mystery which only the British authorities can reveal, yet their strange case is thrown at Moscow to answer for, just like the current Navalny case.
The timing of the Navalny case is also significant. There are several current geopolitical factors at play. First there is the isolation of Washington at the United Nations in its attempt to force the reimposition of sanctions on Iran over the nuclear accord. This week saw Russian, Chinese, British, French and German diplomats meeting in Vienna in a bid to save the international nuclear deal in spite of American sabotage efforts. The Navalny case “poisons” diplomatic unity to defend the nuclear accord.
Another geopolitical factor is the political upheaval in Belarus. Washington and the European Union appear to be exploiting the unrest to destabilize relations between Russia and its neighbor. The Navalny case fits an agenda of undermining Moscow and impeding its relations with Minsk.
A third factor – and this may be the most significant – is the Nord Stream 2 gas supply project from Russia to Germany. The $11 billion, 1,200-kilometer pipeline has been targeted intensely by the Trump administration for derailment. There are also pro-Washington politicians in the ruling German Christian Democrat party who have been persistent in their opposition to the ambitious boost to energy trade between Russia and Europe.
The New York Times headlined on September 3: “Navalny Poisoning Raises Pressure on Merkel to Cancel Russian Pipeline”.
Last week, Merkel was insisting that the Navalny case did not impinge on the Nord Stream 2 project’s completion. This week, German military intelligence is claiming that Novichok was used to poison Navalny, and now Merkel is under intensified pressure to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. As ever, the old criminologist question of who gains should be foremost here.
Indeed, there are several serious questions to answer in the Navalny case. But it is Germany and its Western allies who are best placed to provide answers, not Russia.
September 4, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | Germany |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 