Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Moscow on Expulsion of 23 Diplomats From UK: ‘Unacceptable, Unjustified’ Move

Sputnik – March 14, 2018

Prime Minister Theresa May has announced the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats from the UK since the Cold War over the alleged attack on a former spy. Moscow has denounced May’s claims as baseless.

The Russian Embassy in London called the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats announced by UK Prime Minister Theresa May over the poisoning of former intelligence officer Sergei Skripal “unacceptable, short-sighted and unjustified.”

In a statement, the Embassy confirmed that the diplomats had been declared persona non grata, adding that London was to blame for the harm caused to Russian-UK relations by this “hostile step.”

The Russian Embassy’s reaction followed UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s address to the House of Commons, where she announced a response to the alleged attack on Skripal.

Biggest Expulsion of Russian Diplomats Since Cold War

Reiterating a claim she made Monday about Russia’s alleged culpability in the Skripal case, the prime minister accused Russia of an “unlawful use of force against the United Kingdom,” saying this crime was part of a well established pattern of “Russian state aggression” in Europe, and accused Moscow of “sarcasm, contempt and defiance” in its response to London’s ultimatum to provide further information.

May announced that 23 Russian diplomats “identified as undeclared intelligence officers” will be expelled and given one week to leave.

Second, she vowed the creation of new legislative powers against “hostile state activity,” as well as possible new counter-espionage powers.

May promised the freeze of Russian assets in cases where they threaten UK citizens, adding there was no place for those seeking to do harm to the UK.

The prime minister also said that “criminals” and “corrupt elites” from Russia were not “welcome” in the UK. She informed lawmakers that “led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people – or their money — in our country.”

May also confirmed that her government will be looking to strengthen Magnitsky Act-type, human rights-based amendments to existing sanctoins.

Suspension of High Level Contacts

London will suspend all high level contacts with diplomatic officials from Moscow, including during the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Russia, which British ministers and members of the royal family will skip.

May accused Russia of “flagrantly” breaching its international obligations, and said it was “tragic” that Russian President Putin “has chosen to act in this way.”

The prime minister stressed that the London and its allies will coordinate its actions, and welcomed support received from NATO and the EU. A NATO Council meeting will be held to discuss the matter on Thursday. The UK is also pushing for a debate at the UN on the Skripal case, and has asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to to help verify its claims against Russia.

Skripal’s attempted murder was not just an act of aggression against the UK, but an affront to the prohibition of chemical weapons, May said.

Opposition Responds

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn called the events in Salisbury “abominable,” adding that the Labour Party supports the prime minister in taking firm, multilateral action to ensure chemical weapons are never again used in the UK. He asked whether May agrees on the need to maintain dialog with Russia.

Responding to a lawmaker’s question about whether she will respond to any Russian response with an even firmer response, May said there were “other measures” that London stands ready to deploy should it face “further provocations” from Moscow.

May accused Russia of having a “pattern” of aggression, from Syria to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, to meddling in elections in other parts of the world to “propaganda” and “misinformation campaigns.”

Asked about whether the UK will seek to further diversify away from the delivery of Russian gas, May confirmed that “we are indeed looking” to other countries for supplies.

Asked whether Russian English language media including RT would be targetted, May said that this was not a matter for the government, but for media regulator Ofcom. She added that the UK would continue to support the efforts of BBC’s Russian language service. Moscow had previously warned that UK media would be expelled from Russia if Russian media was expelled from the UK.

What Happened

Moscow has dismissed all accusations of involvment in the Skripal incident and requested access to the case. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has characterized London’s accusations as “propaganda,” and complained that Russia wasn’t provided with any evidence regarding the crime, in spite of the accusation of Russian involvement, and the fact that Russia had made a request for information regarding a crime which affected Yulia Skripal, who is a Russian citizen.

Ex-GRU officer and MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter were hospitalized on March 4 following what London claims to have been an attempted poisoning.

March 14, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Novichok – toxic questions about chemical at center of Skripal saga

RT | March 13, 2018

The public has learned a new Russian word: Novichok or novice, as the UK claims it is a nerve agent that poisoned former double agent Sergei Skripal. But, as with many elements of this saga, this chemical raises many questions.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent “Novichok,” allegedly developed by Russia. She claimed this was either “a direct action” by Moscow or the result of a loss of control over “its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent.” Speaking to MPs, she even said the cabinet had given Moscow one day to provide a “credible response” to the allegations.

The use of a military-grade secret nerve agent may sound like a James Bond movie and, as with many action dramas, there are some notable inconsistencies in the plot that raise questions.

The killer agent that is not on chemical watchdog list?

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) carefully describes all known types of weapons-grade chemicals, including notorious sarin and VX, as well as their properties, mechanisms of action, and possible antidotes. But oddly enough, ‘Novichok’ – the substance supposedly deadlier than sarin or VX – is not on the OPSW nerve agents list.

Would you pay $30 for a secret chemical agent formula?

