The West declares War on Russia

16/03/2018
http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-west-declares-war-on-russia/

Voici deux articles “ad frontes”, c’est à dire aux sources, sur la provocation britannique.

Dans le second article, les questions les plus évidentes sont posées : étonnamment notre presse ne les pose pas !

Notamment pourquoi ,les Russes auraient ils fait cela et pourquoi les officiels britanniques ne veulent pas communiquer, au moins des échantillons du poison appelé Novitchok aux Russes ?

Ces articles ne disent pas que le poison appelé Novitchok par les services britanniques en fait N’EXISTE PAS : Les Russes ont précisé que à l’époque soviétique, lorsque étaient fabriquées des armes chimiques – que la Russie a détruit à la fin des années 90 et début 2000 en vertu des traités internationaux sur les armes chimiques contrairement à d’autres signataires – le terme Novitchok (qui veut dire petit nouveau, un bleu) servait à regrouper des précurseurs chimiques de nouveaux produits en cours d’élaboration…

Il n’y a donc pas de poison nommé Novitchok.

Raison de plus pour donner des échantillons non ? D’autant que la Russie y a juridiquement droit car une de ses ressortissante en a été victime (la fille Yulia) et parce que l’existence de ce poison semble être une violation des accords internationaux sur l’interdiction des armes chimiques…

Le second article rappelle fort à propos les mensonges autour de l’affaire des empoisonnements à l’anthrax, dont étaient à l’époque accusés les Irakiens qui n’y étaient pour rien…

Mêmes méthodes pour les mêmes buts ? Cela s’est terminé par une agression et une invasion de l’Irak…

Et les “I an sorry” discrets et à usage interne dans nos pays prononcés à posteriori pour les mensonges n’ont pas rendu la vie aux centaines de milliers de victimes de l’attaque contre l’Irak, où aujourd’hui encore près de 10.000 personnes meurent chaque année dans les attentats et les combats.

Mais le pire pour nous est que notre gouvernement et la présidence suivent sans aucune preuve ce chemin de haine et de préparation à la guerre qui sert peut-être certains intérêts de certains secteurs américains mais certainement pas les nôtres.

Il faut faire cesser cela chez nous.

Cette russophobie s’emballe et mène à la folie.

France, Germany, US, UK say Salisbury incident a violation of UK’s territorial integrity by Russia

15 Mar, 2018

A joint statement by the UK, US, France and Germany says the poisoning of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal was a violation of Britain’s sovereignty by Russia and was the first offensive use of a chemical agent since World War II.

The incident, in which Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in Salisbury on March 4, involved “a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia,” said the statement issued on Thursday. The four countries said the incident constituted “the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.”

The document branded the incident “an assault on UK sovereignty,” adding it came in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and international law. Washington, Paris and Berlin back the UK’s claim that Moscow was responsible for what they called “the attack.”

Russia should provide “full and complete disclosure” of Novichok – the nerve agent allegedly used to poison the Skripals – to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the statement urged.

Though France was one of the signatories to the statement, a spokesman for President Emmanuel Macron’s suggested earlier on Thursday that British Prime Minister Theresa May was prematurely accusing Russia of complicity in the incident. “We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven then the time will come for decisions to be made,” Benjamin Griveaux told a news conference in Paris.

Also on Thursday, Moscow said that it had urged the UK to hand over samples of the chemical to the OPCW and relevant Russian authorities, but to no avail. Commenting on the row, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Britain of refusing to share any evidence in the case, while making “insane” accusations.

London was reluctant to share “any factual information on the [Skripal] case,” she said.

The Russian embassy in London has sent four requests to the Foreign Office calling for“extensive dialogue,” but received “formal replies that made no sense.”

A Very Useful Crime: Launching Information War against Putin and Russia

14/03/2018

Three questions remain unanswered

Why Russia has ordered such a crime only days before its elections?
Why it used a poison enabling to identify Moscow?
Who else has this poison?
Why Britain is not providing samples of the poison to the Russian authorities?
Who wants a world war?
The Skripal poisoning: What lies behind UK-US ultimatums against Russia?

14 March 2018

In little over a week since the mysterious poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent and British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, Britain, on March 4, a campaign has emerged in ruling circles of the NATO alliance to pin blame for the poisoning on Moscow. Backed by top officials in Washington and in Europe, the British government is using this poisoning to concoct accusations against Russia with the most far-reaching implications.

On Monday, Prime Minister Theresa May issued an ultimatum, which expired at midnight today, declaring that absent a “credible response” from Moscow, her government will conclude there has been “an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.” During the parliamentary debate May was urged to invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, forcing the alliance to confer if the “territorial integrity, political independence or security of any [NATO member state] is threatened.”

These are issues over which states go to war, and top NATO officials are clearly putting together a case for war with Russia, a major nuclear-armed power. Yesterday, as May prepared to return to Parliament today with proposals for action, reports emerged in international media that ruling circles in London are discussing also invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This article compels all NATO countries to “assist” any NATO member state that says it has been attacked to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

Faced with such drastic threats raising the danger of nuclear war, one must ask: what is the basis of the allegations that it was Moscow that poisoned Skripal and his daughter, who are now very ill?

The World Socialist Web Site holds no brief for the kleptocratic business oligarchy that emerged in Russia from the Stalinist bureaucracy’s restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union in 1991. It cannot be ruled out that a faction of Russian intelligence, acting with or without the knowledge of President Vladimir Putin, may have poisoned Skripal.

But London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London.

Instead, a simplistic narrative accusing Moscow has emerged: If a crime appears to target countries or individuals hostile to the Russian government, NATO governments and media conclude within hours that it is self-evident that the Kremlin is responsible.

In fact, in international politics, the simple and obvious answer all but inevitably fails to reveal the complex web of political and economic interests that produce a given event or policy. Were the Skripal attack to be a Le Carré spy novel, the accusations so far would likely take up the first 10 pages of the book, after which the real story would unfold over the next 400 pages. The questions that must be posed in such cases are: what is the credibility of the accuser, and, above all, cui bono (who benefits from the crime)?

To those who say it is obvious that Russia poisoned Skripal, it is worth recalling the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, in which a deadly strain of anthrax was mailed to many US officials in Washington, killing 5 people and infecting 17 more, shortly after the September 11 attacks. There again, media immediately blamed the attacks on obvious targets of US-UK war threats—the Iraqi regime’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its alleged ties to Al Qaeda. These all proved to be lies, serving Washington’s foreign policy interests as it sought to go to war in Iraq.

And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks had in fact been created by Washington’s own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately cleared.

It still remains unclear to this day which US officials were involved in carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI closed the investigation in 2010 after pinning the blame on another scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had committed suicide in 2008. However, the US National Academy of Sciences found in 2011 that the US government did not have sufficient scientific evidence to definitively assert that the anthrax used in the attacks came from Ivins.