Le Figaro deletes SCALP missile claim
RT | November 18, 2024
The French daily Le Figaro has walked back its claim that France and the UK have allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles they have supplied to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. The original claim appeared shortly after the New York Times reported on Sunday that outgoing US President Joe Biden had given Kiev the green light for such strikes.
The UK was the first to provide Ukraine with its long-range Storm Shadow missiles back in May 2023, with France following suit several months later, with its own version of the system, named SCALP. The US delivered its ATACMS rockets in the fall of that year.
Despite Kiev’s repeated requests to allow it to use the weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia, its Western backers had until recently publicly refused to acquiesce, citing concerns over potential uncontrollable escalation.
In its now-amended article on Sunday, Le Figaro originally claimed that the “French and the British had authorized Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with their SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles.”
However, in an updated version of the piece, any mention of the supposed permission or SCALP/Storm Shadow rockets is gone. The initial wording is, however, still accessible in a cached snapshot of the report.
Speaking to reporters ahead of an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels on Monday, France’s top diplomat, Jean-Noel Barrot, clarified that there was “nothing new” with respect to Paris’ stance on long-range strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory, adding that such a scenario remained an option.
On Sunday, the New York Times, citing anonymous US officials, reported that the White House had given the green light for Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s Kursk Region, using US-supplied ATACMS missiles.
The NYT and several other media outlets have reported that Washington could extend its approval to allow Ukraine to strike other parts of Russia.
Neither the White House nor the Pentagon has commented on the matter.
In his video address on Sunday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky cautiously welcomed the reported development, stressing that “strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced.”
“Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will,” he added, without elaborating.
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told media outlets on Monday that if confirmed, Biden’s reported decision would constitute a “qualitatively new round of tension.”
Back in September, President Vladimir Putin warned that since Ukrainian forces lack the necessary capabilities and knowledge to use Western-supplied long-range missiles, permission for strikes deep into Russia would mean that “NATO countries [have] become directly involved in the military conflict.”
Scholz desperately tries to prevent Germany from being seen as open enemy by Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | November 18, 2024
The recent phone call between Olaf Scholz and Vladimir Putin has caused a lot of controversy in Western politics. The German leader has been criticized for his relatively diplomatic stance, since most Western politicians believe Moscow should be treated as an “international pariah”. However, the moves made by the US, France and the UK shortly after Scholz’s call may be the main explanation for his contact with the Russian president.
Recently, the German Chancellor called the Russian President and held a conversation lasting about an hour on sensitive topics in bilateral relations. Commenting on the details of the conversation, Scholz explained that this was an opportunity to reaffirm the German and European stance and to make it clear to Putin that support for Kiev will not wane. He also said that he considers it important to maintain dialogue with Russia, despite his publicly pro-Ukrainian stance on the conflict, and emphasized the necessity of European leaders participating in the diplomatic process. In addition, Scholz surprisingly promised to call Putin again in the future.
“The conversation was very detailed but contributed to a recognition that little has changed in the Russian president’s views of the war – and that’s not good news (…) It was important to tell him [Putin] that he cannot count on support [for Kiev] from Germany, Europe, and many others in the world waning (…) There are those in Germany who consider the lack of negotiations with Putin a good idea, but I am not one of them (…) Soon I will talk to the president of Russia again (…) In my view, it would not be a good idea if there were talks between the American and Russian presidents and the leader of an important European country was not also doing so,” he said.
The reaction to Scholz’s initiative was extremely negative. Vladimir Zelensky said that the German leader had opened a “Pandora’s box” by starting a dialogue with Putin. Zelensky emphasized his unrealistic desires for victory, stating that there will be no “Minsk 3.0” and tacitly promising to take the war to its ultimate consequences.
“Chancellor Scholz told me that he was going to call Putin (…) Now there may be other conversations, other calls (…) We know how to act. And we want to warn: there will be no ‘Minsk-3’. We need real peace,” Zelensky said.
In fact, the conversation between Scholz and Putin seemed at first to be yet another move in the direction of Europe’s attempt to take a leading role in an alleged “peace process” that some EU diplomats have been trying to promote since Donald Trump’s victory. However, the recent announcement that the US has lifted restrictions on “deep” strikes against Russia may be an interesting key to understand the real purpose of the phone call.
On November 17, several Western media outlets announced that Joe Biden had lifted restrictions on the use of American long-range weapons against targets in Russia’s “deep” territory. In addition, shortly after the announcement, rumors emerged, which have not yet been officially denied, that France and the UK had followed the American example and also authorized such operations by Ukraine.
As Russian officials have repeatedly stated, this is an irreversible escalation of the conflict, as it substantially changes the nature of the war. Long-range weapons are not operated by Ukrainian military personnel, but by NATO specialists illegally sent to the battlefield. Until now, Moscow has been tolerant of the use of such weapons inside the New Regions, since the West considers them Ukrainian territories. However, long-range strikes inside the territory that the West recognizes as Russian would mean incursions by NATO itself into the Russian Federation, which would legitimize, in accordance with recent changes in Russian military doctrine, a nuclear response.
Joe Biden is apparently using his final days in the White House to destroy the entire global security architecture and then give to Donald Trump a world at open global war. US’ main military allies in Europe, the UK and France, are following this same path and co-participating in the Biden-led catastrophe. However, Scholz seems cautious. Germany has so far not supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, with Scholz saying “Germany has made a clear decision about what we will do and what we will not do,” and that “this decision will not change.”
Of course, significant decisions are not made in a hurry. The authorization of the strikes was certainly planned for a long time and Biden chose precisely the current moment, during the G20 Summit in Brazil, to lift the restrictions without causing a major political and media impact, hoping that the world would be distracted by the event bringing together the main global leaders in Rio de Janeiro.