‘Novichok’ was first disclosed to the public by a Russian chemist named Vil Mirzayanov, who claimed in a 1992 article for Moskovsky Komsomolets daily that Moscow was developing extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons. The article was published prior to Russia’s signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention, making the timing particularly interesting.

Mirzayanov, who defected to the US several years later, reacted to the British prime minister’s accusations in a notable post on Facebook. “[May] said that ‘Novichok’ has been used in the assassination attempt on Skripal,” Mirzayanov wrote. “Its chemical formula has been published only in my book,” he said.

His book, which allegedly contains the top-secret formula of the deadly nerve agent, is titled ‘State Secrets: An Insider’s Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program.’ Its paperback edition is available on Amazon and sells for just $30. If the formula is genuine, this is probably the first time a whistleblower has provided free access to a method of producing the highly poisonous weapon.

Is Russia the only place it could come from?

Mirzayanov also contributed to a 1995 report by the US-based Henry L. Stimson Center. The paper, which refers to the defector’s 1992 piece, noted multiple security flaws at Russia’s chemical weapons storage sites – a revelation unsurprising enough, given the poor state of Russian military at the time. While praising some basic security measures at the compounds, the report says: “By US standards, Russian chemical weapon storage facilities unquestionably appear vulnerable to attack from outside and theft from within.”

Nikolai Kovalev, who led Russia’s security service, the FSB, from 1996 to 1998, told RIA Novosti that the likes of ‘Novichok’ were “stockpiled in former Soviet Union republics.” Russian Senator Franz Klintsevich told the Zvezda TV Channel that the Soviet military sent the so-called “frontline packages” containing the agent to various parts of the country. “It could have been stored in any [post-Soviet] country, including Georgia and Ukraine,” he noted.

Back in 1999, it emerged that the Pentagon might gain access to one of the chemical plants that reportedly produced ‘Novichok.’ The New York Times reported that the US military was going to spend up to $6 million “to demilitarize the so-called Chemical Research Institute” located in the Uzbek city of Nukus. “Soviet defectors and American officials say the Nukus plant was the major research and testing site for a new class of secret, highly lethal chemical weapons called ‘Novichok,’ which in Russian means ‘’new guy,’” the piece said.

How was it proven to have been Russia, if nerve agents can be produced anywhere?

‘Novichok’ is said to be a “binary agent,” meaning that it could be stored as two, less toxic chemicals. To produce the active toxic agent, the two must be mixed, and be allowed to react. This makes the ingredients easier to transport, as they only become fully toxic when mixed.

Anton Utkin, a Russian chemist who worked as a UN inspector in Iraq and developed technologies to destroy Russia’s chemical weapons, says it’s unclear “how they [Britain] could establish that it was produced in Russia.” He said that anyone familiar with the technology could have produced it. “You can’t find out who manufactured the chemical weapon – the content of the substance will be fully identical while using the same method,” he said. “There is no way to establish with full accuracy that a chemical comes from this or that country.”

What about the chemical watchdog confirming Russia destroyed its stockpiles?

In autumn last year, the OPCW confirmed that Moscow – a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention – had completely destroyed its stockpiles. The organization’s inspection teams verified the destruction at seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia, and, on September 27, 2017, the last of these facilities officially ceased its operations. The six other facilities were closed between 2005 and 2015.

“The completion of the verified destruction of Russia’s chemical weapons program is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the organization’s Head Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu said at the time. He praised countries that assisted Russia with its destruction program, as well as OPCW staff who verified the destruction.

Timing is everything?

Russian officials say the timing of the allegations is particularly notable. “Presidential elections are looming in Russia, and the country is accused of committing every mortal sin,” Sergey Stepashin, former FSB director, told Interfax. “Tell me, which idiot in Russia could carry out such [an attack]? Where is the logic [in that]?”

He asserted that the story could have been “a primitive provocation by British intelligence services,” and noted that Moscow and London signed a 1998 agreement on mutual investigations in high-profile cases. “So, hand the files over to us and let us probe the crime together,” the former intelligence chief said.

March 14, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

UK intelligence may be complicit in Skripal’s poisoning – ex-FSB head

RT | March 13, 2018

A former FSB director suggested British intelligence agencies may be complicit in the attempt on the life of former double agent Sergei Skripal, adding the incident has actually caused “enormous harm” to Russia.

Nikolay Kovalev, former director of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), told RIA Novosti on Tuesday it is mainly the UK and its ally the US who benefit from Skripal’s poisoning. The former military intelligence officer was exposed as a British spy back in the early 2000s.

“It looks like British secret services are complicit in it,” Kovalev went on. “[Defectors] are fully under surveillance … the secret services are monitoring them, they know their whereabouts and schedules. And then you have such strange events happen in a row.”

Kovalev, who led the FSB from 1996 until 1998, said he believes that a series of assassination attempts targeting defectors in the UK makes him think that the British “scapegoat this or that traitor after having utilized him to the maximum extent, and then say the Russians did it.”

