It seems that ever since Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 the western media and numerous politicians have been working especially hard to convince the world that the Russian government is little better than a modern version of Josef Stalin’s USSR. Part of the effort can be attributed to the Democratic Party’s desire to blame someone other than the unattractive candidate Hillary for the defeat, but there is also something more primitive operating behind the scenes, something like a desire to return to a bipolar world in which one knew one’s enemies and one’s friends.

The anti-Russian bias has manifested itself in a number of ways, to include the fabricated libel referred to as Russiagate, but it also featured personal denigration of the Russian leadership as a rogue regime inclined to employ assassination by poisoning against its critics and political opponents.

The first widely publicized assassination of a Russian dissident took place in London in 2006. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer and critic of the government who had sought asylum in England, died after met two Russian acquaintances in a hotel bar and was reportedly poisoned by a dose of radioactive polonium inserted into his cup of tea. The Russians whom he had met with were named by the British police but the Russian government refused extradition requests. Without any evidence, the British media claimed that Litvinenko had been killed under orders from Putin personally.

More recently, the poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March 4^th, 2018 made headlines around the world. Sergei was living near Salisbury England and his daughter was visiting from Moscow when they were found unconscious on a park bench. A policeman later investigating the incident also suffered from the effects of what appeared to be a nerve agent, which investigative sources claimed had been sprayed on to the front door handle of the Skripal residence. Both Sergei and Yulia survived the incident.

There was quite a bit that was odd about the Skripal case, which came at a time when there was considerable tension between Russia and the NATO allies over issues like Syria and Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin was regularly demonized, seen in the western media as a malevolent presence stalking the world stage.

Observers noted that the British investigation of the poisoning relied from the start “…on circumstantial evidence and secret intelligence.” And there was inevitably a rush to judgment. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson blamed Russia before any chemical analysis of the alleged poisoning could have taken place. British Prime Minister Theresa May told Parliament shortly thereafter to blame the Kremlin and demand a Russian official response to the event in 36 hours, declaring that the apparent poisoning was “very likely” caused by a made-in-Russia nerve agent referred to by its generic name novichok. The British media was soon on board, spreading the government line that such a highly sensitive operation would require the approval of President Putin himself. Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing were rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards.

The expulsion of scores of Russian diplomats and imposition of sanctions soon followed with the United States and other countries following suit. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal had subsequently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even one of the alleged victims did not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and American governments.

The response within the United States was also immediate and threatening. A New York Times editorial on March 12^th entitled Vladimir Putin’s Toxic Reach thundered: “The attack on the former spy, Sergei Skripal, who worked for British intelligence, and his daughter Yulia, in which a police officer who responded was also poisoned, was no simple hit job. Like the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko, another British informant, who was poisoned with radioactive polonium 210, the attack on Mr. Skripal was intended to be as horrific, frightening and public as possible. It clearly had the blessing of President Vladimir Putin, who had faced little pushback from Britain in the Litvinenko case. The blame has been made clearer this time and this attack on a NATO ally needs a powerful response both from that organization and, perhaps more important, by the United States.”

But the story of the poisoning of the Skripals begun to come apart very quickly. Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray detailed how the narrative was cooked by “liars” in the government to make it look as if the poisoning had a uniquely Russian fingerprint. Meanwhile prize winning U.S. investigative reporter Gareth Porter summed up the actual evidence or lack thereof, for Russian involvement, suggesting that the entire affair was “based on politically-motivated speculation rather than actual intelligence.”

The head of Britain’s own top secret chemical weapons facility Porton Down even contradicted claims made by May and Johnson, saying that he did not know if the nerve agent was actually produced in Russia as the chemical formula was revealed to the public in a scientific paper in 1992 and there were an estimated twenty countries capable of producing it. Some speculated that a false flag operation by the British themselves, the CIA or Mossad, was not unthinkable. Development of novichok type poisons is known to have taken place at both Porton Down and at the U.S. chemical weapon facility Fort Dietrich Maryland.

But the most damning evidence opposing a Russian role in the alleged poisonings was that Moscow had no motive to kill a former British double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap after ten years in prison and who was no longer capable of doing any damage. If Moscow had wanted him dead, they could have killed him while he was still in Russian custody. Putin had an election coming up and Russia was to be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an event that would be an absolute top priority to have go smoothly without any complications from a major spy case.

There is now new evidence that the claims of Russian involvement in the alleged assassination attempt was fraudulent, engineered by the British government, possibly in collusion with American intelligence, to smear Vladimir Putin in particular. Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has written an article entitled “UK Defense Ministry Document Reveals Skripals’ Blood Samples Could have been Manipulated.”

Relying on a series of British-version Freedom of Information Act queries, Gaytandzhieva determined that there was a considerable gap between the time when it was claimed the Skirpals’ blood was drawn and the time when it was actually tested for possible poisons at Porton Down. The gap is inexplicable and means in legal terms that the chain of custody was broken. It further suggests that the samples could have been deliberately diverted and tampered with.

Gaytandzhieva, who provides copies of the relevant government documents in her article, sums up her case as “New evidence has emerged of gross violations during the UK investigation into the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on 4^th March 2018.” The Ministry of Defense, which is in charge of the British military laboratory DSTL Porton Down which analyzed the Skripals blood samples responded to a request that “Our searches have failed to locate any information that provides the exact time that the samples were collected.” The samples “were collected at some point between 16:15 on 4 March 2018 and 18:45 on 5 March 2018. Even the time of arrival at Porton Down is indicated as “approximate.”

She also cites some expert testimony, “A British toxicologist [commented] that ‘It is inconceivable that with such a visibility case, and the obvious significance of any and all biological samples, normal and expected sample logging and documentation did not take place. The person drawing the sample, in any clinical or forensic setting knows that the date and time must be recorded, and the donor positively identified. In a criminal case, evidence gleaned from these samples would be thrown out as inadmissible… This lack of protocol is either very sloppy or clandestine.”

If the Skripals case sounds very similar to the recent alleged poisoning of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny it should, as the same rush to judgement by many of the same players took place. Navalny became ill while on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow on August 20^th, 2020 and was taken to a hospital in Omsk after an emergency landing. The Russian hospital could not find any poison in his blood and attributed his condition to metabolic disorder. Two days later, the Russian government allowed Navalny to be transported to a hospital in Germany which then announced that the Putin government had poisoned Navalny with novichok, which became the story that was read and televised worldwide. Interestingly, there is now evidence that the air medevac team was standing by and ready even before anyone knew Navalny was ill, suggesting that it was planned in advance. Once in Germany, as in the case of the Skripal poisoning, the evidence of the crime mysteriously disappeared for a while. Blood samples and water bottles allegedly containing the novichok were sent to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons offices for verification. They took five days to arrive.