In this sense, it is possible that Scholz knew in advance of what was about to happen and decided to talk to Putin beforehand to make it clear that Germany would not send long-range weapons and, therefore, would not be participating in the escalation promoted by Biden. In this way, Scholz hopes to spare Berlin from the possible devastating consequences that an unrestricted war between Russia and NATO would cause.
There are two facts that advocate this assessment. Scholz recently blamed support for Ukraine for the crisis in his government. The coalition backing the German chancellor has collapsed and he now appears worried about the future of his position. This may be driving him to act desperately to avoid even more negative consequences for his government.
Furthermore, on the same day that the restrictions were lifted, German defense minister Boris Pistorius made a public statement emphasizing Germany’s position not to send long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, stating that such a move would mean direct German involvement in the conflict.
“The Taurus would not be a game changer. Our mission is different. We now have to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive sustainable supplies (…) It would only be tenable to deliver [these weapons] if we determine and define the targets ourselves, and that is again not possible if you don’t want to be part of this conflict,” he said.
It is difficult to believe that all these moves are mere coincidence. Scholz has acted irresponsibly since the beginning of the conflict, but he seems completely incapable of dealing with an uncontrolled escalation. The chancellor is afraid of what the war could bring to Germany and to himself if the point of no return is crossed. His call to Putin was a desperate attempt to free Germany from the consequences of the war. It remains to be seen whether he will have enough political strength to resist the pressure from his own Western “partners” from now on.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
To secure peace in Ukraine, Trump must review misguided western sanctions
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 17, 2024
Following Trump’s election, there has been much speculation about how the war in Ukraine might end. But to understand how it might end, it’s vital to understand how it started.
The origins of the war in Ukraine can be traced back to the ouster of Ukrainian President Yanukovych in February 2014. Russia labelled it a coup, realists would say it was unconstitutional change in power, and U.S. & British officials would shrug their shoulders.
After Russia occupied Crimea and as insurgency broke out in the Donbas, the French and Germans launched a peace process involving the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine. From this so-called ‘Normandy format’ emerged two peace deals named the Minsk agreements. But the UK was sidelined from the peace process and the Americans suspicious of it.
Left out, Britian, supported by the U.S., pushed sanctions as the primary vehicle to contain Russia, running counter to what the French and Germans were trying to achieve. By the summer of 2015, the Minsk agreements had become sidelined, and sanctions were set in stone.
Since that time, Russia has become the most sanctioned country on the planet. Thirty-three western countries, led by the USA, imposed more than twenty thousand sanctions against Russian people and companies. That’s fifteen times more sanctions than Iran in a distant second place.
If we could completely cut Russia’s economic ties with the west, so the theory went, then that would be so damaging that Russia would have to withdraw from Ukraine. Western powers therefore sanctioned everything that they could, from money, ships, oil, gold, diamonds, weapons and all manner of hi-tech components. But from a very early stage, it was clear that sanctions weren’t altering Russian policy to Ukraine, quite the opposite.
When I left the Foreign Office in 2023, the UK government with its western partners, had gone through all the sanctions that they thought might weaken Russia. The west could probably find more people or entities to sanction. But policy makers never really gripped Russian gas, as some European countries still rely on it. And anyway, the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline solved that conundrum. Russian oligarchs that had political connections in the west were spared as were Russian companies that owned factories in the USA, to prevent American job losses. But we hit most things and neared the bottom of the barrel.
Yet, Russia’s economy always seemed to bounce back. That’s partly because, sanctions were never as big a deal as other events that moved the global economy, such as the oil price collapses in 2014 and 2016 and Covid. But it was also because Russia continually adapted its macroeconomic policy to absorb and, in the end, profit from sanctions. Following an immediate post-sanctions contraction of economic growth in 2022, Russia has grown more strongly than the western countries that imposed sanctions.
Western powers therefore needed something stronger, so sanctions evolved into a political tool to isolate Russia on the world stage. The USA, European Union and other countries including Japan and Australia sanctioned every possible type of economic, social and cultural activity involving Russia. Western academics no longer collaborate with Russian academics. Russian airliners can’t pass over western airspace and vice versa. Border posts have been closed or minimised. Russia can’t compete in international sporting events or even the Eurovision song contest.
Russian Ministers are subjected to indignant walkouts by western diplomats and ministers at international gatherings. Ordinary Russian people were denied a weekend ParkRun. Ukraine did its part, cancelling the Russian Orthodox church and going on a propaganda offensive with any western company that sold goods with the word ‘Russia’ in their branding.
And yet, outside of the west, Russia’s standing on the global stage doesn’t seem to be in decline. In a process accelerated by the Ukraine war, Russia, with China, has spearheaded a rapid shift by the developing world to create their own formats for dialogue and cooperation. There are over 200 countries on this planet, so the wealthy ‘west’ is in a minority. The BRICS group has grown rapidly, with a long queue of countries waiting to join, including NATO member Turkey. Vladimir Putin has an International Criminal Court arrest warrant out on him, yet he still travels freely to ‘friendly’ countries, where he receives the red-carpet treatment. He recently hosted a successful BRICS summit in Kazan while war continued to rage in Ukraine.
War started in February 2022 a few days after the Ukrainian government finally signalled the death knell of the Minsk peace agreements. But the point is that the Minsk agreement was [not] necessarily bad; it’s simply that the U.S. and UK invested significant efforts in ensuring its failure.
Sanctions never looked likely to prevent war, nor force its end, despite the death or injury to over one million people and a vast exodus of Ukraine’s population. War in Ukraine became reduced to the brutal, bloody town by town fighting in Europe after D-Day, while life in the west, and in Russia, carried on almost as normal. Fighting alone, Ukraine has never had sufficient resources to survive and never will.