Skripal, 66, and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a bench outside a shopping center in Salisbury last week, prompting London to pin the blame on Moscow.

On Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May said the poisoning was either “a direct act by the Russian state on Britain,” or the Russian government had allowed the alleged nerve agent, ‘Novichok’, to get into the wrong hands.

“The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible,” she said.

Kovalev dismissed the claim, saying the nerve agents could have been stored in any post-Soviet country, including Ukraine.

“Given that [such substances] were stockpiled in former Soviet Union republics – sorry, but Ukrainian involvement can’t be ruled out,” he said.

His assessment has been echoed by another former security official who suggested the nerve agent allegedly used in the attempt on Skripal’s life was produced in the UK. General Vladimir Mikhailov, a former high-ranking FSB officer, told RIA Novosti that if Vil Mirzayanov, a Russian chemical weapons expert who defected to the West in the early 1990s, had disclosed the formula, MI6 “could have synthesized the agent and used it for political purposes.”

March 13, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

UK TV regulator writes to RT, says it may consider whether channel’s license is ‘fit and proper’

RT | March 13, 2018

Britain’s media regulator Ofcom says it will “consider the implications for RT’s broadcast licenses” if it’s determined there was “an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the UK” in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal.

In a statement, Ofcom said: “As the independent UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that broadcast licensees remain fit and proper to hold their licences.

“We have today written to ANO TV Novosti, holder of RT’s UK broadcast licences, which is financed from the budget of the Russian Federation. This letter explained that, should the UK investigating authorities determine that there was an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the UK, we would consider this relevant to our ongoing duty to be satisfied that RT is fit and proper.”

“The letter to RT said that we would carry out our independent fit and proper assessment on an expedited basis, and we would write to RT again shortly setting out details of our process.”

RT said in a statement that it disagreed with the position taken by Ofcom. “Our broadcasting has in no way changed this week from any other week, and continues to adhere to all standards.

“By linking RT to unrelated matters, Ofcom is conflating its role as a broadcasting regulator with matters of state. RT remains a valuable voice in the UK news landscape, covering vital yet neglected stories and voices, including those of the many MPs and other UK public figures who have been shut out of public discourse by the mainstream media.”

When the threat of having its license revoked first came to light, RT said the banning of the channel would do “away with any concept of press freedom in the UK.”

British Prime Minister Theresa May gave Moscow one day on Monday to explain the alleged use of a military-grade nerve agent, which the UK claims came from Russia to poison ex-double agent Skripal and his daughter Yulia. May says it’s “highly likely” Moscow was responsible.

She alleges the attack was either a direct act by the Russian state on Britain, or the Russian government allowed its nerve agent ‘Novichok’ to get into the wrong hands. “The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible,” she said.

READ MORE: ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Twitter fury over MPs’ calls to ban RT

After the statement in the House of Commons, Labour MP Chris Bryan asked May: “Can we just stop Russia Today [RT] broadcasting its propaganda in this country?” The PM responded by saying she would update MPs on “further measures” later this week.

The threat of banning RT led to a backlash from some on Twitter. RT contributors, viewers and members of the public speaking out against the proposal with some calling it an attack on “freedom of speech.”

March 13, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Gaslighting about the realities of “state-sponsored murder”

OffGuardian | March 12, 2018

Theresa May has just semi-officially pronounced the Skripal case a Russian state-sponsored hit. No evidence was presented for this conclusion of course, but we are getting used to that now. Belief is the new evidence. And in this case we do seem to have belief in large quantities.

Russia now effectively is being called upon to prove its innocence by tomorrow (Tuesday) or face Theresa’s wrath.

We’ll see how that goes over.

Of course there’s the immensely handy fact the “nerve agent” allegedly used is “Russian” too. Novichok no less, a Soviet-era toxin from the 1980s, described on Wikipedia as “the most deadly nerve toxin ever made.”

Though it wasn’t only produced in Russia, but in Uzbekistan.

And by the way the US has been “helping” Uzbekistan clean up its chemical weapons sites since 1991.

And of course Russia had destroyed all its chemical weapon stockpiles by 2017.

But the US still hasn’t (see MoA link above).

Still, so, as far as the state machine is concerned the alleged use of Novichok about clinches it for Putin. He dunnit. Verdict pronounced, let’s hurry on to the sentencing. What will it be? More sanctions? A Skripal Act to rival Magnitsky’s? Moving UK troops closer to Russia’s borders? Driving Russian money out of London? Messing with the World Cup?

While the UK establishment shoots its wad fantasising about all these glorious possibilities, let’s take a quick reality check.

Russia has absolutely nothing to gain from initiating the poisoning of Skripal, and even less to gain from leaving a calling card made of Novichok.

This is so obviously true even spokespeople for the UK establishment admit it openly, for example Andrew Wood, former UK ambassador to Moscow, is quoted in the Guardian saying

it’s very hard to see what profit they can get from this

Though of course this hasn’t stopped the same people who admit this to be true also claiming to be absolutely sure Russia did it.