The doubts regarding both the Skripals and Navalny poisonings might suggest that the Cold War never really ended, at least from the Anglo-American perspective. Whatever Vladimir Putin has been doing for the past three years hardly touches on genuine U.S. or British interests, unless one considers the governance of places like Ukraine and Syria to be potentially threatening. That someone, somewhere, somehow seems to be making an effort to isolate and delegitimize President Putin by making him an international poisoner is tragedy elevated by its absurdity to the level of farce. It serves no purpose and, in the end, can only lead to mistrust on all sides that can in turn become very, very ugly.

The security services put an extraordinary amount of media priming effort into explaining why the alleged novichok attack on the Skripals had a delayed effect of several hours, and then failed to kill them. Excuses included that it was a cold day which slowed their metabolisms, that the chemical took a long time to penetrate their skins, that the gel containing the novichok inhibited its operation, that it was a deliberately non-fatal dose, that rain had diluted the novichok on the doorknob, that the Skripals were protected by gloves and possibly only came into contact in taking the gloves off, or that nerve agents are not very deadly and easily treated.

You can take your pick as to which of those convincingly explains why the Skripals apparently swanned round Salisbury for four hours after coming into contact with the novichok coated doorknob, well enough to both drink in a pub and eat a good Italian lunch, before both being instantaneously struck down and disabled at precisely the same time so neither could call for help, despite being different sexes, ages and weights. Just as the chief nurse of the British army happened to walk past.

So now let us fast forward to Alexei Navalny. Traces of “novichok” were allegedly found on a water bottle in his hotel room in Tomsk. That appears to eliminate the cold and the gloves. It also makes it possible he ingested some of the “novichok”. I can find no suggestion anywhere it was contained in a gel. So why was this deadly substance not deadly?

There seems no plain allegation of where Navalny came into contact with the “novichok”. Assuming he spent the night in his hotel room, then the very latest he can have come into contact with the deadly nerve agent would be shortly before he left the room, assuming he then subsequently touched the bottle before leaving. This is true whether the bottle was the source or he just touched it with novichok on his hands. After poisoning with this very deadly nerve agent – which Germany claims is “harder” than other examples, he then checked out of the hotel, went to the airport, checked in for his flight, had a cup of tea and boarded the flight, all before being taken ill. This after contact with a chemical weapon allegedly deadlier than this:

Which of course is aside from all the questions as to why the Russians would use again the poison that was ineffective against the Skripals, and why exactly the FSB would not have swept and cleaned up the hotel room after he had left. All that is even before we get to some of the questions I had already asked:

Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.

Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In a Russian state hospital.

Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered. And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok

There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.

The eagerness of the Western political establishment to accept and amplify nonsensical Russophobia is very worrying. Fear is a powerful political tool, politicians need an enemy, and still more does the military-industrial complex that so successfully siphons off state money. Many fat livings depend on the notion that Russia poses a serious threat to us. The nonsense people are prepared to believe to maintain that fiction give a most unpleasant glimpse into the human psyche.

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

craigmurray.org.uk

Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian plot.

I am going to prove beyond all doubt that I am a Russian troll by asking the question Cui Bono?, brilliantly identified by the Integrity Initiative’s Ben Nimmo as a sure sign of Russian influence.

I should state that I have no difficulty at all with the notion that a powerful oligarch or an organ of the Russian state may have tried to assassinate Navalny. He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia, but not being a major threat does not protect you against political assassination in Russia.

What I do have difficulty with is the notion that if Putin, or other very powerful Russian actors, wanted Navalny dead, and had attacked him while he was in Siberia, he would not be alive in Germany today. If Putin wanted him dead, he would be dead.

Let us first take the weapon of attack. One thing we know about a “Novichok” for sure is that it appears not to be very good at assassination. Poor Dawn Sturgess is the only person ever to have allegedly died from “Novichok”, accidentally according to the official narrative. “Novichok” did not kill the Skripals, the actual target. If Putin wanted Navalny dead, he would try something that works. Like a bullet to the head, or an actually deadly poison.

“Novichok” is not a specific chemical. It is a class of chemical weapon designed to be improvised in the field from common domestic or industrial precursors. It makes some sense to use on foreign soil as you are not carrying around the actual nerve agent, and may be able to buy the ingredients locally. But it makes no sense at all in your own country, where the FSB or GRU can swan around with any deadly weapon they wish, to be making homemade nerve agents in the sink. Why would you do that?

Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.

Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In a Russian state hospital.

Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered. And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok

There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.

The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about 40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2 are now in train in Germany.

The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt.

The UK state is of course currently trying to silence one small bubble of dissent by imprisoning me, so you will not have access to another minor but informed view of world events for you to consider. Yesterday I launched a renewed appeal for funds for my legal defence in the Contempt of Court action against me for my reporting of the attempted fit-up of Alex Salmond. I should be extremely grateful if you can contribute to my defence fund, or subscribe to my blog.

craigmurray

Merkel spoke after a German military laboratory announced earlier this week it had “unequivocal proof” that Navalny had been poisoned with “Novichok”, a Soviet-era military-grade nerve agent.

“It raises serious questions that only the Russian government can and must answer,” Merkel told media reporters. The chancellor’s assertions were immediately reinforced by the United States, Britain and the head of NATO, each demanding Moscow to be held to account.

The Russian government rejected the accusations, saying they were being made improperly. It noted that the German authorities did not inform Moscow of its claims directly, but rather communicated first with its Western allies. There is more than a suggestion that the Western response is being coordinated to railroad accusations against Russia without Moscow being afforded due process. There is a presumption of guilt which violates due process and diplomatic protocol. And, of course, this is not for the first time when it comes to Western contemptuous relations with Russia.

Contrary to Western assertions about Russia having to answer questions about the Navalny case, the onus is very much on the German authorities to explain their “findings” and to back them up with verifiable evidence. Otherwise it amounts to hearsay and innuendo.

First of all, the Germans say they have “unequivocal proof” that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, reportedly from tests carried out on his blood samples. But the German military laboratory and doctors in Berlin have not provided any biomaterials to Russia for the latter to independently verify the alleged detection of Novichok.

Secondly, the Russian doctors who first treated Navalny after he suddenly fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20 have affirmed that they carried out comprehensive toxicology tests on his biological fluids and organs, and they detected no traces of toxins. Specifically no traces of organophosphate nerve agents. The Russian medics concluded that Navalny may have become ill from a metabolic disorder, such as extremely low blood sugar.

The Russian doctors who treated Navalny, and possibly saved his life by their quick intervention, said they detected the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors which affect the nervous system, but such substances can be caused by a wide range of clinical pharmaceuticals, including those used for the treatment of diabetes which Navalny reportedly suffers from.