There is a strong case that sanctions created the conditions for war to erupt, by undermining the very peace process – the Normandy Format – that was established to prevent it. And that the west’s continued blind faith in sanctions took us to the brink of a doomsday scenario, more horrific than the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Western leaders, not wanting war themselves, focussed blindly on supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. But the notion of ‘as long as it takes’ became tarnished with increasing numbers of western politicians started complaining that it is taking too long. Not least as the economics and demographics of war still show that Russia can continue fighting for as long as it takes, and that Vladimir Putin has the domestic political support to do that.
So, beyond the hype, if Trump is serious about ending the war in Ukraine, he must look at its origins. A ceasefire alone won’t cut it with Putin. There needs finally to be a peace proposal that includes targeted sanctions reduction. That, and a final reckoning with the NATO membership issue, the brightest red line of all.
The CIA/MI6 Skripal Conspiracy Exposed
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | November 17, 2024
On October 14th, a much-delayed inquiry into the mysterious death of Dawn Sturgess, a British citizen who died in July 2018 after reputedly coming into contact with Novichok nerve agent left in England by a pair of Russian assassins, finally commenced. Already, the public show trial has unearthed tantalising evidence gravely undermining the official narrative of the poisoning of GRU defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, in March that year.
These revelations emerged despite the British state’s best efforts to sabotage the inquiry, and curtail its ability to ascertain the truth. For one, the Skripals have been prevented from testifying, despite formally requesting to do so. Such is the apparent risk of Russian intelligence attempting to target the pair anew, not even their video-recorded police interviews from the time can be entered into evidence. Meanwhile, the urgent question of what British intelligence and security services knew, and when they knew it, will not be explored.
Yet, primary source evidence British spies and their American counterparts were well-aware the two Russians accused of attempting to murder the Skripals were visiting Britain in advance of their arrival has lain in plain sight for years. Whether such foreknowledge implies the CIA and MI6 were in reality behind the abortive hit remains a matter of interpretation – but that the CIA and MI6 sought to exploit the Russian presence in Salisbury for their own malign purposes is beyond doubt.
In January 2021, US watchdog group American Oversight released hundreds of pages of emails sent to and from the personal address of Mike Pompeo, CIA director January 2017 – April 2018. In many cases, the emails were official Agency communications discussing matters of extreme sensitivity, conducted off-books. The records – heavily redacted under the US National Security Act – show that on March 1st 2018, Pompeo was approached by two high-ranking CIA operatives, who asked for a meeting on a “very urgent matter”. They added:
“A very positive opportunity is within reach but requires your engagement because of the urgency…I am convinced that this is a very promising opportunity.”
Pompeo responded in the affirmative, and the meeting went ahead early the next morning. Underlining their covert summit’s importance, the emails indicate CIA staffers were preparing to pitch the “positive opportunity” to the Agency’s chief from the early hours of March 2nd. Eerily, the email requesting Pompeo’s signoff on the proposal was sent less than half an hour after Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, Skripal’s alleged assassins, purchased plane tickets from Moscow to London Gatwick for their Salisbury visit.
‘Strong Option’
Who emailed Pompeo is redacted, although then-CIA deputy director Gina Haspel is an obvious candidate. A longstanding Russia hawk, who cut her Agency teeth recruiting spies in the Soviet Union in the years before its collapse, she twice served as the CIA’s London station chief twice – from 2008 – 2011, and 2014 – 2017. Sergei Skripal arrived in Britain in July 2010 via a grand spy swap during her first tenure, which was negotiated by Haspel’s longtime collaborator Daniel Hoffman, then-CIA Moscow station chief. He was among the very first sources to publicly blame Russia for the Salisbury incident.
During Haspel’s “unusual” second spell in London, Skripal’s enduring connection to his homeland, and yearning to return, would’ve been well-known to British intelligence. Serendipitously, BBC veteran Mark Urban serendipitously interviewed the GRU defector in the year prior to his poisoning. He recorded that Skripal was “an unashamed Russian nationalist, enthusiastically adopting the Kremlin line in many matters, even while sitting in his MI6-purchased house.” Coincidentally, Urban once served in the same tank regiment as Pablo Miller, Skripal’s MI6 recruiter/handler, and Salisbury neighbour.
Moreover, former Kremlin official Valery Morozov, an associate of the GRU defector likewise exiled to Britain, claimed days after the poisoning that Skripal remained in “regular” contact with Moscow’s embassy in London, and met with Russian military intelligence officers there “every month”. He also flatly repudiated any suggestion the purported nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia was the work of Russian spies:
“Putin can’t be behind this. I know how the Kremlin works, I worked there. Who is Skripal? He is nothing for Putin. Putin doesn’t think about him. There is nobody in Kremlin talking about former intelligence officer [sic] who is nobody. There is no reason for this. It is more dangerous for them for such things to happen.”
That this information was not shared with Haspel stretches credulity. The Washington Post has reported how her time in Britain made her the personal “linchpin” of the CIA’s relationship with MI6, the Agency’s “most important foreign partner.” Her British colleagues gushed to the outlet, “she knows them so well… they call her the ‘honorary UK desk officer’.” Haspel regularly drew on this experience to “stabilize the transatlantic alliance” between London and Washington, which was frequently strained while she was CIA director May 2018 – January 2021.
This friction resulted in no small part from Trump legitimately accusing British chaos agents of “conspiring with American intelligence to spy on his presidential campaign,” charges that “rattled the British government at the highest levels.” Strikingly, a cited example of Haspel stabilising CIA relations with MI6 provided by WaPo was convincing a highly reluctant President to back the Western-wide expulsion of Russian diplomats, encouraged by London in the Salisbury incident’s wake.
How Haspel pressed Trump over Salisbury was revealed in April 2019. The New York Times reported that the President at first downplayed Skripal’s alleged poisoning and refused to respond, believing the apparent attack to be “legitimate spy games, distasteful but within the bounds of espionage.” However, Haspel successfully lobbied Trump to take the “strong option” of expelling Russian embassy staff in the US, by providing him with British-sourced “emotional images”:
“Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives… Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option.”