Absent sane motives they have had to invent insane ones instead. Russia are just crazy, bent on vengeance, spoiling for a fight. Their blatant and self-destructive action, says Wood:

advertises the fact that they are vindictive and dedicated to pursuing revenge.

Reliably deluded and fact-defying Luke Harding adds his own pulp spy-thriller spin:

You see? Russia must have done it (even though they had no motive), so they must be driven by crazy notions of revenge or wanting a “row” that defy self-interest.

That’s logic.

The obvious consideration – if they had no motive maybe they didn’t do it has no place in this mad little universe.

This is simply gaslighting.

Motive is a first consideration in solving any crime. Absence of motive is also a primary argument for innocence. Cui bono? is a legal as well as a rational question. But it’s one the Western powers do not want anyone asking in this case.

Because the answer is obvious.

The timing of the alleged poisoning – the day before a prime mover in promoting UK Russophobia, Bill Browder, was due to testify at the Parliamentary Inquiry into alleged Russian “fake news”, and two weeks before the Russian election – is enough of itself to make the UK and its security agencies prime suspects.

And who can deny this tragic event is being fully exploited by the state machine? In just the last three days the poisoning of these two people in still murky circumstances has been used to

  • add fresh weight to the push to have RT blocked in the UK
  • justify moves against Russian holdings in the UK
  • reinforce calls for implementation of new sanctions
  • increase UK defence spending

In contrast, what has Russia or Russia’s narrative gained from this?

Absolutely nothing.

To bring a small amount of balance and sanity to the current situation we’re going to be reminding readers of some of the mysterious and possibly politically motivated deaths that have occurred in the UK. Unlike the Skripal and Litvinenko cases the media never claimed any of them were “state-sponsored murder”, because the only state they could possibly have been pinned on was our own.

March 13, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Skripal case: Theresa May now demands Russia prove itself innocent

British government lacking evidence of Russian guilt reverses the burden of proof

By Alexander Mercouris | The Duran | March 12, 2018

After a week of speculation and allegations British Prime Minister Theresa May has finally spoken about the murder attempt on the former British spy Sergey Skripal, which has left both him and his daughter critically ill.

This how the Guardian reports her statement:

Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down, our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations, the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal….

Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others…

Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom……

This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.

“It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. And we will not tolerate such a brazen attempt to murder innocent civilians on our soil. I commend this statement to the House….

The first thing to say about this statement is that it is essentially an admission that the British authorities have not been able to identify any suspects who might have carried out the attack on Skripal.

No person or persons have been identified as suspects in the case, and the only conclusion one can draw from Theresa May’s statement is that the British authorities either do not have the names of any suspects, or are uncertain about any names they do have..

I say this because if the British authorities did suspect any person or persons of carrying out the attack, Theresa May would presumably not be publicly speculating about whether this person or these persons might or might not have acted on the Russian government’s instructions.

The second thing to say about this statement is that the Russian attribution the British government is making is entirely based upon a scientific assessment that the nerve agent used in the attack was one of the agents developed by the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s as part of the so-called Novichok programme.

On the face of it this seems an uncertain basis upon which to attribute responsibility.

Details of the Novichok programme were disclosed by the Russians to the West decades ago, and the properties of the nerve agents developed as part of this programme are well known.  That presumably is why it was possible to assess that the nerve agent used in the attack on Skripal was one of the nerve agents developed as part of this programme.

Given that this is so, it is not obvious how it is possible to say that because the nerve agent used was of a type which was originally developed in Russia as part of the Novichok programme, that must mean that the Russian government or Russians were definitely responsible for the attack.

That seems to me a little like saying that because sarin was originally developed decades ago in Germany, that means that any chemical weapons attack which uses sarin is attributable to Germany.

The danger involved in using the supposed origin of a poison to identify the perpetrator is in fact shown by what happened in the Litvinenko case.

At the time of the murder in 2006 of Alexander Litvinenko Britain was awash with claims that the polonium with which he was poisoned was extremely expensive, was only made in Russia, and had been positively traced back to Russia.  These claims were widely treated as providing the proof that the Russian authorities were responsible for Litvinenko’s murder.

In the event, the public inquiry into Litvinenko’s murder, after hearing from a range of scientific witnesses, concluded that all the claims which had for a decade been made about polonium were untrue: it is not expensive, it is not produced only in Russia, and it is scientifically impossible to trace the point of origin of any polonium sample, whether to Russia or to anywhere else.

The Judge who headed the inquiry could not conceal his disappointment, making the extraordinary statement in his inquiry report that though it could not be proved that the polonium had come from Russia, it nonetheless might have done so.

The result was that with the polonium evidence – the evidence which supposedly “proved” Russian state involvement – having collapsed, the Judge could only say that the Russian authorities were “probably” involved, and could only do so by speculating at length about possible but in fact unlikely connections between the Russian authorities and the two men who were Litvinenko’s likely murderers spiced up with further speculations about the possible motives the Russians might have had for wanting Litvinenko dead (see my detailed discussion of the Litvinenko inquiry here).