However, the crucial point is this: the Russian toxicology tests found no presence of Novichok or any other such nerve poison in Navalny’s body. The Russian medics reportedly still possess the original body samples taken when Navalny was being treated in Russia. It is the Germans who are claiming they have detected Novichok, but so far they have not provided verifiable proof. It is their word for it, that’s all.

There are more questions needing answers. Navalny was airlifted from Russia to Berlin on August 22 under heavy pressure from Germany and other Western states for Moscow to permit his relocation. Why the urgency to do so? Why did Moscow relent in allowing this strange foreign intervention in its internal affairs?

If, for argument sake, the Kremlin had in some way plotted to cause Navalny harm with Novichok or some other poison, why would Moscow permit his relocation to Berlin where toxicology tests would uncover the purported plot? That scenario is illogical.

Navalny’s aides immediately claimed he was poisoned when he fell ill. They said he may have been poisoned from drinking tea at Tomsk airport before his flight. But CCTV footage shows Navalny being handed the drink by an aide. So, if anyone intended Navalny’s intoxication from the beverage, they wouldn’t have known he was to be the person who received the drink.

Furthermore, the Russian scientists who invented Novichok have stated categorically that if the nerve agent was somehow involved in the Navalny case, then he would most likely be dead by now and not in a coma. Also, they say, his aides and those who treated Navalny onboard the flight from Tomsk, would inevitably have been contaminated and sickened, so deadly is this chemical weapon.

Let’s recap. Navalny did not have toxins in his body and specifically not organophosphate nerve agents of the Novichok type, according to the Russian toxicologists. Let’s give them benefit of doubt. The poison was only detected – allegedly – by the German military laboratory five days after Navalny was received at the Berlin hospital last weekend. Yet the Germans – and this is crucial – are not sharing their bio-evidence with Russia. They have instead rushed to make grave accusations against Moscow, along with their Western allies. Without a chain of verifiable evidence, this is a travesty of due process.

What this all relies on is presumption of guilt, as well as large prejudice stemming from Russophobia, and the invocation of dubious past unproven cases such as the 2018 alleged poisoning of British double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury. The whereabouts of Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen, remains a mystery which only the British authorities can reveal, yet their strange case is thrown at Moscow to answer for, just like the current Navalny case.

The timing of the Navalny case is also significant. There are several current geopolitical factors at play. First there is the isolation of Washington at the United Nations in its attempt to force the reimposition of sanctions on Iran over the nuclear accord. This week saw Russian, Chinese, British, French and German diplomats meeting in Vienna in a bid to save the international nuclear deal in spite of American sabotage efforts. The Navalny case “poisons” diplomatic unity to defend the nuclear accord.

Another geopolitical factor is the political upheaval in Belarus. Washington and the European Union appear to be exploiting the unrest to destabilize relations between Russia and its neighbor. The Navalny case fits an agenda of undermining Moscow and impeding its relations with Minsk.

A third factor – and this may be the most significant – is the Nord Stream 2 gas supply project from Russia to Germany. The $11 billion, 1,200-kilometer pipeline has been targeted intensely by the Trump administration for derailment. There are also pro-Washington politicians in the ruling German Christian Democrat party who have been persistent in their opposition to the ambitious boost to energy trade between Russia and Europe.

The New York Times headlined on September 3: “Navalny Poisoning Raises Pressure on Merkel to Cancel Russian Pipeline”.

Last week, Merkel was insisting that the Navalny case did not impinge on the Nord Stream 2 project’s completion. This week, German military intelligence is claiming that Novichok was used to poison Navalny, and now Merkel is under intensified pressure to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. As ever, the old criminologist question of who gains should be foremost here.

Indeed, there are several serious questions to answer in the Navalny case. But it is Germany and its Western allies who are best placed to provide answers, not Russia.

“The poisoning of Alexei Navalny shocked the world,” asserted Johnson on Twitter, who went on to call for a “transparent investigation” to find the perpetrators. The British premier didn’t explicitly finger the Russian authorities, but that was what he implied.

It’s amazing how Boris Johnson, wracked by the political disaster of his sheer incompetent mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic in Britain, somehow has the time and “authority” to poke into Russian affairs.

Johnson’s rush to judgement replicates other Western leaders who have concluded without any evidence that Navalny was poisoned in a malicious way. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said he backs the European Union’s call for a comprehensive investigation. Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel not only referred to Navalny’s condition as “poisoning” but also a “crime”.

Boris Johnson’s intervention is reminiscent of how he accused the Kremlin of poisoning former MI6 spy Sergei Skripal in March 2018 within days of that incident. Johnson was then the UK’s foreign minister. What actually happened to Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the English city of Salisbury remains a mystery since the pair have not been seen or heard of since. Presumably, they are in the custody of the British authorities, who have denied all international norms by not allowing Russia consular access to at least one of its citizens.

As with the Skripal case, the reflexive response among Western governments and media is to accuse Russian authorities of malign involvement in the case of Navalny. Demanding an investigation by the Russian government indicates a high-handed presumption to interfere in Russian internal affairs. It also indicates a Western prejudice to criminalize Moscow over any incident.

As soon as Navalny was hospitalized after apparently being taken ill during a flight last week from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow, Western media headlines immediately inferred it was the result of sinister play. “Putin critic” was ubiquitous in headlines, as were unfounded claims of “poisoning” from drinking tea. (Russian trope alert.)

The Russian doctors who treated Navalny said there was no evidence of poisonous substance found in his body. They said his seizure may have been caused by a fatal drop in blood sugar levels. He is reportedly diabetic. So, from what we can tell, the Russian doctors appear to have saved Navalny’s life by their rapid response, but they were unable to make a precise diagnosis. What then merits Western demands for an investigation by the Russian authorities?

Here is the strange twist in the story. Two days after being treated in Russia, Navalny is airlifted on Saturday, August 22, by a private jet to a hospital in Germany, where he continues to reside, reportedly in a coma, which is not life-threatening. The doctors in the Charité hospital in Berlin release a vague statement claiming that it is “likely” he has been “poisoned”. They cite the presence of “cholinesterase inhibitors” in his body as evidence of “poisoning”.

The Russian medics were also aware of “cholinesterase inhibitors” being present and were treating Navalny with atropine, a known antidote. But as the Russians point out, cholinesterase inhibitors are widely found in a variety of clinical pharmaceuticals as well as more sinister substances, such as nerve agents. By merely detecting the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors and while not detecting any specific chemical that then does not permit a conclusion of “poisoning”, which the Russian doctors refrained from.

Therefore, what we have is a hasty assessment by the German doctors who make a dramatic conclusion, which the Russian counterparts do not, even though both teams were working on the same clinical sample information. Surely, that is unprofessional and unethical on the part of the German medics.

It would appear that the doctors at the Berlin hospital share the same mental condition as Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and Mike Pompeo. That is, a condition of condemning Russia before any evidence is in. Then let the media pile on the propaganda tropes and “history” of “assassinations” by “Kremlin poisoning”

The curious question is: why did the Russia authorities permit the private transport of a Russian citizen out of the country at a time when he was in a serious medical condition? Was the Russian government unnerved by the media accusations of foul play against a dissident figure who has been lionized by the West as some kind of political hero? Did they feel the need to be excessively “open”?

Alexei Navalny, despite his high-profile among Western media, is a minor figure in Russian politics. His so-called anti-corruption campaigns have negligible interest for most ordinary Russian citizens, and minimal political impact for the Russian government. In short, Navalny is a professional gadfly whose importance is blown out of all proportion to its reality by Western media. There is nothing to gain for the Russian authorities in causing injury to this person, assuming that such a malicious event might even be considered.

That may well explain why Russian officials assented to Navalny being airlifted to Berlin, knowing full well that his medical condition was not caused by anything pertaining to deliberate, sinister action. Still, that decision by the Russians seems an odd concession over a matter of sovereignty. It’s doubtful that the Americans, British, Germans or others would have followed a similar course for one of their citizens being take abroad, especially one who could be exploited for propaganda value.

Surely, Moscow did not underestimate the mentality of Russophobia which Western politicians suffer from? The cardinal rule is never give hostages to fortune when dealing with buffoons like Britain’s Boris Johnson. It looks like Navalny is now one such hostage to anti-Russian fortune.

It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for millennia.

This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:

Porton Down Man: I’ve got the reports from the Bailey house
Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?
Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his wife and children haven’t been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but the only word for that is a miracle.

Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the “only word for that”. Nonsense is a good word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys’ home.

Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went through Sergei’s wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman, Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.

The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.

It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture between the BBC and the security services’ house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round pro-war propagandist “Colonel” Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants, which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into miracles.

Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published in the last fortnight two articles by Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.

[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in those days.]

Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read this comprehensive article, which contains plenty of links and remains entirely unanswered.

craigmurray.org.uk

The “Court of Protecton … Date 22/03/2018” proceeding, which seems to have determined their legal fate, didn’t even consult any of their relatives, and, according to John Helmer’s terrific book just issued, Skripal in Prison, (p. 74), also “The Russian Government was not consulted or informed in advance” about the proceeding, and therefore was allowed no role whatsoever in deciding the outcomes regarding these two Russian citizens. The UK Court’s ruling, on 22 March, stated that “Neither Mr Skripal nor Ms Skripal appear to have relatives in the UK although they appear to have some relatives in Russia. The SSHD [Secretary of State for Home Development] have not sought to make contact with them.” No explanation was provided on why. So, the Skripals are stranded. We don’t know whether either of the Skripals has even been informed that the Russian Embassy was trying to make contact with them. They might both have been (and now remain) deceived to think that they have been simply abandoned by their country.

As I noted on 8 March 2020, citing mainly Helmer’s book, and linking to his published articles, “the much-publicized British-alleged ‘Russian novichok’ 4 March 2018 Salisbury England poisoning of the Russian-British double-agent Sergei Skripal and of his visiting daughter Yulia was never conclusively sourced as having been at all a Russian operation; and both of the victims are being held against their wills in UK though they seem to want to return to Russia, but are prohibited from being able to communicate to the public or to answer any questions out of the presence of their British and American holders (basically being imprisoned by UK without any trial and with not even an appearance in court).” Furthermore, “Chapter 23 of Helmer’s book is a reprint of his 8 December 2019 online article, ‘The Skripals Under US Control at a USAF Nuclear Bomber Base in Fairford, Gloucestershire’, and it clearly proves the U.S. Government’s participation in their imprisonment. Such U.S. involvement does not fit, at all, with the propagandized ‘news’ reports about the Skripal case.” As Helmer reported there, the first thing that Yulia (apparently the first of the two to regain consciousness) tried to do after recovering was to speak with her family in Russia, but “the telephone call was unauthorized by hospital officials and required Skripal to hide from her guards.” (It was brief, and rushed.) Furthermore, as Helmer reported on 5 April 2018, “In Moscow, her cousin Victoria Skripal has told the Russian press she has repeatedly tried to telephone her cousin on the latter’s Russian mobile telephone, but that this device has been disconnected.”

The youtube of the call — as recorded, somehow, at the other end, in Russia — was soon taken down by youtube. But Britain’s Daily Mail, perhaps their least-censored major newspaper, published the transcript of it, on the day of the call, 5 April 2018, and closed by noting: “The call is only 1 minute 47 seconds. The voice purporting to be Yulia sounded weak and tense.” Furthermore, when Yulia’s cousin, “Victoria,” told her she wanted to fly to visit with them there, Yulia said: “No-one [referring to the UK Government] will give you a visa, Vika.” (In other words: she would be denied entry to UK.) Victoria nonetheless pressed, and Yulia was about to explain, and then just stopped herself: “here the situation is now…we’ll deal with it later.” Victoria, apparently, now got the message, and so said “I know everything,” meaning: I understand — you’re not free to talk. The rest of the conversation were pleasantries, and expressions of mutual affection. Yulia’s “we’ll deal with it later” expressed her belief that the UK would soon free her, but she not only hasn’t been freed: she is, effectively, in solitary confinement, wherever she is, or else is dead, though no announcement of her death has been made by the UK Government.

On 19 July 2018, Vladimir Putin was interviewed by Oliver Stone, and when the issue of Sergei Skripal briefly came up, Putin said that “I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come back” to Russia. Unfortunately, Stone (a poor interviewer) failed to ask any good follow-up question (such as, “But isn’t he a traitor to Russia?”); but, if what Putin said there was well-sourced, then clearly not only Yulia but also her father are imprisoned by UK, without even the pretense to any court-proceedings in which either of them (or any representative duly appointed by either of them) has played any part — and with zero advocacy for either of them by the UK press, the U.S. press, or any other U.S.-controlled press. (Otherwise, only Yulia is being imprisoned in UK. But, then, if Sergei thinks he’s being protected by UK, why is UK not trumpeting testimony from him asserting his belief that Russia had poisoned him and his daughter? Apparently, Putin is correct, but UK won’t permit Sergei to file anything, at all. UK doesn’t want Sergei to be on the loose and accusing UK of having tried to murder both him and his daughter. So: UK is ‘protecting’ both of them.)