‘Operation Foot’
The New York Times exposé caused a stir upon release, not least because the “emotional images” described had never hitherto been published or referred to in the mainstream media. While the Skripals giving bread to three local boys to feed ducks in Salisbury’s Avon Playground on March 4th 2018 was initially widely reported, no media outlet, government minister, spokesperson, health professional or law enforcement official had ever previously claimed children and/or waterfowl were “sickened” after coming into contact with Novichok. The reverse, in fact.
On March 26th that year, the Daily Mail recorded that the boys given bread by the Skripals – one of whom apparently ate some – were “rushed to hospital for blood tests amid fears they’d been poisoned,” but promptly discharged after being given “the all-clear.” Moreover, two days after the New York Times article was published, British health officials issued a statement not only refuting the report entirely, but denying any children were admitted to hospital in Salisbury as a result of Novichok exposure at all.
Subsequently, the New York Times radically amended its piece, removing any suggestion Haspel showed Trump photos of Novichok victims provided by the British. In fact, the newspaper reverse-ferreted, she had “displayed pictures illustrating the consequences of nerve agent attacks, not images specific to the chemical attack in Britain.” The question of whether the aforementioned images did exist, and were forged by British intelligence for the explicit purpose of bouncing Trump into a hostile anti-Russia stance, remains thoroughly open five-and-a-half years later.
After all, British spies had been planning and hoping for a mass defenestration of Russian diplomats globally, as a prelude to all-out war with Moscow, for years by that point. In January 2015, MI6/NATO front the Institute for Statecraft (IFS) a document setting out “potential levers” for achieving “regime change” in Russia, spanning “diplomacy”, “finance”, “security”, “technology”, “industry”, “military”, and even “culture”. One “lever”, which IFS listed thrice, stated:
“Simultaneously expel every [Russian] intelligence officer and air/defence/naval attaché from as many countries as possible (global ‘Operation Foot’).”
Operation Foot saw 105 Soviet officials deported from Britain in September 1971. Several mainstream media outlets referenced this incident when reporting on London successfully corralling 26 countries – including, of course, the US – into expelling over 150 Russian diplomatic staff in response to the Salisbury incident in March 2018. As a result, IFS got one step closer to its longstanding objective of “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Russia, which “Britain and the West could win.”
Fast forward to today, and Britain and the West are on the verge of losing that conflict once and for all. Meanwhile, the Salisbury incident’s ever-fluctuating official narrative continues to shift radically, in ways large and small. Contrary to all prior media reports on the matter, the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry has now been told one boy given bread by the Skripals to feed ducks actually “got sick” as a result, and he and his friends “were unwell for a day or two afterwards.”
This fresh rewriting neatly ties in with the highly controversial claim, unflinchingly clung to by British authorities, that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok smeared on the doorknob of Sergei’s home on the morning of March 4th 2018, before heading into Salisbury. As subsequent investigations will show, available evidence – including Yulia Skripal’s own hospital bed testimony – points unmistakably to the pair being attacked elsewhere, at another time and by another means entirely, with British and American intelligence square in the frame.
Yulia Skripal Reveals the Biggest Secret of All at Novichok Show Trial…
… the Attack Was a British Operation, Not a Russian One
By John Helmer | Dances With Bears | November 16, 2024
Yulia Skripal communicated from her bedside at Salisbury District Hospital on March 8, 2018, four days after she and her father Sergei Skripal collapsed from a poison attack, that the attacker used a spray; and that the attack took place when she and her father were eating at a restaurant just minutes before their collapse on a bench outside.
The implication of the Skripal evidence, revealed for the first time on Thursday, is that the attack on the Skripals was not perpetrated by Russian military agents who were photographed elsewhere in Salisbury town at the time; that the attacker or attackers were British agents; and that if their weapon was a nerve agent called Novichok, it came, not from Moscow, but from the UK Ministry of Defence chemical warfare laboratory at Porton Down.
Porton Down’s subsequent evidence of Novichok contamination in blood samples, clothing, car, and home of the Skripals may therefore be interpreted as British in source, not Russian.
This evidence was revealed by a police witness testifying at the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry in London on November 14. The police officer, retired Detective Inspector Keith Asman was in 2018, and he remains today the chief of forensics for the Counter Terrorism Policing (CTPSE) group which combines the Metropolitan and regional police forces with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Security Service (MI5).
According to Asman’s new disclosure, Yulia Skripal had woken from a coma and confirmed to the doctor at her bedside that she remembered the circumstances of the attack on March 4. What she remembered, she signalled, was not (repeat not) the official British Government narrative that Russian agents had tried to kill them by poisoning the front door-handle of the family home.
The new evidence was immediately dismissed by the Sturgess Inquiry lawyer assisting Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley), the judge directing the Inquiry. “We see there,” the lawyer put to Asman as a leading question, “the suggestion, which we now know not to be right, of course”. — page 72.
Hughes then interrupted to tell the witness to disregard what Skripal had communicated. “If the record that you were given there is right, someone suggested to her ‘Had you been sprayed’. She didn’t come up with it herself.” — page 73. Hughes continued to direct the forensics chief to disregard the hearsay of Skripal. “Anyway the suggestion that she had been sprayed in the restaurant didn’t fit with your investigations? A. [Asman] No, sir. LORD HUGHES: Thank you.”
So far in in the Inquiry which began public sessions on October 14, this is the first direct sign of suppression of evidence by Hughes.
Hearsay, he indicates, should be disregarded if it comes from the target of attack, Yulia Skripal. However, hearsay from British Government officials, policemen, and chemical warfare agents at Porton Down must be accepted instead. Hughes has also banned Yulia and Sergei Skripal from testifying at the Inquiry.