It is therefore alarming to see Theresa May in the Skripal case in effect doing the same thing as the Judge did in the Litvinenko inquiry: gingering up a case against the Russian authorities which is nowhere near proved by making general assertions about Russian conduct which have no direct bearing on the case itself.

How else to explain such comments as her comment about “Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations” and her utterly gratuitous reference to Crimea in another part of her statement?

That the British authorities actually know very little about the attack on Skripal, and are perfectly aware that the case they are making against Russia is nowhere near proved, is shown by the bizarre way they are now approaching Russia.

Instead of sharing with the Russians their conclusions about the nerve agent that was used to poison Skripal, and asking the Russians for their cooperation in a case where the victim was a former Russian citizen and where the nerve agent used is of a type that was developed in Russia, the British government has instead given the Russian authorities an ultimatum, saying that they must prove their innocence by tomorrow or the British government will assume they are guilty.

I say that because that is what these words in Theresa May’s statement amount to:

Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others…

Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom……

That this is a way of proving guilt by reversing the burden of the proof – something which is both wrong and absurd in a criminal investigation in a modern European country – ought to be obvious.

What this ultimatum in fact actually shows is that the British government is determined to declare the Russian government guilty, but cannot prove its case, so it has to use an ultimatum to provide proof of guilt which ‘proof’ is however actually a sham.

The Russians have in fact previously offered their cooperation to solve the case.

Perhaps that offer is also a sham.  However if the British authorities really were serious about finding out the truth of what happened or – better still – were really intent on making a case that could stand up in a court of law, they would accept this offer.

If it turned out that the Russian offer was a sham then in that case – but not before – the British government would be entitled to make public inferences from it.

Where does all this leave the case?

I do not know how Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia came to be poisoned.  I have a completely open mind about that and about who may have been responsible.  At this very early stage in the investigation when few facts are known so should everyone else.

The fact that the nerve agent used to poison Skripal apparently has a Russian origin – which is not the same as saying that it was made in Russia – is suggestive and important, but without much more knowledge about the other facts of the case it is impossible to say what weight should be placed on it.

I would refer again to the mistaken way the polonium evidence was initially assessed in the Litvinenko case (see above) and the way that mistaken assessment came to distort the whole conduct of that case.

Which brings me directly to the problem.

Now that the British government right at the beginning of the investigation has publicly declared that the attack on Skripal originated in Russia, with all the indications being that the British government will say tomorrow that the Russian authorities were directly responsible, the future conduct of the investigation has been irredeemably prejudiced.

It is now all but impossible for the British courts and the British police – who are ultimately officials of the British state – to come to any conclusion other than the one the British government has now publicly made for them.

The result is that what might be other promising lines of enquiry in the case will not now be followed up.

Again the lesson of the Litvinenko case is instructive.  Having predetermined Russian guilt on the strength of an assessment of the polonium evidence which turned out to be wrong, it became impossible for the British authorities to draw back, so that the Judge who headed the inquiry into Litvinenko’s death came to the inquiry with his mind made up.

The result was that when the polonium evidence collapsed it was impossible for him to change his mind, so that instead of doing so he hunted around for other ‘evidence’ in order to find a way to make a verdict of Russian guilt, which he came to the inquiry already believing in.

Once upon a time the dangers of rushing prematurely to conclusions about guilt or innocence in a case were well understood in Britain.

Prior to a change in the law in 1981, which effectively abolished the sub judice rule, the sort of speculations that were made in 2006 in the Litvinenko case, and which are being made in the Skripal case today, would have been impossible.

Certainly it is inconceivable that the British government before 1981 would have publicly interfered in a case in the way that Theresa May has just done.

The fact that the British government is now doing so is in some respects even more concerning than the fact and manner of the attack on Skripal.

March 13, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia won’t respond to UK ultimatum until samples of alleged chemical weapon received – Lavrov

RT | March 13, 2018

Moscow will not respond to the British request about a clandestine Soviet chemical weapon allegedly used in an ex-double agent’s poisoning until a sample of the agent is provided, the Russian foreign minister said.

On Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May said a chemical weapon developed under a secret Soviet program dubbed Novichok was used in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. May demanded that Russia provide details of the program, saying otherwise London would consider the poisoning an attack directed by the Russian government.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that it had summoned British Ambassador to Moscow Laurie Bristow. No further details were provided.

“We have certainly heard the ultimatum voiced in London,” Lavrov said on Tuesday. “The spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry has commented on our attitude to this,” he added referring to Maria Zakharova branding of May’s appearance in Parliament as a “circus.”

He added that a case of alleged use of chemical weapons should be handled through the proper channel, being the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – of which both Russia and Britain are members.

“As soon as the rumors came up that the poisoning of Skripal involved a Russia-produced agent, which almost the entire English leadership has been fanning up, we sent an official request for access to this compound so that our experts could test it in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC],” Lavrov said. So far the request has been ignored by the British side, he added.

