Category Archives: Uncategorized

various people are getting DDOS’d, of whom craig is one

Boris Johnson A Categorical Liar
Craig Murray, Mar 22 2018

Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian “novichok” agent. Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle, Boris Johnson claimed directly that Porton Down had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:

Q: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
A: Let me be clear with you. When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …
Q: So they have the samples?
A: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, “Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt.

I knew and had published from my own whistleblowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said:

The evidence in support of the application is contained within the applications themselves (in particular the Forms COP 3) and the witness statements. I consider the following to be the relevant parts of the evidence. I shall identify the witnesses only by their role and shall summarise the essential elements of their evidence. First, ‘CC’: Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst. Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent.

This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a “Novichok” as opposed to “a closely related agent.” Even if it were a “Novichok,” that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a “closely related agent” could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors. This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the UN and above all to the people about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased. On a sombre note, I am very much afraid the High Court evidence seems to indicate there is very little chance the Skripals will ever recover. One of the reasons the judge gave for his decision is that samples taken now will be better for analysis than samples taken post mortem.

The Deep State Breaks Surface
Craig Murray, Mar 22 2018

Two nights ago my interest was piqued when, at the height of Cambridge Analytica’s domination of the news cycle, the BBC gave it considerably less airtime than the alcohol abuse problems of someone named Ant. The evening before, the BBC had on Newsnight given the CEO of Cambridge Analytica the most softball interview imaginable. If the BBC is obviously downplaying something, it is usually defending a deep British Establishment interest. It took me a minute to find out that Cambridge Analytica is owned by a British company, SCL Ltd, which in effect does exactly the same activities in Britain that Cambridge Analytica was undertaking in Pindostan. I then looked up SCL on Bloomberg. The name which jumped out at me of course was Lord Ivar Mountbatten, direct descendant of Queen Victoria and scion of the family closest friends with that of the Britain’s unelected monarch. The only person listed by Companies House as having “significant control,” ie over 25% of the shares, is Roger Gabb, the wine merchant known for large donations to the Tory Party. SCL is as Establishment as a company can get. The most worrying aspect of this is that SCL is paid by the British government to manipulate public opinion particularly in the fields of “Security” and “Defence”, and still more worryingly SCL, this group of ultra-Tory money-men seeking to refine government propaganda at the expense of you the taxpayer, is cleared by the MOD to access classified government information. I then did a news search on google for “Mountbatten” and “SCL” and it brought up zero results from corporate and state media. I then did a wider search not just of news sites, and found this excellent article from Liam O’Hare on Bella Caledonia. It said everything I had been planning to write, and probably says it better. Please do read it. Liam has actually done this to me before, getting there first. I suspect we may be the same person. Come to think of it, I have never seen a photo of us together.

SCL: a Very British Coup
Liam O’Hare, Bella Caledonia, Mar 20 2018

The scandal around mass data harvesting by Cambridge Analytica took a new twist on Monday. A Channel 4 news undercover investigation revealed that the company’s Eton-educated CEO Alexander Nix offered to use dirty tricks, including the use of bribery and sex workers, to entrap politicians and subvert elections. Much of the media spotlight is now on Cambridge Analytica and their shadowy antics in elections worldwide, including that of Donald Trump. However, Cambridge Analytica is a mere offshoot of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group), an organisation with its roots deeply embedded within the British aristocratic political and military establishment. Indeed, as the Observer article which broke the scandal said:

For all intents and purposes, SCL/Cambridge Analytica are one and the same.

Like Cambridge Analytica, SCL group is behavioral research and strategic communication company. In 2005, SCL went public with a glitzy exhibit at the DSEI conference, the UK’s largest showcase for military technology. Its ‘hard sell’ was a demonstration of how the British government could use a sophisticated media campaign of mass deception to fool the British people into the thinking an accident at a chemical plant had occurred and threatened central London. Genuinely. Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment. SCL Group says on its website that it provides “data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations worldwide.” The organisation boasts that it has conducted “behavioral change programs” in over 60 countries and its clients have included the British MoD, the US State Dept and NATO. An FoIA request from Aug 2016 shows that the MoD has twice bought services from Strategic Communication Laboratories in recent years. In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40k to SCL for the “provision of external training.” In 2014/2015 it paid SCL £150k for the “procurement of target audience analysis.” SCL also carries a secret clearance as a ‘list X’ contractor for the MOD. A List X site is a commercial site on British soil that is approved to hold  government information marked as ‘confidential’ and above. SCL got the green light to hold British government secrets on its premises.

The Pindo State Dept has a contract for $500k with SLC. According to an official, this was to provide “research and analytical support in connection with our mission to counter terrorist propaganda and disinformation overseas.” This was not the only work that SCL has been contracted for with the Pindosi government, the source added. In May 2015, SCL Defense, another subsidiary of the umbrella organisation, received $1m to support NATO operations in Eastern Europe targeting Russia. The company delivered a three-month course in Riga which taught “advanced counter-propaganda techniques designed to help member states assess and counter Russia’s propaganda in Eastern Europe.” The NATO website said the “revolutionary” training would “help Ukrainians better defend themselves against the Russian threat.” What is clear is that all of SCL’s activities were inextricably linked to its Cambridge Analytica arm. As recently as Jul 2017, the website for Cambridge Analytica said its methods has been approved by the “UK MoD, the Pindosi State Dept, Sandia and NATO” and carried their logos on its website. Mark Turnbull, who joined Alexander Nix at the secretly filmed meetings, heads up SCL Elections as well as Cambridge Analytica Political Global. His profile at the University of Exeter Strategy and Security Institute boasts of his record in achieving “campaign success via measurable behavioural change” in “over 100 campaigns in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.” Turnbull previously spent 18 years at Bell Pottinger, heading up the Pentagon funded PR drive in occupied Iraq which included the production of fake AQ videos. Turnbull’s involvement is just one sign of the sweeping links the company has with powerful Pindo-British political and military interests. The firm is headed by Nigel Oakes, another old Etonian who according to the website PowerBase has links to the British royals and was once rumoured to be an MI5 agent. In 1992, Oakes described his work in a trade journal thus:

We use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.

The President of SCL is Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former Conservative MP and the Defence Minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government. Pattie also co-founded Terrington Management which lists BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin among its clients. One of the company’s directors’ is wine millionaire and former British SOF in Borneo and Kenya, Roger Gabb, who in 2006 donated £500k to the Conservative party. Gabb was also fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to include his name on an advert in a number of local newspapers arguing for a Leave vote in the Brexit referendum. SCL’s links to the Conservative party continue through the company’s chairman and venture capitalist Julian Wheatland. He also happens to be chairman of Oxfordshire Conservative Association. The organisation has also been funded by Jonathan Marland who is the former Conservative Party Treasurer, a trade envoy under David Cameron, and a close friend of Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby. Property tycoon and Conservative party donor Vincent Tchenguiz was also the single largest SCL shareholder for a decade. Another director is Gavin McNicoll, founder of Eden Intelligence, a counter-terrorism firm, who ran a G8 Plus meeting on Financial Intelligence Cooperation at the behest of the British government. Previous board members include Sir James Allen Mitchell, the former PM of the erstwhile British colony St Vincent and the Grenadines. Mitchell has been one of HM’s Privy Counsellor since 1985. The British military and royal establishment links to SCL are further highlighted through another director, Rear Admiral John Tolhurst, a former assistant director of naval warfare in the Ministry of Defence and royal aide de camp. The Queen’s third cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, was also sitting on SCL’s advisory board, but it’s unclear if he still holds that role. The above examples barely scrape the surface of just how deep the ties go between the aristcratic military establishment and Strategic Communication Laboratories. Indeed, it seems evident that the organisation is a product of murky alliances formed between venture capitalists and former British military and intelligence officers. Unsurprisingly, they also happen to be closely tied to the higher echelons of the Conservative party. International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these characters aren’t operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers. Instead, they are British, Eton-educated, headquartered in the City of London and have close ties to HMG.

ahed tamimi

“confirms that russia interfered in the 2016 election but denies that the kremlin preferred a trump victory”