Fortunately, three great investigative journalists, plus an entire team of academics, all of these persons being independents instead of hirees, have been, separately from one-another, following the trail down the rabbit-hole of the Skripals’ case, and have discovered things that the Skripals’ imprisonment-without-trial, UK & U.S.A., joint Deep-State team, have been assiduously trying to hide (and successfully have been hiding) from the audiences of the Western ‘news’ media. Other than Helmer (an American who had served in the Jimmy Carter Administration but now lives in Moscow), there has also been the whistleblowing former UK Ambassador, and now also great journalist, Craig Murray, who likewise has a blog, and the third great journalist on this case has been the anonymous author of the “Moon of Alabama” blog. The scholars’ group are the Working Group on Syria — the people who first revealed that the alleged cause for the U.S. and UK and France attack against Syria with over a hundred missiles, on 14 April 2018, was based upon, and was claimed to be punishment of, an actually fraudulent, non-existent, Syrian Government gas-attack, against civilians in the Syrian town of Douma, on 7 April 2018, and was therefore an entirely unprovoked U.S.-and-allied international war-crime. A common thread between that faked excuse for an invasion of Syria on 14 April 2018, and the faked ‘evidence’ that Russia had done the Skripal poisonings, was the lying reports by the OPCW, saying that Russia did Skripal, and that Syria did the alleged 7 April 2018 ‘gas’-attack. If Western publics had been informed about either OPCW lie, then the leadership of the OPCW itself would probably have been forced to resign, and the organization of the OPCW would probably have been forced to change. So, it’s these great investigators (journalists and scholars), against the UK-&-U.S.A.’s Deep State (including its ‘news’-media). (NOTE: The “Deep State” is the billionaires.) However, because these independent investigators are suppressed in the U.S. and UK empire, which includes Netherlands and almost all the rest of the EU, the OPCW continues on as before, thoroughly corrupt. Thus, for example, on 13 March 2020, Russia’s RT headlined “Fourth OPCW whistleblower says staff ‘frightened into silence’ as watchdog brought into ‘shameful disrepute’ over Douma probe”, and, on 11 April 2020, the Syrian-American investigative journalist Steven Sahiounie headlined at The Duran, “The OPCW is used as a political tool against Syria” and reported the by-now shocking extent of incredibility to the reports that the propagandists who run the OPCW are publishing, which display a degree of sheer shoddiness that no longer makes even a pretense to being founded upon credible experts and evidence.

There clearly is an organized gang, if not an organized gang of gangs (including media-heads), (and let’s call this a “conspiracy,” because it certainly is that) which is behind all of this smearing against Russia and against any government that is not hostile toward Russia. Even with the ideological excuse for the Cold War — communism versus capitalism — gone, that supposedly ‘ideological’ war has continued on the U.S.-UK side. (Perhaps all of it can be traced back to the plan for world conquest which Britain’s Cecil Rhodes first described in 1877.)

On 24 June 2019, a highly credible anonymous analysis of evidence regarding the Skripal matter concluded:

No one who has looked into the case in any detail can possibly be satisfied that the account given by the UK Government and The Metropolitan Police is correct.

The narrative put out by the Metropolitan Police is not simply questionable, it is plain impossible.

I believe, today more than ever, that this affair is a carefully constructed drama to push Russia in[to] a corner and justify Western foreign policies in various places such as Ukraine, Iran and Syria.

Who really tried to assassinate Sergei Skripal? And why? Frankly, it would not surprise me a bit if we discover one day — 50 years from now? — that a Western Intelligence agency was feeding Skripal with a mix of information and disinformation regarding the alleged Trump-Russia collusion, knowing full well that this report would eventually end up at the FBI.

If true, that agency has played Steele, and therefore the FBI, like a skripka. This story is not over yet. Stay tuned!

The best summary of the evidence which led to that conclusion is here.

Without any doubt, the basis of the Robert Mueller report on “Russiagate” was loaded with lies and was not even physically possible. Speculation is one thing, and must be avoided at all costs, but lying is even worse — utterly disqualifying. And, yet, Western ‘news’-media routinely lie (usually by stenographically reporting the lies by officials, and then having the gall to call that their ‘journalism’, instead of their “propaganda” — and such allegations are then propaganda about propaganda, or meta-propaganda). It’s all lies on top of lies — just mountains of lies, including calling authentic news ‘fake news’, and calling their own fake news ‘truth’. It is Orwellian.

On 5 November 2018, “Anonymous” posted to cyberguerilla “a large number of documents relating to the activities of the ‘Integrity Initiative’ project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and funded by the British government. The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.”

The Working Group on Syria headlined on 21 December 2018 “Briefing note on the Integrity Initiative” and presented massive documentation exposing further that organization, which had been formed on 22 June 2015 (barely over a year after the U.S. had seized Ukraine and thus started the final phase of America’s operation to capture Russia) and which organization quickly spread its tentacles throughout the institutions of the Cecil-Rhodes-founded U.S.-UK empire and thereby became fundamental to the poisoning of the Skripals and the cover-ups of that. (Explaining the Skripal case seems to me to require going even beyond the Integrity Initiative and to include the broader ring whose origin extends back to the plan for world conquest which Britain’s Cecil Rhodes first described in 1877.)

On this same day, December 21st, Craig Murray headlined “British Government Covert Anti-Russian Propaganda and the Skripal Case”, and he described the connections between the Integrity Initiative, and the Russiagate campaign by America’s Democratic Party, to restore that Party’s version (replacing the Republican Party’s version) of the Cecil-Rhodes-founded operation for an all-encompassing U.S.-UK global empire:

Now let us tie that in with the notorious name further down the list; Pablo Miller, the long-term MI6 handler of Sergei Skripal, who lived in Salisbury with Skripal. Miller is the man who was, within 24 hours of the Skripal attack, protected by a D(SMA) notice banning the media from mentioning him. Here Pablo Miller is actively involved, alongside serving FCO and MOD staff, in a government funded organisation whose avowed intention is to spread disinformation about Russia. The story that Miller is in an inactive retirement is immediately and spectacularly exploded.

Now look at another name on this list. Howard Body. Assistant Head of Science Support at Porton Down chemical weapon research laboratory, just six miles away from Salisbury and the Skripal attack, a role he took up in December 2017. He combines this role with Assistant Head of Strategic Analysis at MOD London. “Science Support” at Porton Down is a euphemism for political direction to the scientists – Body has no scientific qualifications.

Another element brought into this group is the state broadcaster, through Helen Boaden, the former Head of BBC News and Current Affairs.

In all there are six serving MOD staff on the list, all either in Intelligence or in PR. Intriguingly one of them, Ian Cohen, has email addresses both at the MOD and at the notoriously corrupt HSBC bank. The other FCO name besides Duncan Allan, Adam Rutland, is also on the PR side.

Zachary Harkenrider is the Political Counsellor at the US Embassy in London. There are normally at least two Political Counsellors at an Embassy this size, one of whom will normally be the CIA Head of Station. I do not know if Harkenrider is CIA but it seems highly likely.

So what do we have here? We have a programme, the Integrity Initiative, whose entire purpose is to pump out covert disinformation against Russia, through social media and news stories secretly paid for by the British government. And we have the Skripals’ MI6 handler, the BBC, Porton Down, the FCO, the MOD and the US Embassy, working together in a group under the auspices of the Integrity Initiative. The Skripal Case happened to occur shortly after a massive increase in the Integrity Initiative’s budget and activity, which itself was a small part of a British Government decision to ramp up a major information war against Russia.

Furthermore, on 15 July 2019, I headlined “Mainstream Media Hide Skripal’s Connections to Russiagate-Trump Case” and documented the extensive crossover (including Skripal’s own UK handler, Pablo Miller) between the personnel who in Britain were crucial in both of those operations — and who were minimized in the press-accounts.

There are splits within any political organization; and, apparently, the false-flag operation against the Skripals was done by a ring that included not only representatives of UK billionaires, but also representatives of Democratic Party U.S. billionaires who are competing for power against Republican Party U.S. billionaires. This is a power-struggle within the U.S.-UK elite. Though that entire elite want to conquer Russia, they disagree on how to do it. The Trumpians want to conquer China and Iran first, but all the others are simply obsessed against Russia. The Skripals got trapped by the Russia-obsessed billionaires. (For another example of a split amongst the billionaires: one of Trump’s biggest donors, Peter Thiel, said in October 2016, “If you’re a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system”, and therefore he donated ten million dollars to Hogan’s case against Gawker so as to beat the comparably financed case by the liberal backers of Gawker. This is the reason why the United States, which has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than any other nation does, has amost entirely low-wealth people in prison. In a sense, poverty is a crime in America, and only the super-rich can afford competent legal representation. The Hulk-Hogan-versus-Gawker case was well-financed on both sides.)

Back on 24 November 2018, “Moon of Alabama” had bannered “British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns” and opened:

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian-government lines. The ‘Russian collusion’ smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ‘Integrity Initiative‘ builds ‘cluster’ or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need. …

The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the Initiative’s funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State Department. All the ‘contact persons’ for creating ‘clusters’ in foreign countries are British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British government that hides behind a ‘civil society’ pseudo-NGO.

There is an important link in that article, at the sentence “Another file reveals (pdf) the local partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.” It opens up a pdf document showing the hundreds of email addresses of each one of the hundreds of Integrity Initiative participants in each one of the 33 countries, and there is even a person listed there in Russia: Vygaudas Ušackas, the European Union’s Ambassador to Russia, who had just then left the Lithuanian Government’s service to join the board of a Lithuanian aerospace company that’s registered in Cyprus in order to evade taxes.

So, if far more people are aware of the accusations than are aware of the lies and liars that are behind the accusations, then maybe the public should be demanding the press to investigate itself, and to begin that by demanding that all news-media which fail to expose the rot and falsehoods that their competitors are publishing will need to be dispossessed to the public within a year, with one share of stock going to each adult and answerable only to that — the public — and not to any investors nor to any politicians.

But, first, the public needs to demand that the UK Government release the Skripals at a public event, at which each, both the father and the daughter, will, for the first and only time in public, tell the world which country they want to be living in. Right now, neither is being allowed to do that. And, if it won’t happen soon, then when will it? It should be done within one year.

Otherwise: what is the UK Government hiding? And, if the UK Government can do this to the Skripals, then what visitor to UK can they not do it to? Maybe George Orwell didn’t write science fiction, after all. He allegorized future history.

Unless the Skripals have been killed or otherwise disposed of, they are still under coercive isolation by the UK Government, perhaps at a U.S. military base, as non-persons, who aren’t granted even the merely nominal legal representation that Julian Assange is receiving. (Donald Trump and Boris Johnson want Assange dead and his fiancé and two young children to be deprived of his love and of his very presence.)

Maybe “George Orwell” (Eric Blair) knew and understood his country’s future more accurately than the vast majority of its residents today do, who are actually living in it.

SIMILAR HOAXES BY THE BILLIONAIRES’ MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT ON:

Magnitsky, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran.

As the second anniversary of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal has arrived, it is a useful time to take these qualities and revisit this bizarre moment of modern history which took place on a park bench in Salisbury UK and which led to one of the greatest frauds of the modern era derailing all attempts to repair relations between Russia and the west.

To do this, I decided to plunge myself into a new book called Skripal in Prison written by Moscow-based journalist John Helmer and published in February 2020.

This incredible little book, which features 26 chapters written between March 2018 to February 2020 originally published on the author’s site Dances with Bears, unveils an arsenal of intellectual bullets which Helmer skillfully uses to shoot holes into every inconsistency, contradiction and outright lie holding up the structure of the narrative that “there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter”.  This line was asserted without a shred of actual evidence by Theresa May in the House of Commons on March 16, 2018 and in the months that followed, western nations were pressured to expel Russian diplomats (23 in Britain, 60 in the US, 33 across the EU), close down consulates (one Russian consulate in San Francisco and one American consulate in St Petersburg) and impose waves of sanctions against Russia.

Four months after the Skripals (and one unfortunate detective named Sgt. Nick Bailey) were released from British hospital care, two more figures were stricken with Novichok poisoning and taken to hospital on June 30 with one of them (Dawn Sturgess) dying 9 days later. This too was blamed immediately on Russia.

Helmer’s research systematically annihilates the official narratives with the craftsmanship of a legal attorney, taking the reader through several vital questions which shape the book’s composition as a whole, and which I shall lay out for you here:

1. Why have Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fallen off the face of the Earth since their release from Salisbury hospital? It is known that one controlled video was recorded featuring Yulia speaking, and several short calls to family were made by Yulia and her father after their poisoning… but nothing more. Beyond the fact that it appears the Skripals were kept on an American military base in Gloucestershire for an indeterminate amount of time, Helmer points out “at the point in their recuperation when the two of them were beginning to be explicit in their public remarks about what had happened, their communications were cut off. Nothing more is known to this present day.”
2. Despite the fact that the UK Prime Minister asserted that a European Arrest Warrant was issued for the two Russians that were alleged to have carried out Putin’s malevolent will onto the poor Skripals- why were no such warrants ever registered in Interpol? Is it because such warrants actually require evidence?
3. Why did British Intelligence sanction the tearing down of big sections of Skripal’s home at 47 Christie Miller Road in Salisbury due to the apparent “dangers of deadly contaminants”, while only the door handle was tainted with Novichok? If the reasoning was due to health safety, then why were similar actions not taken to the Bourne Hill police station which Sgt. Bradley contaminated or the restaurant and pub which Sergei Skripal went to before his trip to the park … or the contaminated London hotel where the two Russian agents apparently stayed?
4. Since Novichok is an extremely fast acting substance, generally attacking the nervous system in minutes, how is it possible that the time separating the Skripals’ moment of contamination to the moment of losing consciousness on a park bench was over three hours?! How is this possible? Similarly how was it possible that Sgt. Bailey’s point of contamination at Skripal’s home occurred a full 12 hours before he felt the need to go to the hospital?
5. What the hell was up with the strange case of the two unfortunate victims of the July 2018 Novichok poisoning in Amesbury (9 miles from Salisbury)? Were Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley simply collateral damage in an MI6 effort to plug a missing hole in the narrative caused by a lack of any evidence of a device used to apply the nerve agent to the door handle in the first place? Why does Rowley (a known heroin addict) have no recollection where he found the perfume bottle filled with Novichok which he gifted to Sturgess on June 26? Why was the perfume bottle only found by authorities on Rowley’s kitchen counter two days after Sturgess died on July 9^th even though a search for Novichok had been carried out at his apartment beginning with the couple’s admission into Salisbury hospital on June 30?
6. What was the role of the Ministry of Defense’s Porton Down chemical laboratories in this bizarre story? The lab itself was located just a few miles from the crime scene, and the first responder on the scene was an off-duty Colonel named Alison McCourt who happened to be shopping nearby and rushed to the scene. Helmer describes how Col. McCourt is head of nursing for the British Army and Senior Health Advisor which connects her closely to the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down which also happened to have held a major chemical warfare exercise named Toxic Dagger in the area just two weeks earlier. Are these things nothing but coincidences?
7. Porton Down labs which tested the Skripal blood samples and Novichok at the Skripal residence is part of the Ministry of Defense and to this day, no public admission of those samples’ existence at the labs has occurred. Requests by Helmer and others to receive confirmation of from the labs according to Freedom of Information laws have been denied outright on the grounds of “the public interest”. Why? Could it be because blood tests were never actually carried out? Helmer’s book probes this question deeply and the lack of evidence will shock you.
8. How about the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? Since the OPCW ran parallel tests of the apparent blood samples of the Skripals as well as the later July victims Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley to get “matches” with the novichok traces in a perfume bottle and Skripal door handle, why has evidence of these samples not been made available? Also why was a British intelligence officer the only figure who oversaw the samples taken to the OPCW for verification? In fact, Helmer points out that the one Swiss contract laboratory (Spiez) associated with the OPCW has contradicted all British claims that any “match” exists between the Skripal samples and Novichok A-234 poisoning.
9. Finally, Helmer asks: Why were all OPCW Executive Council votes in regards to matters surrounding the Skripal case, taken in secret, and thus in conflict with its own charter and why was Russia denied the right to share in the investigation of the Novichok attack as guaranteed in Articles XIII and IX of the OPCW Chemical Weapons convention? Could that have something to do with the role of former OPCW Director General Ahmet Üzümcü, a Turkish NATO-phile, who Helmer notes “has also been a member of the NATO staff in charge of expanding NATO military operations to the Russian frontier, as well as NATO operations in Ukraine and Syria.” In 2019, Üzümcü was inducted into the Order of St Michael and St George by Queen Elizabeth II for services to the Empire.

Helmer goes onto make the point that the overarching dynamic shaping the events of the Skripal/Novichok affair are guided by the collapsing western empire which has been working tirelessly to surround Russia with a ballistic missile shield while sabotaging all efforts by genuine patriots in the west from establishing positive alliances with Russia.

Taking the opportunity of the second anniversary of the Skripal affair to read this book is not only a valuable exercise in logic but also key into the desperate and increasingly fear-driven mind of the London-centered deep state which is quickly losing its grip both on reality and the very influence it had spent generations putting in place.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

The most dangerous bit of theater involving sanctions initiated by the Trump administration continues to focus on Iran. Last week, the White House elevated its extreme pressure on the Iranians by engaging in a completely irrational sanctioning of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. The sanctions will have no effect whatsoever and they completely contradict Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that he is seeking diplomacy to resolving the conflict with Iran. One doesn’t accomplish that by sanctioning the opposition’s Foreign Minister. Also, the Iranians have received the message loud and clear that the threats coming from Washington have nothing to do with nuclear programs. The White House began its sanctions regime over a year ago when it withdrew from the JCPOA and they have been steadily increasing since that time even though Iran has continued to be fully compliant with the agreement. Recently, the US took the unprecedented step of sanctioning the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is part of the nation’s military.

American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made clear that the sanctions on Iran are intended to cause real pain, which, in fact, they have succeeded in doing. Pompeo and his accomplice in crime National Security Advisor John Bolton believe that enough pressure will motivate the starving people to rise up in the streets and overthrow the government, an unlikely prospect as the American hostility has in fact increased popular support for the regime.

To be sure, ordinary people in Iran have found that they cannot obtain medicine and some types of food are in short supply but they are not about to rebel. The sanctioning in May of Iranian oil exports has only been partially effective but it has made the economy shrink, with workers losing jobs. The sanctions have also led to tit-for-tat seizures of oil and gas tankers, starting with the British interception of a ship carrying Iranian oil to Syria in early July.

Another bizarre escalation in sanctions that has taken place lately relates to the Skripal case in Britain. On August 2^nd, Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing a package of new sanctions against Moscow over the alleged poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in March 2018. The order “prohibit[s] any United States bank from making any loan or providing any credit… except for loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural commodities or products.” The ban also includes “the extension of any loan or financial or technical assistance… by international financial institutions,” meaning that international lenders will also be punished if they fail to follow Washington’s lead.

The sanctions were imposed under the authority provided by the US Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act adopted in 1991, which imposes penalties for use of chemical weapons. Novichok, which was reportedly used on the Skripals, is a chemical weapon developed in the labs of the Soviet Union, though a number of states are believed to currently have supplies of the agent in their arsenals. Russia can appeal the sanctions with 90 days by providing “reliable assurance” that it will not again use chemical weapons.

Russia has strenuously denied any role in the attack on the Skripals and the evidence that has so far been produced to substantiate the Kremlin’s involvement has been less than convincing. An initial package of US-imposed sanctions against Russia that includes the export of sensitive technologies and some financial services was implemented in August 2018.

Venezuela is also under the sanctions gun and is a perfect example how sanctions can escalate into something more punitive, leading incrementally to an actual state of war. Last week Washington expanded its sanctions regime, which is already causing starvation in parts of Venezuela, to include what amounts to a complete economic embargo directed against the Maduro regime that is being enforced by a naval blockade.

The Venezuelan government announced last Wednesday that the United States Navy had seized a cargo ship bound for Venezuela while it was transiting the Panama Canal. According to a government spokesman, the ship’s cargo was soy cakes intended for the production of food. As one of Washington’s raisons d’etre for imposing sanctions on Caracas was that government incompetence was starving the Venezuelan people, the move to aggravate that starvation would appear to be somewhat capricious and revealing of the fact that the White House could care less about what happens to the Venezuelan civilians who are caught up in the conflict.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez condemned the move as “serious aggression,” and accused the Trump Administration of trying to impede Venezuela’s basic right to import food to feed its people.

One of the most pernicious aspects of the sanctions regimes that the United States is imposing is that they are global. When Washington puts someone on its sanctions list, other countries that do not comply with the demands being made are also subject to punishment, referred to as secondary sanctions. The sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, for example, are being globally enforced with some few exceptions, and any country that buys Iranian oil will be punished by being denied access to the US financial and banking system. That is a serious penalty as most international trade and business transactions go through the dollar denominated SWIFT banking network.

Finally, nothing illustrates the absurdity of the sanctions mania as a recent report that President Trump had sent his official hostage negotiator Robert O’Brien to Stockholm to obtain freedom for an American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten into a fight with some local boys. The Trumpster did not actually know the lad, but he was vouched for by the likes of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the president. The negotiator was instructed to tell Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be “negative consequences.” Who can doubt that the consequences would undoubtedly have included sanctions?

It has reached the point where the only country that likes the United States is Israel, which is locked into a similar cycle of incessant aggression. To be sure Donald Trump’s rhetoric is part of the problem, but the indiscriminate, illegal and immoral use of sanctions, which punish whole nations for the presumed sins of those nations’ leaders, is a major contributing factor. And the real irony is that even though sanctions cause pain, they are ineffective. Cuba has been under sanctions, technically and embargo, since 1960 and its ruling regime has not collapsed, and there is no chance that Venezuela, Iran or Russia’s government will go away at any time soon either. In fact, real change would be more likely if Washington were to sit down at a negotiating table with countries that it considers enemies and work to find solutions to common concerns. But that is not likely to happen with the current White House line-up, and equally distant with a Democratic Party obsessed with the “Russian threat” and other fables employed to explain its own failings.

The dour, hapless Theresa May has been replaced by a guy who seems to think that geopolitics is a circus conducted with custard pies to the face.

His past deplorable comments about the Skripal affair blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering an assassination plot in England last year, plus his outrageous denigration of Russia’s World Cup as comparable to Nazi Germany holding the Olympic Games in 1936, demonstrate that this politician is unfit for office. He can only make relations with Russia even worse.

Moreover, Johnson’s cringing sycophancy to US President Donald Trump adds a whole new disturbing risk of war with Iran.

Everything about this 55-year-old polemist, who made his journalistic career on the back of concocting sensationalist rubbish, speaks of someone who is unscrupulous and a self-serving egomaniac. Added to those “qualities” are his dense stupidity and insufferable arrogance characteristic of the pampered English upper-class.

The Eton-Oxford educated, toffee-nosed Johnson is a proponent of a “hard Brexit” from the European Union. In his acceptance speech this week, he declared that Britain would exit the EU this October with or without a follow-on trade deal with the European bloc. Johnson appears to suffer from delusions of Britain as somehow capable of restoring its presumed greatness as a free-trading nation, as in the days of empire over a century ago. He is prepared to walk away from the EU in a “hard Brexit” departure, meaning that the United Kingdom will be dependent on the Trump administration offering a new “free trade pact” with London. Johnson needs to ingratiate himself with the Trump White House in order to find a major trading partner in place of the EU after more than four decades of membership to the bloc. He shows every sign of being a pathetic Trump minion.

That inevitably means Johnson being beholden to Washington’s whims and demands, not just on trade matters, but on every other way of following and pandering to US foreign policy.

Already, the British have shown a reckless deference to Trump’s policy of aggression towards Iran in recent months. London is dispatching more warships to the Persian Gulf “to protect” British shipping through the strategic waterway. Such deployment of increased military forces by Britain, in lock-step with US escalation, is an incendiary move in a highly tense situation. It further exacerbates tensions and raises the stakes over a miscalculation, leading to a full-on military confrontation. Where wiser heads would be more restrained and seek diplomatic negotiations to resolve a potentially explosive stand-off, Boris Johnson seems too much of a lackey to Trump and his aggressive policy towards Iran.

Johnson is bombastic, arrogant and ill-informed – not unlike Trump – and that is a very dangerous combination.

With regard to Russia, the new British prime minister has previously displayed an appalling lack of knowledge on geopolitics, history and basic norms of diplomacy.

Recall that it was Johnson who as foreign secretary pushed the absurd narrative over the Skripal incident in Salisbury last year. Within days of the mysterious apparent poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March 2018, Johnson was asserting – with no proof at all – that the Kremlin was responsible for an assassination attempt. He even laid the blame for the incident on Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordering the alleged plot.

It soon emerged that Johnson was mendaciously distorting “intelligence” seemingly implicating Russian state agents. That intemperate and reckless official British response to the incident – which more than a year later remains a bizarre, unexplained event – led to US and European expulsion of Russian diplomats and sanctions, and a further deterioration in Western relations with Moscow.

Johnson doubled down on his anti-Russia rants when days later in March 2018 he likened the then forthcoming World Cup held in Russia to the 1936 Olympic Games hosted by Nazi Germany. The British politician went on to compare President Putin to Adolf Hitler and urged the US and Europe to take more punitive actions against Moscow. He has made ridiculous, spurious historical analogies between Russia’s alleged “annexation of Crimea” and the Nazi invasion of the Czech Sudetenland in 1938, saying that if Europe “doesn’t stand up to Putin” it would be like the notorious appeasement policy of the 1930s towards the Third Reich leading to World War II.

In making such wild and historically illiterate statements, Johnson shows himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Ironically, he has pretensions of being something of a history scholar and a big fan of Winston Churchill.

Johnson is not just a clown. He is a very dangerous and erratic showman whose top objective seems to be self-aggrandizement. On one hand his dubious “election” as prime minister this week by a tiny minority Conservative party (less than 1 per cent of the British voting population) is a farce. Good luck with his fantasies of resurrecting British “imperial greatness”. Most Britons shudder at his new role, according to opinion polls.

On the other hand, his ascent to Downing Street marks the descent into British delusional madness. The prospects for international relations, tensions with Iran and Western animosity towards Russia are far from funny. It’s grim to think of a clown in charge of a nuclear power, whose guiding priority is being a Yes Man to Washington.