The minister affirmed that Russia has nothing to do with the poisoning of Skripal and would assist Britain in the investigation, provided that London meets its own obligations as to how such probes are to be handled.

The OPCW rules allow Britain in this case to send a request to Russia on the suspected Russian-made chemical weapon and expect a response within 10 days, Lavrov explained. If the response is not satisfactory, Britain would have to file a complaint with the organization’s executive council and the conference of CWC member-states, he said.

For its part, Russia expects Britain to share evidence on the Skripal case, Lavrov stated. The former double agent and his daughter Yulia, who was also poisoned, hold Russian citizenship, so Russia has a right to know how the apparent attempt on their lives is being investigated, the foreign minister said.

The British theory is that Russia was either directly responsible for the poisoning, or had lost possession of the chemical weapon that was used. London gave Moscow until Tuesday to explain what had happened.

March 13, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Circus’ at the British Parliament – Russian Foreign Ministry reacts to May’s words on Skripal case

RT | March 12, 2018

A spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry called the hearing at the British parliament on the Skripal case a “circus show.”

“The conclusion is obvious: this is another information and political campaign, based on provocation,” said Maria Zakharova, commenting on the words of Theresa May.

Zakharova’s comments come after May said earlier on Monday that the “attempted murder” of Skripal was either “a direct act by the Russian State against our country, or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

May said that the Russian ambassador to the UK has been summoned to the Foreign Office, and that he must explain which explanation is the correct one. The ambassador has until the end of Tuesday to respond, according to May.

If he does not give a “credible response,” the UK will conclude that the attack involved “unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom.” In that case, May said she will return to the House of Commons to outline retaliatory proposals.

“Before creating new fairy tales, let somebody in the kingdom tell us what was the result of the previous investigations into the Litvinenko, Berezovsky and Perepilichny cases,” Zakharova suggested.

Zakharova’s comments referenced three high-profile deaths which occurred in the UK and were blamed on Russia – despite zero evidence to this day.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov specifically addressed the case of Litvinenko on Friday, noting that the UK’s finger-pointing at Moscow runs parallel to what happened in that case.

“I want to remind people that Litvinenko’s death was also attributed to Russia, but hasn’t been investigated, because court proceedings, which were called ‘public,’ were, in fact, closed. They were carried out in a very strange way, and numerous facts, which emerged throughout the investigation, haven’t come into the public domain,” the minister said.

Litvinenko died in November 2006, after assassins allegedly slipped radioactive polonium 21 into his cup of tea at a London hotel. However, his own brother Maksim stated in 2016 that Britain had more reason to kill Litvinenko than Russia.

In the case of Boris Berezovsky, Putin’s critics have long speculated that the billionaire was murdered by pro-Putin hitmen in 2013. However, British police said in 2013 that there was no evidence of foul play relating to this death.

In addition, no evidence has ever been provided that Russia was behind the death of businessman Aleksandr Perepilichny, who collapsed and died in Surrey, UK, in 2012.

Skripal, 66, and his 33-year-old daughter have been in critical condition in hospital since March 4, when they were found unconscious on a bench outside a shopping center in Salisbury.

March 12, 2018 Posted by | Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Militantly Russophobic UK Extremists

By Stephen Lendman | March 11, 2018

Sergey Skripal’s nerve agent poisoning has Britain in an uproar.

Russophobes are having a field day, Russia bashing at a fever pitch – despite no evidence suggesting Kremlin involvement in what happened.

Irresponsible media reports claim access to nerve agents isn’t possible without state support, Russia alone mentioned.

Nothing was said about possible CIA and/or MI6 responsibility for Skripal’s poisoning, a way perhaps to blame Putin ahead of Russia’s March 18 presidential election – despite no chance of preventing his reelection by an overwhelming majority.

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told parliamentarians “(w)e don’t know exactly what has taken place in Salisbury, but if it’s as bad as it looks, it is another crime in the litany of crimes that we can lay at Russia’s door,” adding:

“It is clear that Russia, I’m afraid, is now in many respects a malign and disruptive force, and the UK is in the lead across the world in trying to counteract that activity.”

Last November, Theresa May said “It is clear that Russia, I’m afraid, is now in many respects a malign and disruptive force, and the UK is in the lead across the world in trying to counteract that activity.”

Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson sounded buffoon-like earlier, warning of possible Russian attacks on UK infrastructure, causing “thousands and thousands and thousands” of deaths.

In response to Skripal’s poisoning, he shamefully accused Moscow of “push(ing) around” Britain, adding:

“Russia’s being assertive. Russia’s being more aggressive, and we have to change the we change the way we deal with it.”

Former minister Edward Leigh claimed circumstantial evidence against Russia is “very strong,” adding if the Kremlin “is behind this, this is a brazen act of war, of humiliating our country.”

On Saturday, Home Secretary Amber Rudd convened a COBRA crisis committee hearing to discuss what happened, involving UK intelligence, security and other officials.