HPSCI finds no Trump-Russia collusion, recommends leak crackdown
Kyle Cheney, Politico, Mar 22 2018

HPSCI Thugs voted Thursday to end their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, declaring that a string of contacts between Donald Trump’s associates and Russian government affiliates fell short of collusion and recommending dramatic new steps to crack down on intelligence leaks. In a summary of their findings, committee Thugs cataloged a string of meetings between Trump associates, from Donald Trump Jr’s run-in with a Russian government official at a 2016 NRA event to what the report called “possible” attempts by Moscow to set up a back channel with Trump’s transition team after the election. The committee dinged Carter Page, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, for providing an “incomplete” account of his Jul 2016 trip to Moscow, which drew FBI investigators’ interest. And the report said Trump associates had “ill-advised” contacts with WikiLeaks, the online platform that intelligence agencies say aided Russia’s attempt to disseminate hacked Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails. But in each case, the report’s Thuggish authors concluded that the evidence failed to amount to active cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In some cases, they said the evidence undermined claims by the president’s opponents that his campaign may have colluded with Moscow to win the 2016 election. The Thug summary said:

Possible Russian efforts to set up a ‘back channel’ with Trump associates after the election suggest the absence of collusion during the campaign, since the communication associated with collusion would have rendered such a ‘back channel’ unnecessary.

The report also accuses former DNI Clapper of providing “inconsistent testimony” about his contacts with the media. And it recommends a crackdown on leaks, including administering “mandatory polygraphs” to some administration officials with top secret security clearances and stiffening legal penalties for “unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” The report comes amid a bitter split on HPSCI, as Demagogs claim the committee’s Thuggish members sought to protect the president by cutting off the investigation without interviewing key people, forcing recalcitrant witnesses to answer questions or subpoenaing documents. Demagogs fear the report could distract from the work of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is separately probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any involvement by Trump’s team. Adam Schiff said after the vote Thursday:

It really is a fundamentally flawed document and there’s not much that can rescue it.

The report was outlined last week by the panel’s top Russia investigator, Rep Mike Conaway, who said it would confirm the intelligence community’s finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election but break from the agencies’ conclusion that the Kremlin preferred a Trump victory. That finding split Thugs on the panel last week, several of whom took issue with undermining aspects of the intelligence community’s findings. Conaway has emphasized that the report doesn’t reject those findings but criticizes the methodology the agencies used to reach it. Thugs exiting the meeting Thursday declined to discuss their decision and whether they had made any significant changes to the document since they first described its findings.

The committee Thugs concluded that Russia was responsible for attacks on Pindo political institutions throughout 2015 and 2016, part of a pattern of attacks on Western democracies, leveraging social media to sow discord and mounting cyber-operations that “continue to present a profound threat.” The committee also found that the American response to Russia’s attack was lacking, including insufficient warning by the FBI to victims of Russia’s cyber-attacks. It also found that the Trump campaign wasn’t warned that some of its officials were considered “counter-intelligence concerns.”

Among the recommendations was a proposal to repeal the Logan Act, an obscure 18th century statute that criminalizes efforts by private citizens to interfere in Pindo foreign policy. The law was cited by Trump administration critics as questions arose about former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s pre-inauguration contact with Russia’s ambassador. Trump allies have argued that the law was dusted off to use as a pretense to embroil Flynn in legal jeopardy.

The panel raised questions about the sourcing in the Steele dossier, which alleged an intricate plot by the Kremlin to help elect Trump. But it said Page, the former Trump campaign adviser whose Moscow trip was described by the dossier, was not forthcoming in explaining his expedition. Page told Politico he had “no idea” why the committee questioned his account of his trip, for which he answered questions in an interview that lasted nearly a full day. He said:

Unlike the dishonest people who concocted the Dodgy Dossier and used every sneaky legal trick in the book to avoid answering HPSCI’s questions related to the lies from their smear campaign, which they distributed about me in 2016. I spent an entire day getting grilled by them on the Hill last November. That’s not to mention the countless documents I sent them. So I have no idea.

the past day’s absurdities

Policeman treated after Salisbury spy poisoning discharged from hospital, Mar 22 2018

Policeman Nick Bailey has been discharged from hospital after being exposed to the same military-grade nerve agent used in the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury earlier this month. A Judge gave the go-ahead for doctors at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, where the Skripals remain in critical condition, to provide blood samples to the OPCW. Moscow has repeatedly requested access to samples of the nerve agent used to poison Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, but has not been granted any, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. The court heard the mental capacity of the duo may be compromised to “an unknown and unascertained” degree, and that is it is not possible to know the extent to which they will recover. The judgement went on to say the analysis of the Skripals’ blood samples by Porton Down Laboratories indicated they had been exposed to the A-234 nerve agent (aka Novichok), or a related one. Russian ambassador to Britain Alexander Yakovenko told a news conference in London on Thursday he hoped the OPCW could find answers that Britain had failed to provide to Russia as its teams arrived in Britain. He asked:

How was that possible that the British authorities managed to designate the nerve agent use as so-called Novichok and its origin so quickly? Could it mean that it’s ‘highly likely’ that the British authorities already had this nerve agent in their chemical laboratory in Porton Down, which is the largest secret military facility in Britain dealing with chemical weapons? Is it a coincidence that this chemical weapons facility is only eight miles away from the site of the incident? How did doctors decide what antidotes to administer to the victims?

Responding to PM Theresa May’s claim that Russia is “culpable” for the attack, the ambassador said the Tory leader had “provided no proof” and the British Government had “built its official position on pure assumptions.”

Russian Ambassador Hints At False Flag
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Mar 22 2018

It appears the Russians are losing their patience with the proof-less accusations from Britain. Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko has held press conference in London, where he said (Source: Sputnik News):

Britain has without any evidence blamed Russia for poisoning three people and continues to refuse to cooperate. The British side is violating the Vienna Convention by not providing our consular offciails with access to the Skripals. The Russian embassy immediately requested details and materials of the case. Ten days have passed without a reply. The British side has refused to supply samples of the material allegedly used to attack the Skripals. We cannot take Britain’s words on trust. Britain has provided no proof of Russia’s alleged involvement in the nerve agent attack. We wonder how Britain managed to determine type of nerve gas in Skripal case, in days rather than weeks or months. Samples of the so-called Novichok nerve gas could have already been in possession of the Porton Down labaratory, which is only a few miles from Salisbury. We have been refused consular access to our Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. Britain is ignoring our requests also in the case of former top manager of Russian Aeroflot airline Nikolai Glushkov, who died in London. Britain has a long record of misdoings, including the support of coup in Ukraine and the invasion of Iraq.

British PM May is set to warn at a summit in Brussels that Vladimir Putin’s brazen flouting of international law represents a threat democracies across the continent. And then the ambassador turned his attention to the shocking comments from UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson who compared the Russian World Cup to Hitler’s 1939 Olympics. Johnson recently raised the bar for the UK government’s barrage of accusations against Moscow to a new level. The British foreign minister compared Russia’s hosting of this year’s World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. He told a receptive Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday:

I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. It is an emetic prospect to think of Putin glorifying in this sporting event.

Russia was furious. Kremlin spox Dmitry Peskov said:

This statement is totally disgusting, it is not appropriate for any foreign minister. Undoubtedly, this is offensive and unacceptable.

Yakovenko condemned the comments today, saying:

Nobody has the right to insult the Russian people, who defeated the Nazis.

Britain’s propaganda is not just for adults, they are indoctrinating the kids too. In case pupils don’t understand the headlines on Russia and its president, a special publication for kids explains how “toxic Putin” is poisoning the West, without bothering to distinguish between fact and allegation. The Day, a news website that produces short articles about current affairs meant to be used as teaching aids in British schools, has offered students two alternatives to believe about Vladimir Putin: he is either Europe’s “most dangerous leader since Hitler” or a puffed-up figure attacking other nations out of weakness.