The lawyer appointed and paid by the Government to represent the Skripals in the inquiry hearings said nothing to acknowledge the new disclosure nor to challenge Hughes’s efforts to suppress it.
Asman described his career and credentials in his witness statement to the Inquiry, dated October 23, 2024. His rank when he retired from the regular police forces in 2009 was detective inspector. He was then promoted to higher ranking posts at the operations coordinating group known as Counter Terrorism Policing for the Southeast Region (CTPSE). By 2018 Asman says he was “head of the National Counter Terrorism Forensics Working Group since 2012, and was the UK Counter Terrorism Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) forensic lead.” In June 2015 Asman was awarded the Order of the British Empire (MBE) “for services to Policing.”
At page 19 of his recent witness statement, this is what Asman has recorded for the evening of March 8, 2018:
Source: https://dsiweb-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/INQ006140_strong-compression.pdf — page 19.
Asman’s went on to claim in this statement: “At this point Yulia Skripal was described as being emotional and fell unconscious. I made notes of my conversation with DI [Detective Inspector] VN104 in one of my notebooks, and in addition this information was confirmed to me in writing the next morning. The information she provided about being sprayed at the restaurant [Zizzi] was seemingly inconsistent with the presence of novichok at the Mill public house and 47 Christie Miller Road. On hearing this, I personally wondered whether Yulia Skripal knew more about it than she had alluded to and therefore whilst being fully cognisant of the SIO’s [Senior Investigative Officer] hypothesis and the need to be open-minded continued to prioritise her property.”
THE SCENE OF THE NOVICHOK CRIME
The Skripals reportedly spent 45 minutes at lunch in Zizzi’s restaurant. Witnesses described Sergei Skripal as upset when he left with Yulia to walk to the bench. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/
THE EVIDENCE THE CRIME WAS BRITISH
Left: Yulia Skripal in May 2018, the scar of forced intubation still visible; read more here. Centre; Dr Stephen Cockroft who recorded the exchange with Skripal at her bedside on March 8, 2018; that was followed, Cockroft has also testified, by forced sedation and tracheostomy – read more. Right: read the only book on the case evidence.
Open-minded was not what the judge and his lawyers wanted from Asman when he appeared in public for the first time on Thursday, November 14. Referring precisely to the excerpt of Skripal’s hospital evidence, Francesca Whitelaw KC for the Inquiry asked Asman: “ We can take that [witness statement excerpt] down, but this information as well, was it consistent or inconsistent with what you had found out in terms of forensic about the presence of Novichok at The Mill and 47 Christie Miller Road? A. [Asman] It, I would say, was inconsistent on the basis that she said she was sprayed in the restaurant.” — page 73.
Asman was then asked by Whitelaw to comment on Yulia Skripal’s exchange with Cockroft. “My question for you is: how, if at all, this impacted on your investigations? A. It only very slightly impacted on it… It was information to have but not necessarily going to change my approach on anything.” — page 73.
Left, Francesca Whitelaw KC, counsel assisting Hughes, asked Asman about Yulia Skripal’s hospital evidence – click to watch from Minute 2:01:27. Right: Hughes interrupting the witness to dismiss Skripal’s evidence from Min 2:03:23. On Hughes’s order, Asman’s face was not transmitted during his testimony, and the audio record was delayed by ten minutes before broadcast.
In the Inquiry record of hearings and exhibits since the commencement of the open sessions on October 14, there have been eleven separate exhibits of documents purporting to record what Yulia and Sergei Skripal have said; they include interviews with police and witness statements for the Inquiry; they are dated from April 2018 through October 2024. Most of them have been heavily redacted. None of them is signed by either Skripal.
Neither Yulia nor Sergei Skripal has been asked by the police, by the Inquiry lawyers, or by Hughes to confirm or deny whether Yulia’s recollection of March 8, 2018, of the spray attack in Zizzi’s Restaurant is still their evidence of what happened to them.
Top Ukrainian academic claims British publisher censoring truth
A Canada-based professor says Routledge is demanding that he include Western-backed conspiracy theories in a new book
RT | November 15, 2024
A leading academic on Ukraine has accused prominent British publisher Routledge of attempting to censor his new book, claiming the company demands he include “alternative” perspectives in his analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Ivan Katchanovski, a University of Ottawa professor originally from Western Ukraine, is known for his forensic debunking of popular myths around the so-called Maidan coup in Kiev, and a critical stance towards Kiev’s pro-Western, post-Maidan government.
In a series of X posts on Thursday, Katchanovski claimed that Routledge, under contract to publish his book “From the Maidan to the Russia-Ukraine War,” is refusing to release it unless he revises the manuscript to include Western-backed conspiracy theories.
He specifically mentioned the publisher’s request to reflect “alternative sources” on contentious issues such as the Nord Stream bombing and the blocking of peace talks in 2022, which Katchanovski says were hindered by the US and the UK.
Katchanovski wrote: “Routledge states that my book cannot be published unless I would revise the entire manuscript… and would use other perspectives and alternative sources concerning the Russia-Ukraine war, the peace deal, the Nord Stream bombing, and all other issues I examine, including the Maidan massacre.” He argues that the demands are politically motivated and prevent him from presenting his findings based on the facts.
According to the academic, his book has garnered support from several experts. One unnamed peer reviewer described it as “an important contribution” to the study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, noting its “unsurpassed broad empirical base.” Another reviewer stated that Katchanovski’s work has “withstood criticism” and is highly respected within the academic community.
The professor built his reputation on his evidence-based research, including an analysis of the 2014 Maidan sniper incident, which he claims, using forensic video analysis, was a false flag operation used to justify the ousting of Ukraine’s then president, Victor Yanukovich. This theory, which contradicts the official Western narrative, was met with criticism from pro-Maidan voices when first proposed, but Katchanovski continues to be cited by scholars and analysts.
Katchanovski says he faces the choice of either revising his manuscript to fit Routledge’s requirements or canceling the contract altogether. He refuses to commit “academic fraud,” stating, “I cannot base my book on politically convenient narratives and sources propagated by any government and media.”
Routledge, a major academic publishing house, has yet to comment on Katchanovski’s allegations. The publisher is known for its books in the humanities and social sciences, but has been accused of yielding to political pressure in recent years.
Katchanovski has suggested that he may seek alternative publishers if Routledge continues to block the release, though this could delay publication of his work by up to a year.
Congressional Investigation into Authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Intensifies
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 15, 2024
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.
The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”
The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform.”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1854563397859193136
CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”
Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CCDH included Kennedy, founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), on its list of “The Disinformation Dozen” when he was still chairman of CHD.
“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”
A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.
CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech
Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.
Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”
Ji told The Defender :
“The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals — we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.
“Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.”
Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”
Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology — ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ — coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”
Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”
Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”
“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.
CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation
Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.
Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”
The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” — namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.
This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”
A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.
Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.
CCDH, others flee X in protest
Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”
Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”
Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.
According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”
But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.
“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.
Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”
Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:
“Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.
“Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.”
Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’
According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model — characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties — may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”
In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.
According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.
“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.
Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.
According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”
“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.
“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”
Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.
Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”
“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
British Premier tells UK Parliament there is no genocide in Gaza
MEMO | November 13, 2024
UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has told the Parliament on Wednesday that Israel is not committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, Anadolu Agency reports.
During the Prime Minister’s Questions at the House of Commons, Independent lawmaker, Ayoub Khan, raised from Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, who recently claimed that the term genocide referred to “when millions of people lost their lives in comments like Rwanda, the Second World War in the Holocaust” and that using it to describe Gaza “now undermines [its] seriousness”.
Khan then said Lammy’s words are not acceptable.
“Article two of the United Nations Genocide Convention makes it explicitly clear that genocide is not about numbers, it’s about intent. The intent of the Israeli government and the IDF has been explicitly clear in words and in actions over the past 400 days, killed more than 45,000 innocent men, women and children.”
The lawmaker said the Foreign Minister explicitly denied that genocide was even taking place and “suggested that the Israeli army had not yet killed enough Palestinians” to constitute genocide.
“Will the Prime Minister share his definition of genocide with this House?” he asked.
In his response, Starmer said: “It would be wise to start a question like that by reference to what happened in October of last year. I’m well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I’ve never described this as and referred to it as genocide.”
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories who is currently on a UK visit, has repeatedly affirmed her belief that what is happening qualifies as genocide.
European lackeys in panic mode as Trump signals detente with Russia
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 12, 2024
It’s early days yet. However, there are signs that President-elect Trump is moving toward a detente with Russia over Ukraine.
One good sign is that Trump will not invite Mike Pompeo or Nikki Haley to join his cabinet when he is inaugurated as the 47th U.S. president on January 20. Both of these figures were rabid anti-Russia hawks during Trump’s previous administration. There were suggestions that Pompeo and Haley might return with senior posts in his second administration. But Trump has announced the pair will not be offered new positions.
Another positive sign is from people close to Trump’s inner circle who are letting the Kiev regime know – rudely – that the U.S. military aid spigot is being turned off.
Donald Trump has yet to hold a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the Kremlin. But both leaders have already expressed a willingness to negotiate a peaceful settlement over the Ukraine conflict.
Another promising sign of potential detente between the United States and Russia is the sheer panic among European leaders. The news of Trump’s election last week has caused most European elites to scramble like scared children on hearing “boo!”.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron are consoling themselves by urging Europe to “come together” in the wake of Trump’s stunning election victory. The collapse of Germany’s coalition government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is an early casualty of the Trump impact.
European leaders fear that if Trump pulls the plug on military aid to the Kiev regime they will be left holding the can to fund the proxy war against Russia, which the weak European economies have no chance of sustaining.
It’s no secret that the main European states were betting on Democrat candidate Kamala Harris winning the race to the White House. Harris would have ensured the continuation of NATO’s backing for the Kiev regime. With Trump becoming president, all bets are off.
The political price will be ruinous for European leaders who have invested huge political capital in waging war to “defend Ukraine from Russian aggression.” Trump has shown skepticism toward that false narrative. He has told Europe to go it alone if it wants to. And the European Russophobes know they can’t do that.
If Trump follows through on his election promise to negotiate with Putin on a settlement in Ukraine, then the Europeans are going to be left with serious amounts of egg on their faces.
One thing about Trump that is of concern to the Europeans is his frustration with them as being, in his view, freeloaders on American protection. Another is Trump’s vindictive streak. He’s not going to forget that most of the European leaders wanted him to lose the election.
Take Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. His Labour Party sent volunteers over to the U.S. to advise Harris on winning the election. The British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has also been reminded that he previously disparaged Trump as a racist “sociopath.”
Trump’s election is bad news for Britain and there is no doubt that Starmer is now trying to repair post-Brexit relations with Europe as a hedge against the expected chill from Washington during the next four years.
When Britain pulled out of the European Union after its 2016 Brexit referendum, there were high hopes that it could negotiate a special trade deal with the U.S. That deal didn’t work out and looks even less likely now. Hence, Starmer has been busy since taking office in Downing Street trying to restore relations with the EU.
This week, the British leader attended the Armistice ceremony in Paris to commemorate the end of the First World War. The last time a British leader honored that event in Paris was in 1944 when Winston Churchill visited the French capital following its liberation from Nazi occupation.
Macon invited Starmer to lay wreaths in the Champs-Elysee and the Arc de Triomphe.
The choreographed caper of European unity is a reflection of the panic gripping European leaders in the aftermath of Trump’s return to the White House.
But everything is up in the air for the European politicians. Starmer was bending over backward to renew relations with Germany as a way to forge a warmer connection between London and the European Union after years of post-Brexit bitterness, only for that to be thrown into doubt.
Last month saw a landmark security deal between Britain and Germany in which German arms maker Rheinmetall would open a new factory in Britain, and the German Luftwaffe would be able to fly warplanes from an RAF base in Scotland. The deal was touted as “a sign of joint European security in the face of Russian threat.”
With the collapse of the government in Berlin over the unbearable financial costs of the Ukraine war to the German economy, the British security treaty may not materialize. That means a big setback to Starmer’s reset plans with Europe.
Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico are in the minority of European politicians who genuinely welcomed Trump’s election as an opportunity to wind down the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
On the other hand, the ardent NATO warmongers in Europe, including Britain, Germany, France, Poland and the Baltic states now face a desperate dilemma. Along with EU leaders like Von der Leyen and the Dutch NATO chief Mark Rutte, they have all nailed their colors to the mast for continuing the reckless proxy war against Russia.
Trump seems to be showing good sense in calling off that proxy war and finding a way to negotiate sensibly with Russia on detente. Moscow wants its long-term security demands to be met. That means no NATO membership for Ukraine, an end to the NeoNazi regime in Kiev, and recognition of its historical lands in Crimea and the Donbass.
This is all eminently negotiable, and Trump might just be ready to cut a deal to avoid World War Three, as he has repeatedly indicated he would do. That would mean Trump dumping the false narrative that Biden, Harris and the Democrats – and their European vassals – contrived about “defending Ukraine”.
That would leave the European lackeys in a disastrous lurch. How will they explain to their electorates the three-year slaughter in Ukraine? How will they justify the tens of billions of Euros and Sterling wasted on pushing a war that not only destroyed millions of lives but their economies as well?
The stupid European leaders are in panic mode, and that’s a good thing.
The truth is out there, behind all the lies
By Yvonne Ridley | MEMO | November 12, 2024
There is nothing more noble than telling the truth, and yet for simply delivering nothing but the truth Palestinian journalists are being killed; they — and their families — are targeted by Israeli soldiers in Palestine and Lebanon. The death toll of journalists in Gaza alone has risen to 177, with not one newsroom left standing in the enclave.
Meanwhile, professional liars from the Zionist State’s diplomatic corps deny that its army targets journalists deliberately, even when presented with irrefutable evidence. According to Irish journalist Frank McDonald, “These shameless men and women lie on behalf of a country that is itself built on lies, mythology, terrorism, land theft and deep denial of historical truths, especially about Palestine and what successive Israeli governments have done to the Palestinians.”
Despite the rising death toll of journalists and other civilians across Gaza, the occupied West Bank (including Jerusalem) and Lebanon, Israel never tires of telling the world that it is “the only democracy” in the Middle East; we know that is simply not true on several levels, due to the fact that major human rights bodies have said that it has passed the legal threshold for classification as an apartheid state, including B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Moreover, one of the keystones of democracy is a free press, but since October last year, 21 local radio stations, 15 local and international news agencies, 15 TV stations, six local newspapers, three broadcasting towers, eight print media and 13 media institutions have been destroyed in Gaza.
The Israeli government’s policy of terrorising and killing journalists and its ban on foreign media makes it impossible for journalists like me to get into Gaza so that we can do our jobs and report the truth of what we witness. Not that we would do that any better than the courageous Palestinian journalists, but wherever journalists are banned we all know that it is because powerful people in powerful places do not want anyone shining the light of publicity on their activities.
Meanwhile, Israel pumps out lies on a daily basis using its militarised propaganda machine as well as paid-for stooges who earn a nice living out of promoting the Zionist State as a peace-loving nation and a victim of anti-Semitism.
They are given a free ride by organisations like the BBC.
Any journalist who calls out the egregious lies and victim blaming from the apartheid state’s representative of choice is likely to disappear from public view in what is a time of unprecedented censorship.
A few days ago, we got a close up view of the slick Zionist propaganda machine in action as the notorious Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans wreaked havoc in Amsterdam. Journalists and politicians lined up to condemn the violence in the city of Anne Frank, the Jewish girl who documented her life in hiding from the Nazis during the German occupation of the Netherlands before she was sent to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where she died.
For two days, these football fans, who have a long and grubby history of violence and racism at home and abroad, took their vile, racist antics to the Arab community in the Dutch capital. The response was one of which any community under fire would be proud; they fought back and defended themselves. The global reaction to this, though, was perverse.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, aka “Frau Genocide”, expressed her outrage in the media without checking the facts. It was enough for her to know that Arabs had resisted Israeli abuse and violence in the home city of Anne Frank so it must be the fault of the immigrant community and not the foul-mouthed yobs from Tel Aviv.
The truth was just an inconvenient fact for von der Leyen and her deputy, as well as the reviled Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Free Press editor Barry Weiss. The latter two referred, somewhat hysterically, to the violence as a “pogrom” against Jews.
Even though elected members of Amsterdam’s city council confirmed to Al Jazeera that the Maccabi fans had ignited the violence, by that time British and European mainstream media were toeing the Tel Aviv line of “Jews under attack”. Words like “pogrom” were employed even though the Zionist narrative was far from the truth.
I am disgusted at the reaction of my colleagues from the mainstream media who fell for the Zionist propaganda.
While heroic Palestinian journalists are risking life and limb to bring cold hard facts to the table, their western counterparts are destroying their own integrity by putting out false information about what happened in Amsterdam last week (and what happens in Palestine under Israeli occupation).
Shameless politicians also sent out messages on social media, with bogus claims of anti-Semitism and helpless Jews under attack in Amsterdam. Investigative journalist and former Labour MP Chris Mullin saw through the lies, though, and asked: “How on earth did these people manage to present themselves as victims?”
The other question we need to ask is whether the Israeli-led violence in Amsterdam was a spillover from the impunity with which Israel is allowed to act in the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Do the Israeli thugs in Maccabi Tel Aviv colours, around 80 per cent of whom are thought to be serving in the occupation army which stands accused of committing genocide and war crimes, now feel empowered and entitled to take their thuggery wherever they like? Many may well have mental health issues arising from their experiences in Gaza and the West Bank. Having thugs running amok in Europe boasting about killing Palestinian babies just adds to the evidence lawyers need to prosecute these lawless individuals.
This is something that Frau van der Leyen might want to consider because the more she excuses and justifies the violence of Israelis on Europe’s streets, the more we will be expected to accept such aggression from these psychopaths, and the more danger we will all face.
Predictably, political thugs like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have weaponised anti-Semitism, ignoring the racism and violence of the Israeli football fans which kicked it all off in Amsterdam. When Netanyahu said that he would send the army and aircraft to get the violent Maccabi Tel Aviv fans out of Amsterdam as quickly as possible, it was an exercise in damage limitation, not out of concern for their safety in this bogus “pogrom”.
While I am sure that the 7 October Hamas-led cross-border incursion and its aftermath have had significant emotional and behavioural impacts on the Israeli public, the need for a psychological intervention has increased. If the Western media and politicians were true friends of Israel they’d realise that this is a nation with severe psychological problems that are easily triggered by the very sight of a Palestinian flag. Why else did they attack homes in Amsterdam which had such flags on display?
While it’s increasingly difficult to show any empathy or sympathy for Israeli citizens without comparing and contrasting the cause and effects of 75 years of brutality against the Palestinians, the world needs to open its eyes to the psychotic nature of the settler-colonial state and those who run its brutal military occupation. In the immediate aftermath of 7 October, there was a reported 30 per cent rise in demand for psychiatric drugs. As many as 35 per cent of war-related casualties were also found to be related to psychological issues. It is now clear that the individual mental health needs of Israelis have increased, with talk of an impending mental health “pandemic”.
Israeli Health Minister Uriel Buso has admitted that the rogue state is in the midst of its worst-ever mental health crisis since its establishment. Buso made the comment at the Enosh Mental Health 2024 Conference in Tel Aviv in September.
The crisis can be seen in Israeli football stadiums where, according to this report, the most violent fans come from Beitar Jerusalem, Hapoel Tel Aviv and Maccabi Haifa. While many hoped that 7 October would lead to a change in the mentality that had taken root on the terraces, the reality is completely opposite. Racism, violence and social polarisation have become commonplace in many football stadiums in Israel, says news journalist Ben Goldfriend. His eight-page report on the phenomenon, written in Hebrew, is depressing and strengthens the argument that Israeli football clubs should be banned from UEFA competitions and the national team should be banned from UEFA and FIFA international tournaments.
So far, 112,000 people have signed this petition calling for Israel to be suspended from all international sporting competitions. “In recent years, we have witnessed how the violent and racist atmosphere on the pitches is becoming more and more serious,” said Matan Segal, the director of the Israeli programme to kick racism and violence out of football. “The attempts to address the problems with the same means that were tried in the past have proven to be ineffective.”
The Israeli football season so far has been blighted with numerous incidents of racist chants, including — and this is astonishing — derogatory chants about the Holocaust.
I wonder what Frau Genocide or British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have to say about that.
If our leaders really are concerned about the safety of their own citizens in Europe then a travel ban should be imposed immediately on all Israeli teams and football fans, especially those serving in the rogue Israel Defence Forces. Editors across the media should instruct their best feature writers and investigative reporters to expose the violence of the Zionist State’s sports fans in exactly the same way that they exposed the true nature of English football hooliganism during the 1970s.
Israel’s National Security Council claimed on Sunday that pro-Palestinian groups were calling for attacks on Israelis and Jews in multiple European cities. Including some in the UK, “under the pretence of demonstrations and protests”. As usual, Israel has provided not one jot of evidence for its blatant lie and yet the UK Government and Sir Keir Starmer duly went along with it. “There is no place for anti-Semitism on our streets and we will not allow cultural and sporting events to be hijacked by those who seek to promote hate,” intoned Starmer. “Those who push this poison — offline and online — will face the full force of the law. Police and the security services continue to work to ensure the safety of every community in this country.”
If Starmer was genuine about protecting “every community in this country” he would ban every sporting event involving any team and fans from Israel.
Just consider this: if the Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper could ban the grandson of Nelson Mandela from speaking on a UK-wide speaking tour promoting peace and justice, then I’m sure that every legal mechanism is in place to crack down on Israel sports fans who feel emboldened enough to act with impunity and wreak havoc and violence on our streets.
Featured Video
Facing up to Jewish nationalism and racist violence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Long Before Epstein: Sex Traffickers & Spy Agencies
By Elizabeth Vos | Consortium News | August 23, 2019
The alleged use of sexual blackmail by spy agencies is hardly unique to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. Although the agencies involved as well as their alleged motivations and methods differ with each case, the crime of child trafficking with ties to intelligence agencies or those protected by them has been around for decades.
Some cases include the 1950s -1970s Kincora scandal and the 1981 Peter Hayman affair, both in the U.K.; and the Finders’ cult and the Franklin scandal in the U.S. in the late 1980s. Just as these cases did not end in convictions, the pedophile and accused child-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein remained at arms’ length for years. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- REPORT: United States Now Global Outlier Ignoring Vaccine Injured as UK Inquiry Acknowledges Harms
- The Gratitude of the Captured
- Hezbollah denies involvement in deadly attack on UNIFIL in south Lebanon
- The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war
- Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
- Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
- Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage
- ‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade
- Iran rejects uranium transfer, warns of response to naval blockade
- US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
- If Americans Knew
- Israel relegates another population to life in tents – Daily Update
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- No Tricks Zone
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
Aletho News 