Around 200 soldiers were sent to Salisbury to help police investigate the Skripal poisoning incident. Included are bomb disposal specialists, chemical warfare experts, marines and RAF personnel.

Russia’s embassy in London tweeted the following: “Investigation of Sergei Skripal case follows the Litvinenko script: most info to be classified, Russia to get no access to investigation files and no opportunity to assess its credibility.”

Alexander Litvinenko died from polonium-210 poisoning in 2006, Russia automatically blamed at the time for what happened to its former Federal Security Service/KGB official in Britain.

No evidence suggests Kremlin involvement in either poisoning incident. They may have been false flags, wrongfully pointing fingers at Russia.

March 12, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia leads flood of arms imports to Middle East: Study

Press TV – March 12, 2018

A study shows weapons imports to the Middle East and Asia have soared over the past five years, with Saudi Arabia leading the steep rise amid its bloody war on Yemen.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), arms imports to the Middle East between 2013 and 2017 jumped by 103 percent compared with the previous five-year period.

Saudi Arabia is now the world’s second largest importer of arms after India. The kingdom registered a 225-percent rise in military purchases – almost all from the US and Europe – during the period, the study released on Monday said.

American weapons constitute 61 percent of arms imports to Saudi Arabia and British weapons 23 percent. During the period, the Saudis received 78 combat aircraft, 72 combat helicopters, 328 tanks and 4,000 vehicles, the SIPRI noted.

The same period, it said, saw Israel increasing its arms exports by 55 percent.

“The US and European states remain the main arms exporters to the region and supplied over 98 percent of weapons imported by Saudi Arabia,” it said.

On Friday, Saudi Arabia signed a preliminary deal to buy 48 Typhoon jets worth as much as $10 billion.

Saudi Arabia already operates more than 70 Typhoon jets. They have been used extensively in the Yemen war, and the deal is likely to spark outrage among rights groups and campaigners.

Arms remain the main component of UK-Saudi trade and the UK government has approved the export of $6.4 billion in weapons since the start of the war in Yemen, despite allegations that Saudi-led forces have committed war crimes.

The United Kingdom has increased its weapons sales by around 500 percent since March 2015, The Independent reported last November.

Last May, US President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia in his first foreign visit, signing a $110-billion deal to sell weapons to the kingdom.

“Widespread violent conflict in the Middle East and concerns about human rights have led to political debate in Western Europe and North America about restricting arms sales,” said senior SIPRI researcher Pieter Wezeman.

“Yet the US and European states remain the main arms exporters to the region and supplied over 98 percent of weapons imported by Saudi Arabia.”

More than 13,600 people have died since the Saudi-led invasion began, and Yemen has turned into the scene of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

March 12, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK to Roll Out Its Version of Magnitsky Act Amid Ex-Russian Spy’s Case – Reports

Sputnik – 11.03.2018

The United Kingdom is going to introduce its version of the Magnitsky Act targeting Russian nationals, including officials who are accused of violating human rights and of corruption, the Telegraph newspaper reported Sunday.

According to the media, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Amber Rudd have already agreed that the United Kingdom will impose sanctions similar to the Magnitsky Act.

The move comes amid the incident around former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter who were exposed to a nerve agent on Monday. Western media accused Moscow of orchestrating the assassination of the ex-spy.

The United States adopted the so-called Magnitsky Act, which imposes travel bans and financial sanctions on Russian officials and other individuals believed to have been involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, in late 2012. The Hermitage Capital Management hedge fund lawyer was arrested in Moscow in 2008 on charges of tax evasion and later died of heart failure while in prison.

In December 2016, then-US President Barack Obama signed into law the Global Magnitsky Act, which expands the Russia-specific sanctions to other countries.

READ MORE: 

UK Cabinet Committee to Hold Emergency Meeting on Russian Ex-Spy Poisoning

March 11, 2018 Posted by | Economics, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Short of engaging in combat’: UK has Al Saud’s back in Yemen war

By Dan Glazebrook | RT | March 9, 2018

London was not a coincidental choice of Saudi Arabia’s new Crown Prince for his first official visit to the Western world. The UK has been deeply involved in the brutal war the Saudis are waging on Yemen.

When it began three years ago this month, the then-foreign minister Philip Hammond explained that Britain’s policy was to support the war “in every practical way short of engaging in combat.”

He has been true to his word. Since then, not only has Britain licenced over £6 billion ($8.3 billion) worth of military equipment, but has supplied no less than 166 personnel to assist the Saudi arms forces, including several officers deployed in the air-force control room, advising on targeting. Britain provides training to Saudi air-force pilots and battlefield skills to Saudi infantry – including, it was recently revealed, training specifically tailored to Yemeni terrain. On the diplomatic front, the UK has repeatedly used its position on the UN Security Council to block UN investigations into war crimes committed by the Saudi-led coalition, much to the disgust of many of its European partners. In sum, Yemen is being destroyed by British-made missiles, dropped from British planes, by British-trained pilots.