‘No smoking gun’: Smack in the face for May as EU fails to back British escalation over Skripal, Mar 22 2018

Britain was quick to point the blame for the Salisbury attack, but its own allies are refusing to do the same. Reports suggest EU leaders gathering in Brussels are backing away from British attempts to condemn Moscow. After the attack in Salisbury, Britain PM May blamed Russia. Britain said it was “highly likely” to be a Kremlin-backed act of aggression, despite repeated denials from Moscow. A draft text from EU talks on the matter has emerged condemning “in the strongest possible terms” the attacks. The phrase was added to the draft text that EU leaders will discuss at a summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, which was obtained by Politico. However, the question of attribution was not changed. Britain has been pushing for the Kremlin to be recognized as the perpetrator, but its allies in Brussels appear to be refusing to cast judgment ahead of the evidence, unlike Downing Street. The text says:

The EU takes extremely seriously the British Government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the RF is responsible. The EU is shocked at the offensive use of any military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, for the first time on European soil in over 70 years. The use of CW by anyone under any circumstances is completely unacceptable and constitutes a security threat to us all. The EU calls on Russia to address urgently the questions raised by Britain and the international community and provide immediate, full and complete disclosure of its Novichok programme to the OPCW.

Diplomats familiar with talks said Greece and Italy did not want the language changed. an EU diplomat to Politico:

They say that there’s no smoking gun, or at least not yet.

Greece has denied calling for alterations but admitted it lobbied for a more “clear” text. Theresa May’s team has been hoping for unequivocal world backing, but has not received it. She expelled 23 Russian diplomats from London last week, and has threatened further punishment. Britain said it was not a snub by Brussels that the language is cooler than last week, especially that used by Germany and France. It is especially damaging for May that Pres Putin was praised by Trump in a call after his re-election on Sunday, despite her hopes the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and Pindostan would see Trump backing her fully. EC Pres J-C Juncker also upset Britain by sending a congratulatory letter to Putin. EU leaders will discuss the new text over dinner at the EC summit on Thursday.

Britain seeks European help against Russian spy networks: diplomats
Gabriela Baczynska, Robin Emmott, Reuters, Mar 22 2018

BRUSSELS – Britain is seeking help from other European countries to take action against Russian spy networks that could be preparing similar attacks as the nerve agent assault on a former Russian spy in England, diplomats said. PM Theresa May will urge “coordinated action” among EU governments at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, where she will also try to persuade the bloc’s leaders to condemn Russia squarely over the attack in Salisbury. May accused Russia of the first known offensive use of a nerve toxin in Europe since WW2. In the worst crisis between the two powers since the Cold War, May has expelled 23 Russian diplomats whom she says were spies working under cover. Moscow has taken retaliatory steps. A senior EU diplomat said:

Britain says there are these networks that organize such things like Salisbury, that these networks exist across our borders and that it would be good to go after them together. They have already been approaching EU states on that bilaterally, and today May will tell EU leaders more.

Diplomats stressed May was not seeking a formal or immediate EU strategy, because the bloc has little joint competence on intelligence, meaning any such work would be done directly with other governments. Another EU diplomat said:

There is movement among several willing states to do something together in reaction to Skripal. This could be done bilaterally outside the EU so as not to press too hard on those bloc members worried about their ties with Moscow.

Reluctance from countries, Greece and Hungary among them, mean a draft joint statement by EU leaders now says only that they take “extremely seriously” London’s assessment that it was highly likely Russia was responsible for the attack. But May will push fellow EU leaders to blame Moscow directly for the poisoning of the Skripals, who British authorities say have been critically ill since the attack by a Soviet-produced military-grade nerve agent called Novichok. A British official confirmed London was seeking to work with groups of countries on intelligence sharing over spy networks. Another British official said:

Russia has shown itself as a strategic enemy, not a strategic partner. However, Britain is not seeking new economic sanctions.

May will seek to demonstrate to EU governments that all Western countries are vulnerable to such attacks, as well as what NATO says is a Russian strategy to undermine the West, officials said. A second senior British official said:

The Russia threat does not respect borders and as such we are all at risk.

Macron said on Wednesday the Salisbury attack could not go without response. May, Macron, Trump and (after some delay) Merkel have already said in a joint statement they “share” Britain’s assessment of Russian responsibility. Diplomats said EU leaders could settle for similar language, though some bloc members remained concerned there was not enough direct no proof to incriminate Russia in the attack. EC Pres Tusk, who will chair the summit and has sided with Britain, said:

It is clear we should improve our preparedness for future attacks.

He wants the bloc to discuss how to better protect itself from chemical and biological attacks, including in cooperation with NATO, as well as to how to beef up counter-intelligence capabilities to combat hybrid threats.

British-led anti-Russia campaign used to hit out at Trump, pressure EU
Chris Marsden, WSWS, Mar 22 2018

Pindo & British media ran scandalised commentary yesterday after Pres Trump and EC Pres Juncker both contacted Pres Putin to congratulate him on his re-election for a fourth term as president of Russia. Neither mentioned the Skripal affair. According to the NYT, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, where he had just welcomed MbS:

We had a very good call. We will probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future.

Juncker sent this letter to Putin:

The reaction in Britain, Eurostan & Pindostan was a mixture of hysteria and dismay. May had already determined not to take fresh reprisals against Moscow, other than declarations that Putin’s associates in Britain would be targeted. She did not want to make it more difficult for a divided EU summit meeting today to attribute to Russia responsibility for the use of a nerve agent on British soil. May is not seeking EU sanctions against Russia, for the same reason. EU foreign ministers on Monday agreed to tone down the language criticising Russia, to placate sceptical member states including Austria and particularly Greece. The statement contained the ambiguous formulation:

The EU takes extremely seriously the British Government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the RF is responsible.

Both countries insisted on reserving judgement until an independent investigation by the OPCW is completed. Juncker’s statement made him a target of those forces pressing for action against Russia. In Britain, the Tory MEP for South-West England & Gibraltar, covering Salisbury, Ashley Fox, seized the limelight by writing:

This is a disgraceful letter from Jean-Claude Juncker. To congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election victory without referring to the clear ballot rigging that took place is bad enough. But his failure to mention Russian’s responsibility for a military nerve agent attack on innocent people in my constituency is nauseating. The European Commission President is appeasing a man who poses a clear threat to western security.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative on Brexit, tweeted:

EC Pres Donald Tusk let it be known that he had not sent a letter to Putin and likely would not do so. Bill Browder, a shady Pindo-born British financier who dedicates himself to urging sanctions against Russia in the name of his deceased former associate Sergei Magnitsky, and who was convicted of tax fraud in absentia, denounced EU Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini to the EU Observer for “craven appeasement” of Russia. In Pindostan, John McCain said in a statement:

A Pindo president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, President Trump insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future, including the countless Russian patriots who have risked so much to protest and resist Putin’s regime.

The WaPo leaked that Trump had been advised by multiple national security advisers to not congratulate Putin. A senior White House official told CNN Wednesday:

Leaking such information is a fireable offense and likely illegal.

Former DCI Brennan suggested yesterday that Trump was withholding criticism of Putin because the Kremlin might have compromising personal information on him. He told MSNBC Morning Joe:

He has something to fear and something very serious to fear.

Skripal was of ‘zero value’ to Russia – Peskov, Mar 21 2018

Poisoned double agent Sergei Skripal was of zero value to Moscow after he was handed over by Russia to Britain, Dmitri Peskov said in an interview with RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze. He pointed out that Russia had no motive to target Skripal, saying:

He was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It’s unimaginable. If he’s handed over, then Russia is finished with him. He’s of zero value or zero importance. Also, Skripal is not “a Russian spy,” he should be called “a British spy,” as he worked for MI6. He is a Russian citizen. The British were too hasty in blaming Russia without carrying out any investigation into the attack. The first accusations came from politicians just a couple of hours after the accident, that “highly likely, Russia was responsible for these attempted murders,” and now we see the words of experts from the OPCW that say that the preliminary examination of this agent will take about three weeks. Is it contradictory? Yes, it is! We are not crazy enough to dream up anything of that kind before a presidential election and before such an important global event as the football championship!

The crackdown on RT in Pindostan & Britain is a response to its becoming a worthy rival to their media’s global brainwashing monopoly. They have started to rule the world. They are the most powerful, they are the most influential and they have the widest possible reach globally, and of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will to manipulate it as a tool, whether it’s right or wrong it doesn’t matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation, to simply manipulate the brains of people throughout the world. And this is why they strongly oppose the appearance of any rivals, even small rivals like RT, small in comparison with this huge machine. I sincerely believe that size doesn’t matter here. You can be small, but you can do much more influential things. That is what you are doing. And that what makes them nervous, because you are pretending to be a rival for them, and this rivalry can ruin the system of brainwashing.

EU Fails to Blame Russia for Nerve Gas Attack
Alex Gorka, Strategic Culture, Mar 22 2018

EU foreign ministers have expressed solidarity with Britain but failed to take the final step. They have fallen short of offering their unanimous support for the allegations that Russia was behind the Salisbury spy poisoning. Moscow is being urged to answer London’s questions. Brussels will keep a close eye on the issue, but its statement does not accuse Moscow of guilt. No punitive measures have been agreed upon. Although Western “unity” receives its usual praise, in reality the bloc has once again been split. Prior to that meeting, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas had called Russia “a difficult partner,” but also noted that “dialog” with Moscow ought to continue. According to him, it was up to Moscow and London to sift through the details of the evidence “bilaterally.” Greece objected to the allegations that Russia was responsible. It asked for watertight evidence. Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl stated that the accusations against Russia were premature. Vienna did not back London at the meeting. Spain’s Alfonso Dastis stressed the need for more evidence before reaching conclusions. He believes the EU should wait until the OPCW conducts a thorough examination of all elements involved. The new Italian government wants the sanctions on Russia eased or lifted. It has economic reasons to justify such a stance. Austria’s government strongly advocates doing away with the sanctions and launching a constructive dialog with Moscow. Spain, Greece, and Cyprus also see the sanctions on Russia as a problem.

At the same time, some EU members turned out to be more British than the British themselves. Despite not being directly involved in the dispute, Warsaw has announced its readiness to expel Russian diplomats and introduce its own sanctions against Moscow. It has deprived its own footballers of the chance to play in the World Cup games that will be held in Russia this year. That’s a move that’s unlikely to make any athletes or fans happy, but that’s what the government has done. And the reason for such unfriendly moves? Forget about the Polish football fans and businesses that will be hurt by the sanctions. There are more important issues driving Poland’s aggression toward Russia. Warsaw wants to express its solidarity with London. It needs no evidence whatsoever to support its accusations. It does not even want to wait a couple of weeks until the OPCW finishes the investigation. It does need evidence because the Polish government is always happy to attack Russia, whatever the pretext. But it’s far from being delighted about becoming the first member state in EU history to face sanctions in accordance with article 7.1 of the EU treaty for establishing political control of its courts and judges. There is a good chance that this spring Poland will no longer qualify as an EU member state, something never seen before in the EU’s 61-year history. Poland is the one EU member that is putting the bloc at risk of falling apart. Add to this the problem of Hungary, another bloc member that is clashing with the EC on issues ranging from migration to the rule of law.

Britain gets vigorous support from outside the EU. Georgian Pres Margvelashvili is calling for a common front against Russia. He wants the West to wake up to what he calls the Russian security threat. The Georgian leadership’s desire to obtain EU and NATO membership is so strong that it also needs no evidence. It is much more pro-Western than the leading European nations that have a long history of membership in the organization. It did not take Ukraine long to unconditionally back Britain and call for a boycott of the World Cup. It is even offering its help in the investigation. Kiev is ready for anything, except rolling up its sleeves and redoubling its efforts to fight the problem of corruption and inefficiency that is  turning Ukraine into a cumbersome burden for the West. On Mar 19, the EU failed to blame Moscow for the spy poisoning in Britain. Nor could it reach an agreement regarding Pres Putin’s re-election. The EU disagreements over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project have heated up recently. Does such a thing as European unity exist? Is there a single issue the EU members see eye to eye on? If so, Russia clearly isn’t it. The EU FMs’ meeting on Mar 19 once again showed that the “West vs Russia” paradigm does not exist.

Russia challenges West on truth, Mar 22 2018

From the MH17 case to chemical attacks in Syria to the Skripal poisoning, the West only throws accusations against Russia without giving any proof, the Russian Foreign Ministry said, adding that such an approach “will not work.” The Western countries have never presented proper evidence to substantiate their claims in any of the recent high-profile international incidents, including the downing of the Malaysia Airlines jet over Eastern Ukraine or the alleged instances of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They, however, always treated their own statements as “ultimate truth,” the Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation & Arms Control, Vladimir Ermakov, said at a meeting with the representatives of foreign embassies in Moscow. His words come in response to yet more accusations and threats issued by western countries in relation to the Skripal case. Although the ambassadors from Britain, France and Pindostan did not bother to attend the meeting, they sent their representatives with harshly worded statements. A Pindo representative warned that Washington “will hold Russia accountable for its illegal actions,” reiterating that Pindostan stands in complete solidarity with Britain. His French colleague also expressed the “full solidarity of France with Britain” following what he called a “chemical attack that was conducted on its territory.” The diplomat also asked if Russia would “trust” the outcome of an investigation conducted jointly by the British experts and the representatives of the OPCW. The Russian diplomat responded:

The OPCW convention and the OPCW itself do not provide adequate opportunities to assess what exactly happened in Salisbury. A deeper, expert assessment would be needed for Russia to be able to come to any conclusions. We know how some mechanisms that you consider to be ‘reliable’ worked in Syria: it was a total fake! To investigate something without presenting the real facts and then declare the results of such an investigation as the ultimate truth, shows malign intentions, which will not work in the case of Russia. Do you really want to investigate? If you do not, then it is a different question entirely. We are ready for a joint investigation. You have everything recorded. Share it, and we will help with the investigation. Does Pindostan really have no data about who exactly shot down that Boeing? You did have everything recorded. You had a satellite over there. You stayed silent about that, but you blamed Russia even before the Boeing hit the ground. The world that has come a long way since unipolarity of the 1990s, when almost everything was being decided in Faschingstein. These times have passed away. We need to develop international relations, more suitable to the current reality.

British media admits due process ‘does not apply’ to Russia
Alexander Mercouris, The Duran, Mar 20 2018

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the British authorities and for the British media to deny that ‘due process,‘ the well-established system of rules for conducting fair and impartial trials and investigations in order to determine questions of guilt or innocence, are not being followed by the British authorities in the Skripal case. Here are some of the violations of due process the British authorities which in my opinion the British authorities are committing. The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway. The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty.  As I have explained previously this reverses the burden of proof: in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed to prove the defendant’s guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence. The British government refuses to share with Russia – the party it says is guilty, the ‘evidence’ upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was poisoned. This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence. The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the CWC to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows:

States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter.

This says clearly that in a case like the Skripal case the British authorities should have sent a request for information to the Russian authorities, who would then have had up to ten days in which to respond. Instead the British demanded a Russian reply within 36 hours, and said they would assume Russian guilt unless a response was provided which satisfied them, even though the Chemical Weapons Convention does not give the British government the right in a case like Skripal to say based on such a reply that the Russians are guilty or not. There has been an attempt to argue that the British disregard of the procedure set out in Article IX (2) does not breach the CWC. I will set it out the British position as it appears in an article in The Conversation:

The process set out in Article IX(2) cannot be the exclusive remedy in all cases where doubts arise surrounding compliance with the CWC. For example, it would be absurd to suggest that a state which has suffered an armed attack involving CW may not defend itself against that attack, but instead must issue a request for information to the attacking state and then patiently await its response within ten days. In fact, on a closer reading, it’s clear that the obligation set out in Article IX(2) is not of an absolute character. It requires state parties to “make every effort” to clarify and resolve doubts. This duty is framed in the language of “should” rather than “shall” and is engaged only “whenever possible.” The terms of the clause therefore enable a state to adopt alternative measures should the circumstances so warrant. After the Salisbury incident, one of Britain’s responses was to call a meeting of the UNSC. While Russia vehemently opposed this move as being contrary to the CWC, none of the other members of the UNSC, all of which are also signatories of the CWC shared this view. It is also important to be clear about the scope of Article IX(2). The provision deals with the clarification of doubts surrounding compliance with the CWC. However, the British government had already concluded that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the incident. Based on the identification of the nerve agent involved, named as Novichok, the fact that Russia has produced the agent in the past and in the light of Russia’s past conduct and current intent, it was not unreasonable for the British government to come to this conclusion, in line with the standards of proof applicable in international law in similar circumstances.

I find this wholly unconvincing and I am sure the vast majority of international lawyers would do so also. What this argument essentially says is that the British are entitled to disregard the procedure set out in Article IX (2) because they have already concluded in advance of their enquiry to the Russians on the basis of evidence which they are not prepared to share with the Russians that Russia is ‘highly likely’ to have been guilty of carrying out the attack on Skripal. That effectively admits that the ‘request for information,’ meaning Theresa May’s ultimatum to Russia, was not made in good faith and was not really a genuine ‘request for information’ at all, but was rather a rhetorical device intended to make it easier for the British government to pronounce Russia guilty without providing further proof. Far from providing a justification for ignoring the procedure set out in Article IX (2), that looks to me more like an admission that the British have not been acting in good faith, which of course is not merely a violation of the CWC but of due process. The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal, though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal assault on their territory. This is a potentially serious matter, since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the British authorities say has taken place. I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media. Needless to say, if the situation were reversed and it was the Russian authorities who were denying the British consular access to a British citizen who had been hospitalised following a criminal assault in Russia, I have no doubt that the British and Western media would be far less reticent about it. In truth, the violations of due process are so egregious that sections of the British media have been in effect forced to admit that they are happening, and are now trying to justify them. Here for example is what Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian has said:

On the face of it, Jeremy Corbyn’s position, as set out in the Guardian yesterday, seems eminently reasonable. Anxious to learn the lessons of the Iraq catastrophe of 2003, he suggested we exercise patience: let’s wait and see where the investigation leads, let’s not “rush way ahead of the evidence”. After all, said his spokesman, the intelligence agencies had been wrong before. But those pleas to delay judgment point to a wider error: a misreading of the nature of the contemporary Russian state. The error here is to assume that Moscow’s attitude to evidence and due process is the same as that of nations still governed by the rule of law. But in Putin’s Russia, lying has long been a routine and integral part of statecraft. No matter how copious the evidence, Putin will think nothing of denying it. What meaning does “due process” have when dealing with such a regime? Moscow would not cooperate in good faith with an investigation by the international chemical weapons watchdog, offering up evidence that might be incriminating. They would see such an inquiry instead as a useful delaying tactic, one that would allow them to issue yet more denials, wild counter-accusations (“Salisbury was an MI5 plot to distract from Brexit”) and obfuscation, disseminated either through their RT propaganda TV station or by their army of bots and online enablers. That way they could generate yet more of the fog of doubt and confusion that they believe undermines the west’s confidence and strengthens them. This is the Putin modus operandi: spread doubt until the public grows exhausted and concludes that the truth is unknowable.

More pithily an editorial the Financial Times says the same thing:

Pres Putin’s government uses a well-worn playbook after it commits an international outrage. The first Russian response is denial mixed with the propagation of a variety of implausible alternative explanations. The Kremlin then tries to blunt the response by wrapping its accusers up in procedure. The game is to confuse the narrative, delay the international response, and demonstrate to the Russian people and the wider world that the Kremlin can act with impunity.

The first thing to say about these articles is that they are an admission that in the Skripal case due process, meaning simply proper procedure in a case like this, is not being followed. The second thing to say is that they show a startling failure to understand the purpose of due process. Due process in a criminal investigation is not a favour to the defendant. It is the way to arrive at the truth. That is why in England in criminal appeals judges refer to convictions in cases where due process has not been followed as “unsafe.” What they mean is that because due process was not followed, the court cannot be sure that the case which has been made against the defendant has been made out. It follows that doubts about a defendant’s good faith, which are the reason Jonathan Freedland and the FT give for disapplying due process in cases involving Russia, can never be a reason for disapplying due process. It is ridiculous for Jonathan Freedland and the FT to say that due process should be disapplied simply because they believe that Russia, the defendant in this case, is lying and is never going to admit its guilt. Defendants often lie when cases are brought against them. If they did not, there would be no reason to have trials. Defendants very often go on denying their guilt even when courts have convicted them.  That is not a reason to deny them due process and their right to state their defence. Stripped of their bogus arguments, what Jonathan Freedland and the FT are saying is that when Russia is accused of something it has no right to defend itself. That is an astonishing and deeply troubling thing to say. It also looks to me rather like an admission that in the Skripal case the British authorities do not have the evidence to prove that their accusation against Russia is true. That does not surprise me, because the British authorities have apparently been unable to provide even their closest allies with evidence which proves that their accusation against Russia is true. Here is what Der Spiegel says the British have told the Germans about the evidence or lack of evidence they have in the case:

The key to the Skripal case is to be found in the toxin that was used. When the British briefed their German colleagues this week, they didn’t go into great detail, according to sources in German security circles. Intelligence services suspect that could be because the British no longer completely trust the Pindos and are particularly wary of Trump. The British didn’t even tell their German counterparts which variation of the nerve agent they believe was used. Western intelligence experts suspect that it was Novichok of the A-232 variety, which is fluid enough to be used as a spray. The vocabulary used by Britain and its allies indicates that British intelligence officials are highly confident in their assessment. Yet although it is clear which substance was used and that it very likely came from Russian stockpiles, there is no definitive proof that the Russian state was behind the attack, according to a senior German official on Thursday evening. The official has read through all of the documents that have thus far been presented. He said that intelligence officials are viewing the evidence laid out in those documents, several tightly printed pages, as a “compelling chain of clues.”

In other words the British case against Russia in the Skripal case is no more than surmise, or “a compelling chain of clues.” It is not based on evidence, because as of Thursday Mar 15 2018, when the Germans were given the facts, there was none. What of the argument Jonathan Freedland and the FT both make that concrete proof of Russian guilt in the Skripal case is not needed because Russia’s guilt can be presumed from Russia’s previous conduct? Putting aside that there are conflicting opinions about Russia’s previous conduct, it is actually a further breach of due process to declare someone guilty, not on the evidence in the case itself, but purely on the basis of their previous conduct. Putting that aside there have been at least three cases since The Duran was founded in May 2016 when declarations of Russian guilt which were confidently asserted proved on proper examination of the evidence to be untrue:

  1. On Sep 19 2016 an attack on a humanitarian convoy in Syria was widely blamed by Western governments and by the Western media on Russia.  Yet a UN inquiry headed by an Indian military officer effectively cleared Russia of responsibility for the attack.
  2. In a succession of reports Professor Richard McLaren has claimed to have found proof of a gigantic government-organised state-sponsored doping conspiracy amongst athletes in Russia. These claims have been enthusiastically repeated by the Western media, and led to partial bans on Russian participation in the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, and in the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, and to a complete ban on Russian participation in the 2016 Summer Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. However the Schmid Commission, which carried out a thorough review of Professor McLaren’s claims of a government-organised state-sponsored doping conspiracy in Russia on behalf of the International Olympic Committee, concluded that contrary to what Professor McLaren has said those claims have not been proved, and that they are most likely untrue.
  3. The third case is more controversial, but I personally have no doubt that the same applies. Since at least the summer of 2016 it has been repeatedly and confidently claimed that there was a vast conspiracy between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign to steal the US Presidential election from Hillary Clinton and to swing it to Donald Trump. HPSCI, having investigated this claim in detail, now says it is untrue. Though the Mueller investigation has yet to report, none of the indictments it has issued suggest that this claim is true, whilst it seems the SSCI, which is also investigating the claim, is also going to report that the claim is untrue.

Here we have three examples of claims of wrongful activity confidently made against Russia proving to be untrue.  Why then assume that the claim of wrongful activity made against Russia in the Skripal case is true? Obviously presumptions of guilt based on claims of previous Russian misconduct are wrong and unsafe, and that whole approach must be abandoned as both flawed and ethically wrong. I would finish by repeating a point I have made many times before. Underpinning the regular allegations made in the West about Russian misconduct including the ones now being made in connection with the Skripal case is the intense Western prejudice against Russia and against all things Russian. I discussed this Western prejudice against Russia and Russians in detail in a long article The Duran published on Oct 12 2016, and I discussed it again more recently in articles I have written about a recent report by a group of Demagog Party Senators targeting Russia, and about the Hollywood film Red Sparrow which is currently on general release. Now we see further examples of this prejudice with the demand in the Skripal case that Russia be denied the right to defend itself, a right which every other defendant accused of a crime has. Personally I cannot see a more straightforward example of prejudice against Russia than that.

defend vanessa beeley & eva bartlett against sibel edmonds & her crew (much like intercept or EI, they’re all pro-jihadi)

Syria Under Siege: Guarding Against Wolves in Sheep Clothing
Sibel Edmonds, Newsbud, Mar 21 2018

Vanessa Beeley & Eva Bartlett vs Ethical Journalism & Human Decency in the Age of Social Media Reporting … How do journalists go about factual and unbiased reporting on Syria? How can this be done through ethical journalism, but most importantly with human decency? How can outsiders sift through information and misinformation bombardment and detect facts versus agenda and bias-based reporting?

Well! See the disgusted Tweets beneath, which I could multiply ad nauseam. Sibel’s close associate James Corbett recently interviewed Vanessa Beeley treating her as an ally, with mutual compliments, and now this bombshell – RB

everything you always wanted to know about hypersonic weapons

STRATCOM General Warns Pindostan Is Powerless Against Hypersonic Missiles
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Mar 21 2018


A hypersonic threat is a system that starts out ballistic, so you will see it like a ballistic missile, but then it depresses the trajectory and flies more like a cruise missile or airplane. It goes up into the low reaches of space and then turns immediately back down and then levels out and flies at a very high level of speed. That’s a hypersonic weapon.

Both Russia and China are aggressively pursuing hypersonic capabilities. We have watched them test those capabilities. We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the (nuclear) triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat. I strongly agree with the need for a low-yield nuclear weapon. That capability is a deterrence weapon to respond to the threat that Russia in particular is portraying. Pres Putin announced as far back as Apr 2000 that the Russian doctrine will be to use a low-yield nuclear weapon on the battlefield. The areas we’re ahead in, we should accelerate further. We need to make sure that that becomes a priority for our nation. And right now, we have a challenge with that, with our current on-orbit space architecture and the limited number of radars that we have around the world. We need to move into space and be able to build sensors to conduct both the characterization of these new threats that are appearing, as well as discriminate better and earlier the midcourse element of the threat that exists today. I think we have stability with Russia on the nuclear side. We have an advantage with China on the nuclear side. But they are gaining ground quickly, especially when you look at space and cyber.

That was USAF Gen John Hyten, commander of STRATCOM, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Mar 20. In February, the MDA requested its largest-ever budget increase, $9.9b, for FY 2019, including $120.4m for Hypersonic Defense (PE 0604181C), whereby MDA will execute a rigorous systems engineering process, identify and mature full kill chain technology, provide analysis and assessment of target of opportunity events, and execute near term sensor and command and control capability upgrades to address defense from hypersonic threats. This effort will execute the Defense Science Board’s recommendations to develop and deliver a set of material solutions to address and defeat hypersonic threats informed by a set of near-term technology demonstrations. An integrated set of enhancements will provide incremental capability measured by progress and knowledge points in the following areas: establishment of systems engineering needs and requirements to identify alternative material solutions; execution of a series of sensor technology demonstrations; modification of existing BMDS sensors and the C2BMC element for hypersonic threats; and definition of weapon concepts and investments in key technologies to enable a broad set of solutions, including kinetic and non-kinetic means across left and right of launch.

omidyar would be as evil and autocratic as MbS if he could sneak into power in pindostan alongside the CIA, the puppet demagogs, soros and rothschild

MbS boasted that Kushner was “in his pocket”
Ryan Grim, Alex Emmons, Clayton Swisher, Intercept, Mar 21 2018

MbN and MbS with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in Riyadh, May 20 2017

Until he was stripped of his TS clearance in February, Jared Kushner was known around the White House as one of the most voracious readers of the President’s Daily Brief, a highly classified rundown of the latest intelligence intended only for the president and his closest advisers. Kushner, who had been tasked with bringing about a deal between Israel and Palestine, was particularly engaged by information about the Middle East, according to sources. In June, MbS ousted his cousin MbN and took his place as next in line to the throne, upending the established line of succession. In the months that followed, the President’s Daily Brief contained information on the evolving political situation among the Toads, including a handful of names of royal family members opposed to the crown prince’s power grab, according to sources. In late October, Jared Kushner made an unannounced trip to Riyadh, catching some intelligence officials off-guard. The WaPo reported at the time:

The two princes are said to have stayed up until nearly 4 am several nights, swapping stories and planning strategy.

What exactly Kushner and the Toad prince talked about in Riyadh may be known only to them, but after the meeting, MbS told confidants that Kushner had discussed the names of Toads disloyal to him, according to three sources who have been in contact with members of the Toad and Nahyan families since the crackdown. Kushner, through his attorney, denies having done so. Peter Mirijanian, spox for Kushner’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, said:

Some questions by the media are so obviously false and ridiculous that they merit no response. This is one. The Intercept should know better.

On Nov 4, a week after Kushner returned to Pindostan, MbS, launched what he called an anti-corruption crackdown, arrested dozens of members of the Toad family and imprisoned them in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton, as first reported in English by The Intercept. The Toads named in the President’s Daily Brief were among those rounded up. At least one was reportedly tortured. The Toad Embassy did not respond to questions from The Intercept. The White House referred questions to NSC spox Michael Anton, who declined to comment, referring questions on Kushner’s discussions with MBS to Lowell. It is likely that MbS would have known who his critics were without Kushner mentioning them, one source pointed out. He may also have had his own reasons for saying that Kushner shared information with him, even if that wasn’t true. Just the appearance that Kushner did so would send a powerful message to his allies and enemies that his actions were backed by the Pindo government. One of the people MbS told about the discussion with Kushner was his mentor, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan (MbZ), according to a source. MBS bragged to the Emirati crown prince and others that Kushner was “in his pocket,” said the source. Access to the President’s Daily Brief is tightly guarded, but Trump has the legal authority to allow Kushner to disclose information contained in it. If Kushner discussed names to MbS as an approved tactic of Pindo foreign policy, the move would be a striking intervention by Pindostan into an unfolding power struggle at the top levels of an allied nation. If Kushner discussed the names without presidential authorization, however, he may have violated federal laws around the sharing of classified intelligence. On Nov 6, two days after the detentions in the Ritz began, Trump took to Twitter to defend the crackdown:

In the months that followed, the arrestees were coerced into signing over billions in personal assets. In December, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that Maj-Gen Ali al-Qahtani had been tortured to death in the Ritz. Qahtani’s body showed signs of mistreatment, including a neck that was “twisted unnaturally as though it had been broken,” bruises, and “burn marks that appeared to be from electric shocks,” the NYT reported earlier this month. Senior Pindo boxtops have long worried about Kushner’s handling of sensitive foreign policy issues given his lack of diplomatic experience. They have also raised concerns about the possibility that foreign officials might try to influence him through business deals with his family’s real estate empire. Robert Mueller is reportedly examining Kushner’s business ties as part of his ongoing probe. The WaPo reported this week:

Tillerson and McMaster expressed early concern that Kushner was freelancing Pindo foreign policy Tillerson once asked staffers in frustration: “Who is the sec state here?”

Indeed, Kushner has grown so close to the Toad & Nahyan princes that he has communicated with them directly using WhatsApp, a messaging app owned by Facebook popular in the Middle East, according to a source. Asked about Kushner’s use of WhatsApp to communicate with foreign officials, his attorney’s spox Mirijanian said:

Without commenting on who he talks with and how he does his work, Mr Kushner is in conformity with the Presidential Records Act and other rules.

Kushner’s attorneys have since told him not to use the app for official business, according to a source. Kushner’s unconventional communications with regional leaders excluded diplomats during the summer of 2017, when Toads & UAE initiated an economic blockade against Qatar. Tillerson’s attempts to mediate the crisis were quickly undercut by Trump and Kushner, who supported the blockade. Three State Dept boxtops told The Intercept that Tillerson was largely in the dark about Kushner’s communications with MbS during that period. In the wake of MbS’s crackdown in Riyadh, the Pindo NSC suggested that Tillerson intervene and try to reason with him, but Tillerson declined, telling colleagues doing so would be “pointless” given that Kushner was already in close and direct contact with him. The NSC Mideast adviser, Army Col (Retd) Michael Bell, has also complained in recent months that he was out of the loop, and told colleagues that Kushner frequently micromanaged those subjects through direct interaction with regional leaders, without offering him any worthwhile readout on their interactions. Bell, speaking through NSC spox Anton, denied that Kushner had kept him out of the loop and said he respects Kushner’s lead role in the region.

Kushner’s support for the Toads & Nahyans against the Thanis of Qatar in the Gulf crisis has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest. Kushner backed the blockade a month after Qatar’s ministry of finance rebuffed an attempt by Kushner’s real estate firm, Kushner Companies, to extract financing for the firm’s troubled flagship property at 666 Fifth Avenue. In 2007, Kushner bought the landmark Manhattan building for $1.8b, putting down $500m in cash raised largely by selling thousands of rental units the family had owned in New Jersey. It was widely regarded as overpriced at the time, and the value plummeted when the financial crisis hit, wiping out much of the initial investment. The clock is now ticking toward a Feb 2019 deadline, when a major mortgage payment will come due. Since 2011, Kushner and his relatives have been searching the globe for a new investor. As recently as spring 2017, Charles Kushner, Jared’s father, asked former Qatar’s Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani to invest in the building. Then in Apr 2017, Charles Kushner made a direct pitch to the Qatari government through the country’s minister of finance. Qatar rejected the deal as not financially viable. In May, Kushner traveled to Riyadh with Trump on the trip where the famous glowing orb photo was taken. In the wake of the meeting, Toads, Nahyans and a handful of allied countries announced the blockade of Qatar. The crisis continues today. Senator Chris Murphy told ABC This Week’s George Stephanopoulos, after The Intercept reported on Kushner Companies’ efforts to obtain financing from Qatar:

We could not understand why the Trump administration was so firmly taking the side of the Toads in this dispute between the Toads, the Nahyans and the Thanis, because Pindostan has very important interests in Qatar. If the reason this administration put Pindo troops at risk in Qatar was to protect the Kushners’ financial interests, then that’s all the evidence you need to make some big changes in the White House.

Murphy was referring to al-Udeid AFB in Qatar, home of CENTCOM, where thousands of Pindo troops are stationed. MbS is in Faschingstein this week. On Tuesday, he was warmly received by Trump, who told reporters that the Pindo-Toad relationship is “probably the strongest it’s ever been.”

another helping of schmatta from the baron

Syrian rebels reportedly agree to evacuate town in Ghouta
Reuters, Mar 21 2018

AMMAN – Syrian rebels will evacuate a besieged town in eastern Ghouta, opposition sources and officials (and also Hezbollah media) said on Wednesday, the first such deal in the last rebel bastion near the capital. Fighters from Ahrar al-Sham, which holds Harasta, agreed to lay down arms in return for safe passage to north-western Syria and a government pardon for people who wished to stay, the opposition sources said. Some 1,500 militants and 6,000 of their family members will be transported to rebel-held Idlib province in two batches starting on Thursday, Hezbollah media said. Russia’s Defence Ministry, which the opposition sources said had brokered the deal, said on Wednesday it had opened a new “humanitarian corridor” near Harasta. The SAA has recaptured 70% of eastern Ghouta. Residents are fleeing by the thousands. Beside Harasta, the rebels still hold the major town of Douma and an area to the south that includes the towns of Jobar, Ein Terma and Arbin. The government accuses rebels of bombarding the capital’s suburbs. On Tuesday, a rocket struck a busy market, killing at least 35 people, state media said. Syria’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday said the Toads and Qatar were behind the rebel groups responsible. Both countries have backed rebel groups during the war. The Harasta evacuation will begin with injured civilians, said one official familiar with talks. A pro-Assad commander confirmed there was a deal between the Russians and Ahrar al-Sham. Other civilians and fighters would be evacuated to rebel-held Idlib in north-west Syria in coming days, the commander said. A local official in the opposition-run Harasta council was quoted by opposition news outlets as saying a deal had been reached but did not say when it would be implemented. Securing Harasta, near the closed Damascus-Homs highway, will allow the army to make further gains in the remaining parts of the enclave in rebel hands. The Harasta deal may add pressure on the two main rebel groups, Failaq al-Rahman in the southern pocket and Jaish al-Islam in Douma, to also reach understandings. They have so far refused to leave the enclave, but the most likely outcome is their transfer to opposition-held areas in northern and southern Syria, a rebel official said.

Turkey says understanding, but no deal, on Syria’s Manbij
Reuters, Mar 21 2018

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey and Pindostan have reached an understanding, but not full agreement, about stabilising the town of Manbij and other areas of Kurdish-controlled northern Syria, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Wednesday. Turkey, which on Sunday stormed Afrin after a two-month offensive against the YPG, has repeatedly threatened to push its operations further east to Manbij where Pindo troops are stationed. Expanding Turkey’s military campaign into the much larger Kurdish-held territory further east, which Pres Erdogan has vowed to do, would risk confrontation. Speaking at a news conference in Ankara, Cavusoglu denied media reports that Ankara and Faschingstein had agreed a deal on the fate of Manbij, 100 km east of Afrin. He said:

We said we reached an understanding, which is mainly that Syria’s Manbij and the east of the Euphrates be stabilised. We said we reached an understanding, not an agreement. We continue to seek an agreement over who will secure Manbij after the YPG withdraws from the area. The YPG will withdraw from these areas, like Manbij for example. We will work together for the security of these areas. Manbij is, of course, not enough. First, the YPG will leave and the people of Manbij will govern it. The security of the area will be ensured. We will apply the Manbij model to other areas controlled by the YPG as well.

Tillerson had taken a leading role in recent weeks to resolve the dispute, promising to find a solution for Manbij during a visit to Turkey last month. However Turkey said Trump’s announcement that he was removing Tillerson from office may delay a potential deal between Ankara and Faschingstein.

By way of contrast:

Syrian rebels to leave key town of Harasta under East Ghouta evacuation deal, Mar 22 2018

Syrian rebels and their families are expected to leave a besieged town in the Eastern Ghouta suburb of Damascus on Thursday. The move is part of an evacuation deal that will see the town handed over to the government following years of siege. Rebels released 13 prisoners of war ahead of the evacuation, AP reported. The deal is the first such arrangement made for a town inside the beleaguered Eastern Ghouta enclave. State-affiliated al-Ikhbariya TV cast the deal as a victory for the country, saying 10 buses had crossed into the town of Harasta to transport the “terrorists” to a rebel-held province in northern Syria. Some 6,000 civilians are expected to depart with the militants, some of whom are family members of the rebels.

this is not an ‘untold story’, its the original smoking laptop story from way back when

The Untold Story of John Bolton’s Campaign for War With Iran
Gareth Porter, AmconMag, Mar 22 2018

In my reporting on Pindo-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which Pindostan and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time, in 2007, in 2008 and 2011, those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government. But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neocon hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy. His is not merely a rhetorical stance. Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration’s policy-maker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action. More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Netanyahu and Trump, Sheldon Adelson, to get Trump’s ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement. He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson. It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPoA if Congress and the Euro vassals did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart. Although Bolton was passed over for the job of sec state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on Mar 6, according to a Bolton associate, and told him: “We need you here, John,” . Bolton said he would only take sec state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised: “I’ll call you really soon.” Trump then replaced Tillerson with Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump’s intention to replace McMaster within a matter of weeks. The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Lt-Gen (Retd) Keith Kellogg, acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in Feb 2017.

Bolton’s high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well-known. What is not at all well-known is that, when he was Under-Sec State for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a Pindo attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program, using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda and fabricated evidence. Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Sec State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice Pres Cheney. Bolton was also the administration’s main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney’s backing, he was able to flout normal State Dept rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Dept’s Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a Feb 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt Pindostan would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran as well as Syria. During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the Sec State and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual Pindo strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to the Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins book The Nuclear Jihadist, Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world’s press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit’s responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins. Bolton’s role in a joint Pindo-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir, was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the IAEA and into the UNSC. He was determined to prevent IAEA Dir-Gen ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush 43 administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states but from Britain, France and Germany as well. Bolton’s strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004 he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy. He sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA, showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites, and leaked his demand to AP in Sep 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing. Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran’s “intransigence” in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005, Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The Pindo-Israeli strategy later hit the jackpot when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran’s nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn of 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran’s Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon. But the whole story was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer. The documents had been given to German intelligence by the MeK, often used by Mossad to launder information that Israel did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn’t know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3 nosecone for an entirely different design. Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for a Pindo attack on Iran, for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to “the point of no return.” That was point, Bolton wrote, at which “we could not stop their progress without using force.” Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the Pindo military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the Pindo occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against Pindo troops was a key argument against the proposal. The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against Pindo forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney’s wild ideas about more war. That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness, and push Pindostan closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.

the reason i keep insulting the jews is that I think organized jewry publicly tells dangerous political lies as a matter of policy

Aide-memoire to clarify the state of affairs as regards the so-called ‘Skripal case’
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mar 21 2018

1. On Mar 12 2018, British PM Theresa May, addressing the House of Commons, said it was “highly likely” that the Russian Federation was responsible for the poisoning of former GRU colonel, double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal on Mar 4 2018 in Salisbury, with a nerve agent identified according to British classification as A-234. Britain has publicly raised a question about Russia’s “concealing” and “using” part of its chemical arsenal, thus alleging that Russia has “violated” its obligations under the CWC, one of the most effective multilateral treaties in the disarmament and non-proliferation field, which was initiated by our country among others. Thus, Britain has come out against Russia as well as against the OPCW itself and the tremendous work that has been done within this organization during the last two decades, including with participation of Britain. Pursuant to the requirements of Article III of the CWC, the Russian Federation submitted a full and complete declaration of all its CW stockpiles. That data was thoroughly checked and verified by the inspection teams of the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The fact of the full elimination of Russia’s chemical arsenal has been officially confirmed by the authorized international institution, the OPCW.

2. On Mar 12 2018, given the gravity of the accusations brought against our country, the Russian Embassy in London sent a note verbale to the British FCO requesting access to the investigation materials, including samples of the chemical agent that British investigators were referring to, so that it could be tested by our experts in the framework of joint investigation. Thus, we proposed to act in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC. It stipulates that States Parties to the Convention should first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with the CWC. Under the provisions of that Article, Russia would be ready to respond to Britain’s request within 10 days. Unfortunately, the British side rejected that option and, instead of following the existing norms of international law, chose to unscrupulously politicize the issue.

3. British PM Theresa May suggested that a special UNSC meeting to discuss the matter be held on Mar 14 2018. Suspecting that London would play dirty, Russia insisted on making the UNSC’s meeting open. It is incomprehensible what the British side was trying to achieve by bringing the issue to the UNSC. This matter by no means falls within the mandate of the UNSC. It is quite obvious that all discussions are pointless until the OPCW gives its assessment of the Salisbury incident. It is important to know whether a nerve agent was actually used, and if it was used, how the likely origin of the chemicals was determined, what actions were taken with regard to the victims,, and on what basis etc.

4. On Mar 14 2018, PM Theresa May, apparently having come to senses, finally sent a letter to Dir-Gen Ahmet Üzümcü of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW, which was circulated to all OPCW Executive Council Member States on Mar 15 2018, inviting the OPCW Technical Secretariat “to independently verify the analysis” of the British investigation into the Salisbury incident. As indicated in the press release by the British FCO of Mar 18 2018, following the letter by Ms Theresa May, Britain’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW invited experts of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to visit Britain to carry out an independent analysis of the findings of Porton Down in connection with the Salisbury incident. On Mar 19 2018, OPCW experts arrived in Britain. Russia expects the OPCW to make an official detailed account of developments around the ‘Skripal case’. We proceed from the understanding that the OPCW Technical Secretariat shall conduct a full-fledged independent investigation in accordance with all relevant provisions of the CWC.

5. Russia has more and more questions both in legal and practical terms. And we intend to seek answers through the OPCW. Russia states that it has not used chemical weapons against Britain. We suppose that the attack on the Skripals with toxic chemicals shall be deemed a terrorist act. As Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen, is among the victims to the incident, we propose cooperation with the British Side under Article IX of the CWC. We would like to ascertain the following issues. Where, how, and by whom were the samples collected from Sergei and Yulia Skripal? How was it all documented? Who can certify that the data is credible? Was the chain of custody up to all the OPCW requirements when evidence was collected? Which methods (spectral analysis and others) were used by the British side to identify, within such a remarkably short period of time, the type of the substance used as “Novichok” according to the western classification? As far as we know, they must have had a standard sample of such agent at their disposal in order to do that. And how do these hasty actions correlate with Scotland Yard’s official statements that “the investigation is highly likely to take weeks or even months” to arrive at conclusions? What information and medical effects led to a hasty decision to administer antidotes to the aggrieved Skripals and the British policeman? Could that hastiness lead to grave complications and further deterioration of their health status? Which antidotes exactly were administered? What tests had been conducted to make the decision to use these drugs? How can the delayed action of the nerve agent be explained, given that it is a fast-acting substance by nature? The victims were allegedly poisoned in a pizzeria, or according to other accounts in a car, at the airport or at home. So what really happened? How come they were found in some unidentified time on a bench in the street? We need an explanation why it is Russia who was accused on the ‘Skripal case’ without any grounds whatsoever, while works to develop the agent codenamed “Novichok” in the West had been carried out by Britain Pindostan, Sweden and the Czech Republic. There are more than 200 published studies in the NATO countries highlighting the results that those countries achieved in the development of new toxic agents of this type.

6. Even from purely humanitarian perspective, London’s action appears simply barbaric. On Mar 4 2018, they claim, a nerve agent attack against Russian citizen Yulia Skripal was committed on BRitish territory. The Russian Federation has demanded exhaustive information on the course of investigation into the Salisbury incident involving a Russian citizen. The Russian Embassy in London sent the relevant note verbale on Mar 12 2018. Britain is breaching elementary rules of inter-State relations and is still denying Russian officials’ consular access to Yulia Skripal envisaged by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, without any explanation. For more than two weeks now, we have not been able to credibly ascertain what happened to our citizen and what condition she is actually in. On Mar 16, the Main Directorate for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation initiated a criminal investigation into the attempted willful murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal committed by dangerous means on British territory. The investigation will be conducted in accordance with the Russian legislation and the norms of international law. Highly qualified experts will contribute to the investigation. The investigators stand ready to work together with the competent British authorities. We expect a cooperative approach of the British side.

7. In the UNSC as well as in the OPCW and at other international fora, the Russian Federation has been a consistent and insistent proponent of thorough, comprehensive and professional investigation of all crimes involving toxic chemicals, and of bringing perpetrators to justice. We are ready to engage in full-scale and open cooperation with Britain in order to address any concerns, whether in bilateral format or within the OPCW and other international instruments, working within the purview of international law. As a responsible member of the international community and a bona fide State Party to the CWC, Russia will never speak the language of ultimatums or answer informal and word-of-mouth questions. The Western countries’ action on the fabricated ‘Skripal case’ contravenes the norms of international law and the general practice of inter-State relations, as well as common sense itself. Naturally, we run a detailed record of all that, and when time comes, those guilty will inevitably be brought to justice.