As the eminent international lawyer Philippe Sands QC told a UK parliament select committee, – as the UK government continues to do – “that the United Kingdom is not involved” in the Yemen war. This involvement is not limited to mere support, however, what is becoming increasingly clear is that Britain is playing a leading role in the war’s strategic direction.

In late 2016, the “Yemen Quartet” was set up – a ministerial-level grouping of the four main powers responsible for the war – the UK, the US, the KSA, and the UAE. Their meetings have been sporadic, but over the past four months, they have become much more frequent, usually at Britain’s behest. But what is particularly noteworthy is that every single major strategic shift in the war’s execution in recent months has coincided with a meeting of the Quartet called by Boris Johnson. Clearly, the Foreign Office mandarins responsible for planning the Yemen war have been working overtime.

On November 29, Theresa May was in Riyadh, meeting with King Salman. At the same time, Johnson was hosting a meeting of the Quartet, attended by the foreign ministers of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with the US under-secretary of state. That very day, the forces of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh turned on their erstwhile allies in the Houthi-led Ansar Allah movement in what was heralded as the most significant shift in the war to date.

A few days later, on December 2, Saleh announced his formal defection to the Saudis, a move immediately followed by the launching of a new offensive aimed at the Houthi-held port city of Hodeidah under the auspices of a newly created military alliance between the UAE and the Saudis. Saleh’s defection was supposed to tip the balance against the Houthis, but his assassination two days later left his forces in disarray, allowing the Houthis to more firmly secure the areas under their control.

Nevertheless, the move had clearly been well coordinated with the powers waging war on Yemen, with intense Saudi airstrikes immediately launched in support of Saleh’s move against the Houthis. Meanwhile, the Saudis wanted to know that the offensive on Hodeidah – which had been vigorously opposed by aid agencies as likely to create a famine, and had even been blocked by President Obama when suggested the previous year – had the blessing of their Anglo-American sponsors.

The simultaneous meetings in London and Riyadh were precisely such a demonstration of that support. Less than two weeks after this meeting, and just four days into the new Red Sea offensive, Boris Johnson was in Abu Dhabi, discussing the Yemen war with the most powerful figures in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, their Crown Princes Mohammad bin Salman and Mohammad bin Zayed, followed by another meeting of the Quartet.

On January 23, the Quartet met again, this time in Paris, and again at the instigation of Boris Johnson. This came hot on the heels of the UN’s humanitarian response plan published three days earlier, which explained that the war had driven a further one million people to brink of famine since last year (leaving a total of eight million facing extreme malnutrition), and pushed another 3.5 million to dependence on aid, reaching a total of over 22 million – three-quarters of the population.

Clearly a PR offensive was going to be necessary. The groundwork had already been laid by the Saudi’s “Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations” plan, announced to the media the day before the Quartet meeting by a British PR company made up of former employees of the disgraced Bell Pottinger. The plan, which proposes to tighten up the blockade of Houthi-controlled ports – a blockade which is already helping to starve 130 children to death every day – essentially dresses up new war crimes as nothing more than heartfelt philanthropy.

Just three weeks later, on February 15, Johnson called another meeting of the Quartet – attended for the first time by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. This meeting occurred as coalition forces had been making slow but steady progress through Hodeidah province and were poised to take their battle to Hodeidah city itself. Once again, such a devastating move for the Yemeni population meant all four powers sought reassurance that the planned slaughter had the blessing of all the others at the highest governmental level.

The following day, the UK put forward a motion to the Security Council praising Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their humanitarian efforts in Yemen, and on February 20, the Emirati press announced that the push on Hodeidah city would begin within days, to be led by Saleh’s nephew. The four protagonists were united in their plans to intensify the strangulation of the Yemeni people.

The reasons for this deep British determination to wage war on Yemen go back over a century, when Britain decided to help the Saudi family secure their rule of the peninsula in the knowledge that their sectarianism and lack of popular legitimacy would make them forever dependent on outside colonial support. The one potential thorn in the side to this plan has always been Yemen, whose population outnumber those of every other country on the peninsula put together, and whose historic civilization appears to give the Sauds an inferiority complex.

The British have always understood that an independent Yemen is the greatest threat to Western domination of the Arab peninsula, and have consistently sought to smash the possibility every time it rears its head. This week’s meeting shows that even the obliteration of the entire country is deemed acceptable in pursuit of this goal.

Dan Glazebrook is a freelance political writer who has written for RT, Counterpunch, Z magazine, the Morning Star, the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent and Middle East Eye, amongst others. His first book “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis” was published by Liberation Media in October 2013. It featured a collection of articles written from 2009 onwards examining the links between economic collapse, the rise of the BRICS, war on Libya and Syria and ‘austerity’. He is currently researching a book on US-British use of sectarian death squads against independent states and movements from Northern Ireland and Central America in the 1970s and 80s to the Middle East and Africa today.

Read more:

‘Toxic, damaging & shameful’: Fury as UK and Saudi Arabia sign huge arms deal

March 11, 2018 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »