#and it took for a waR to struck ukraine for her to make them again wkdjwkdjsk | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deniscollins · 6 years

Text

Trump Scraps New Sanctions Against Russia, Overruling Advisers

The Syrian government used chemical weapons in a gas attack that killed more than 40 people outside Damascus. Should the U.S. impose sanctions against Russian companies found to be assisting Syria’s chemical weapons program: (1) Yes, (2) No. If yes, what type of sanctions? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

President Trump rejected, for now at least, a fresh round of sanctions set to be imposed against Russia on Monday, a course change that underscored the schism between the president and his national security team.

The president’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, had announced on Sunday that the administration would place sanctions on Russian companies found to be assisting Syria’s chemical weapons program. The sanctions were listed on a menu of further government options after an American-led airstrike on Syria, retaliating against a suspected gas attack that killed dozens a week earlier.

But the White House contradicted her on Monday, saying that Mr. Trump had not approved additional measures.

“We are considering additional sanctions on Russia and a decision will be made in the near future,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

Speaking later with reporters aboard Air Force One as Mr. Trump headed to Florida, Ms. Sanders added that “the president has been clear that he’s going to be tough on Russia, but at the same time he’d still like to have a good relationship with them.”

Another White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations, said Mr. Trump had decided not to go forward with the sanctions. Mr. Trump concluded that they were unnecessary because Moscow’s response to the airstrike was mainly bluster, the official said.

Russia analysts said the whipsaw policy shift once again highlighted an administration struggling to find a coherent and consistent voice in dealing with Russia, which in the past four years has annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine, sought to influence the American election in 2016, allegedly poisoned a former Russian spy living in Britain and propped up the murderous government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Mr. Trump has mostly spoken hopefully of his efforts to forge a friendship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, including congratulating him on a re-election widely denounced as a sham and even suggesting a White House meeting. At the same time, the Trump administration has imposed two rounds of sanctions against Russia in the last month, expelled 60 of Moscow’s diplomats and closed a consulate in retaliation for the poisoning attack in Britain.

“Trump seems to think that if he accepts what his advisers recommend on even days of the month and rejects their recommendations on odd days, the result will be a strategy,” said Stephen Sestanovich, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and Columbia University who served as ambassador to former Soviet states in the 1990s.

“By and large, other governments don’t know whether to laugh or cry at all this,” Mr. Sestanovich said. “But in Russia, laughter is getting the upper hand.”

Mr. Trump was annoyed with Ms. Haley for getting out in front of the policy, the administration official said, and the president’s decision to reject sanctions left her hanging in public with her credibility on the line.

Ms. Haley has been one of the strongest critics in the administration of Russia’s behavior around the world, often speaking far more harshly than Mr. Trump would, but she has rarely been reined in publicly this way. She made no comment on Monday.

Administration officials said new sanctions could still be imposed at some point if Russia takes further action justifying them.

But absent such a scenario, the officials could not explain how Mr. Trump would make Russia pay a “big price” for enabling Syria’s use of chemical weapons, as he promised to do last week after a suspected gas attack killed more than 40 people and sickened scores more outside Damascus on April 7.

The strike against Syria that Mr. Trump announced late Friday in Washington was limited to a single night and to three targets linked to chemical weapons facilities. It sought to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria for the suspected gas attack but avoid provoking Russia into a response.

Russian forces stationed in Syria have helped Mr. Assad gain the upper hand in the country’s seven-year civil war.

Russia responded harshly to the news of sanctions before learning that Mr. Trump had canceled them. “The sanctions drive against Russia is becoming an obsession,” Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, told reporters at his daily briefing in Moscow. “We’re convinced that any economist can see open attempts to squeeze Russian companies out of global markets.”

Critics said the president’s decision not to follow through on Ms. Haley’s announcement would sap American authority around the world.

“I am outraged that President Trump pulled back sanctions on Russia for its support of the Assad regime,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “This sends a message to governments around the world that they can support brutal, criminal behavior without serious consequences.

“President Trump is out of step with the American people, American values — and as this situation has made clear, his own administration,” Mr. Engel said.

The about-face on sanctions came a day after ABC News broadcast an interview with James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director fired by Mr. Trump last year, in which he said he thought “it’s possible” that the president had been compromised by Russia. A protester waiting for Mr. Trump in Florida on Monday held a large banner that read, “Russian stooge.”

Mr. Trump has heatedly and repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia during his 2016 campaign, calling such suggestions a “hoax” perpetrated by Democratic sore losers desperate to explain an election defeat.

Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.

A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another, #Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.

In hitting the Barzah Research and Development Center, a chemical weapons research lab in greater Damascus, and two storage facilities and bunkers near Homs, Pentagon officials insisted that they dealt a critical blow to Mr. Assad’s weapons program. But Friday night’s strike, delivered via 105 missiles, was not quite double the 59 missiles used last year when Mr. Trump ordered the military to strike a Syrian airfield from which planes engaged in another chemical weapons attack took off.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis pushed hard to limit the strikes to proven weapons facilities in the hopes that a more limited strike would not prompt retaliation from Russia.

The lab at Barzah, in Damascus, was on the receiving end of the biggest barrage — some 76 missiles, a combination of Tomahawk cruise missiles and Joint air-to-surface missiles. The rest of the bombs — 29, fired by American, French and British warplanes — struck and destroyed the Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and the Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker facility around five miles away.

Syria tried to hit back, but by the time its air defense system was deployed, the American warplanes were on their way home and the war ships had completed their mission, military officials said. They disputed Syrian claims to have shot down dozens of American missiles.

“We assess that over 40 surface-to-air missiles were employed by the Syrian regime,” Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, told reporters on Saturday. “Most of these launches occurred after the last impact of our strike was over.”

He called the Syrian retaliatory missiles “largely ineffective” and said they “clearly increased risk to their own people based on their indiscriminate response — when you shoot iron into the sky without guidance, it will inevitably fall to earth.”

#Russia

0 notes

newsnigeria · 7 years

Text

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/british-spy-skripal-hoax/

The British Spy Skripal hoax

by Scott Humor

In regards to the British government-staged hoax around the persona of retired British spy Sergey Skripal: If TV police dramas told us anything it’s the principle of Corpus delicti, or “no body, no crime.” It’s the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

Since February, the British government has been staging a bizarre theater employing dozens of actors dressed in police and firefighters uniforms and colorful hazmat suits, all to make the appearance of a crime being investigated.

Just one fact is enough to understand that an entire “the Skripals poison crime” has never took place. This so called “nerve agent” has never been placed on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons because it has never existed.

It’s non-existence was confirmed by Dr Robin Black, until recently he was a head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Porton Down). He wrote in his review: “… emphasizes that there is no independent confirmation of Mirzayanov’s claims about the chemical properties of these compounds: Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

Just like “Novichok” has never existed, no one was poisoned, nothing has happened. It’s a staged provocation and a hoax.

It is a typical war game scenario, in which the game “viruses,” or bits of fake information, were planted years ago, and now being used as “evidence” in a staged “crime.” They tell us that nothing proves today crime as a thirty-year-old newspaper article.

Just accept that everything the British government says is a lie.

For those who want to understand methods and techniques involved in staging these sort of augmented reality war game operations, I refer to my war games illustrated manual, “Pokemon in Ukraine.” The aim of any war game is to engage non-players in it. First step is to con people into accepting that staged events as real, or as Zakharova names this process “a legitimization of previously fabricated information.”

It’s been a month since the hoax around the British spy Skripal started. We still have no hard evidence that an alleged attack ever took place. We don’t have the victims. No third party medical tests, no CC footage of the victims, no official meetings with the victims, no samples of alleged poison; the list goes on and on.

During the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 15, 2018, she said: “Britain has not provided any data to anyone,” The truth is obviously being concealed. No one is providing information about the incident to anyone.”

In her interview to the newspaper Argumenti (Arguments), Zakharova said that either the British disclose all the facts, or “it’s all lies, from the beginning to the end.”

This stance of the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrates a tectonic shift from a willingness of Russia’s government to play along and accept war games as real, as it was in case of a staged war in Ukraine in 2014.

On Sunday, I received an email from a famous military defense attorney, Christopher Black, which I am posting here with his permission.

Chris wrote to me a few questions from a defense lawyer.

“Questions to the British Prime Minster from a citizen:

You state Skripal and daughter were poisoned – then where are they? Where are photos of them? Where are the medical reports stating what is wrong with them and their present condition?

You state Russians did this – fine then, where are the persons that administered it, how did they do it, where did they do it and when did they do it?

You state Russians are involved – but you have not put out any profile of any suspects nor have you put out a dragnet for any likely suspects who, if you are right and they did do this, are still then roaming around the country doing who knows what.

You state this is a national emergency and have police and army in strange suits on some streets but you have not put police and army elements at the airports and ports to try to catch the culprits to prevent them leaving the country.

Having failed to do these obvious things the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are lying to the British people.

We reject Russia was involved for obvious reasons. Therefore we cannot accept the rest of their claims either without evidence. All we know is that two people are claimed to have been poisoned. that is all we know – a claim.” Chris

He also added: “Where is the evidence that an nerve agent was used at all aside from there say so? Now, they have people chasing their tails arguing whether it is this agent or that agent, the various affects of them etc. etc, when we have no evidence that a nerve agent was used.”

“We have no evidence anything ever took place. Litvinenko – photos of him in a hospital bed every week for months. As for these two – we don’t even know if they exist, or were eliminated, or who knows what.”

“Again, I think this line of inquiry is pointless unless and until we see evidence of a nerve agent was used at all.

We should not accept any element of their story. We have to question every element of their story – for once you accept one part of it you will be stuck with the rest.”

I only want to add that at the end of this SITREP you can find a list of articles and research papers conducted by extremely smart and knowledgeable people and directed to the government of the UK, all telling them what they did and said wrong. I have to say with my deepest regret that what all these wonderful people have done is to provide the British government with free research and resources to stage another chemical attack hoax, only on much larger scale.

It’s nothing new for the British government to make similar accusations against Russia. Actually the United Kingdom has a long history of using its chemical weapons against Russians, while there is NO evidence that Russians had even used chemical weapons against the British Crown subjects.

Boris Johnson walks in Churchill’s footsteps by accusing Russia in using and stockpiling chemical weapons.

The British Chemical Warfare against the Russians

One of the earliest used chemical weapon in human history was cacodyl oxide. It was proposed as a chemical weapon by the British Empire during the Crimean War against Russia, along with the significantly more potent blood agent, cacodyl cyanide.

During the invasion of Russia by the British Empire and its allies, France, Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire, in 1853-1856 known as the Crimean war, the British army used sulfur dioxide during the siege of Sevastopol in August 1855. In May 1854 the British and French fleets bombarded Odessa with some “stinky bombs” containing some kind of poisonous substances.

During the invasion of Russia in 1918-1922, the Allied troops of the British, American, Canadian and French armies under the British command used the chemical weapons in Archangelsk in February 1919, and in August 27, 1919, near the village of Yemtsa, 120 miles South of Arkhangelsk, British artillery opened fire on the positions of the Red Army fighting with the foreign invaders. After the explosions green cloud covered the position of the Russian troops, Russian soldiers trapped in a cloud vomited blood and then fell unconscious and died. The British forces used CW called adamsite (dihydrophenarsazine).

“The strongest case for Churchill as chemical warfare enthusiast involves Russia, and was made by Giles Milton in The Guardian on 1 September 2013. Milton wrote that in 1919, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret “M Device,” an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine [DM]. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it “the most effective chemical weapon ever devised.” Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. “If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda.”

According to Giles Milton, the author of Russian Roulette: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (2013): “Trials at Porton suggested that the M Device was indeed a terrible new weapon. The active ingredient in the M Device was diphenylaminechloroarsine, a highly toxic chemical. A thermogenerator was used to convert this chemical into a dense smoke that would incapacitate any soldier unfortunate enough to inhale it… The symptoms were violent and deeply unpleasant. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant and crippling fatigue were the most common features…. Victims who were not killed outright were struck down by lassitude and left depressed for long periods.”

The use of chemical weapons against Russians was supported in this by Sir Keith Price, the head of the chemical warfare, at Porton Down.

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious. The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped.“

“Because an enemy who has perpetrated every conceivable barbarity is at present unable, through his ignorance, to manufacture poisoned gas, is that any reason why our troops should be prevented from taking full advantage of their weapons? The use of these gas shell[s] having become universal during the great war, I consider that we are fully entitled to use them against anyone pending the general review of the laws of war which no doubt will follow the Peace Conference.”

This was how Churchill justified the use of the chemical weapons during the Atlanta invasion of Russia in 1919, claiming that it was Russians, who “perpetrated every conceivable barbarity,” despite the fact that it was Russia who was invaded by the Allied armies and Russian people who were killed in millions.

How is the invasion of 1919 similar to what the British government is doing today? How did the British government justify its use of the chemical weapons against Russian villages? What exactly Russians did to deserve this?

Churchill ordered General Ironside, in command of the Allied forces, to make “fullest use” of the chemical weapon because: “Bolsheviks have been using gas shells against Allied troops at Archangel.”

But where would Russians get those weapons?

John Simkin in Winston Churchill and Chemical Weapons writes:

“Someone leaked this information and Churchill was forced to answer questions on the subject in the House of Commons on 29th May 1919. Churchill insisted that it was the Red Army who was using chemical warfare: “I do not understand why, if they use poison gas, they should object to having it used against them. It is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them.” His statement was untrue. There is no evidence of Bolshevik forces using gas against British troops and it was Churchill himself who had authorised its initial use some six weeks earlier.”

The British repeated their use of chemical weapons against Russians on 27th August, 1919. when British Airco DH.9 bombers dropped gas bombs on the Russian village of Emtsa. According to one source: “Bolsheviks soldiers fled as the green gas spread. Those who could not escape, vomited blood before losing consciousness.” Other villages targeted included Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. During this period 506 gas bombs were dropped on the Russians. [John Simkin ]

But that wasn’t the end of the war crimes of the British Crown against Russia. After withdrawal of the British troops in October 1919, the remaining chemical weapons were considered to be too dangerous to be sent back to Britain and therefore they were dumped into the White Sea. The last time someone in Russia came across the British chemical weapons was in 2017 a man from Archangelsk found several British shells with iprit, which remains potent after one hundred years.

So, the British government has a proven historical record of laying false accusations on Russia accusing Russia in using chemical weapons anagst the British subjects, while using it against Russians. .

How was the 1919 false flag operation organized?

Excerpt from a book Churchill’s Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia, 1918-1920 By Clifford Kinvig, page 128

“On January 27, major Gilmore, a forward commander there, reported that “the enemy used a certain percentage of gas shells with no effect.” Ironside realized that this was a significant development, if only small in scale, and immediately notified the War Office: “Reports that 3 gas shells fired by enemy; my 1 gas officer has gone up to investigate. This is first suggestion of enemy using gas in any form, but if it is verified I shall ask for some gas officers and means of repair for masks. There is a plentiful supply of latter here.”

Three gas shells were hardly a major event, and Ironside’s reaction, it will noted, was entirely defensive. Not so the response from Churchill. The same day, without waiting for confirmation, he made this “first use” clear to the nation at large in a formal press statement and at the same time notified Ironside that the ship would be sailing in the middle of the month, loaded with gas shells for his various artillery pieces. Ironside still demurred, asking for instructions, since he had not yet verified the report that the Bolsheviks had indeed used the weapon. Plainly, the general had residual inhibitions. The clearest of directives from the War Office, however, soon followed. On 7 February the COGs at Archangel, Murmansk and Constantinople received a message in cipher from the Director of Military Operations: “Fullest use is now to be made of gas shell with your forces, or supply by us to Russian forces, as Bolsheviks have been using gas shells against Allied troops in Archangel.” The Secretary of State had wasted no time.

“Some critics have claimed that Churchill, in his keenness to use gas, falsely charged the Bolsheviks with using it first.”

The false flag attack was very simple. There were two unconfirmed reports that poisonous gas shells were used against the British forces. The press carried the reports, prompted by the War Office. Same day, the Director of Military Operations issued the order to use the chemical weapons.

When it became known, and people started accusing Churchill and the Allied forces command in using chemical weapons against Russians under false pretence, Churchill issued a memorandum

Churchill’s 1919 War Office Memorandum May 12, 1919

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Before the WWII the Britain also used chemical weapons in Afghanistan, India, and Mesopotamia.

————————————————————————————————————-

LINKS TO RELATED SOURCES AND RESEARCH

An open letter to the British MP from my old friend and sometimes editor Gerold Rupprecht:

“Dear Prime Minister Theresa May,

I ask you to quickly reverse course and create a constructive relationship with the Russian government.

I watched your speech in parliament with dismay, regarding the Skripal nerve-gas attempted assassination case declaring a verdict decided before proper investigation.

Mr. Skripal was not ordered to death or life in prison, but 13 years in jail by a Russian military court, subsequently released in a swap with the USA and pardoned, making the hypothesis of Mr. Putin or anyone else in Russian government ordering his execution preposterous.

You seem to be unapologetically denying objective reality in the best tradition of George Orwell’s “doublethink” (in his book 1984) where only appearances, not reality, matter.

A simple drive by shooting, stabbing or accident is much easier to arrange and almost impossible to trace. It is not as if Mr. Skripal was hard to have access to (he was still a Russian citizen, had a passport and a pension to collect).

The CIA preferred to contract out the assassination of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussain in Beirut to local “Christian” allies, never mind the more than 80 innocents killed in the process. Assuming Russians wanted Mr. Skripal dead, arranging a robbery and stabbing is probably a lot easier. It is self-evident there is no good reason Russians would want him dead.

Your criminal and intelligence experts all understand the above.

Do you honestly want us to believe there is a secret lab in Russia with crazy scientists that instead of doing tests on rats prefer high profile political activists , that they like to try out polonium, nerve gas, sarin, dioxin, mercury, toxic flowers and unknown poisons, just before important political events such as Russia’s presidential election March 18th, 2018?

The mentioned gas “Novichok”, was manufactured in Uzbekistan in a factory that was later cleaned up by a US company. Coincidence?

I refuse to think that you are not too bright or poorly read. One has to make a determined effort to not be capable of logical thought and not be informed about the basic facts of the case.

Operation Gladio and the strategy of tension showed the NATO terror organization, responsible for the Bologna train station bombing and other false flag massacres such as the Baader-Meinhof Red Army faction or Red Brigades in Italy (not the Soviet KGB). Never mind Operation Northwoods.

The same kind of people who committed the “Gladio” crimes would be my prime suspects (MI6, CIA, Ukraine’s SBU, any combination of the aforementioned). Each one of these events was followed by an enormous mult-national propaganda campaign. If you have forgotten, it is willful ignorance on your part.

It appears as if you want to maintain the long established track-record of bloody false-flag operations in pursuit of political objectives, to give a pretext to an illegal military aggression.

After the CIA, which tried to kill Fidel Castro more than 600 times they would never kill a Russian in the UK, out of respect for international law?

People who have no problems blowing up a large train station, bringing down three buildings in Manhattan, would they have any hesitation to kill an ex-spy to justify further hostile actions against another country to preserve their dominance?

You may want a quick reminder,

“Professional standards require intelligence professionals to lie, hide information, or use covert tactics to protect their “cover,” access, sources, and responsibilities. The Central Intelligence Agency expects, teaches, encourages, and controls these tactics so that the lies are consistent and supported (“backstopped”). The CIA expects intelligence officers to teach others to lie, deceive, steal, launder money, and perform a variety of other activities that would certainly be illegal if practiced in the United States. They call these tactics “tradecraft,” and intelligence officers practice them in all the world’s intelligence services” -Hulnick & Mattausch, “Ethics and Morality in U.S. Secret Intelligence”

It seems the web of lies is falling apart, the attempts to backstop previous lies are getting desperate.

Your government’s official narrative is the height of idiocy.

Changing course to improve relations with Russia can and will improve your political support. It is obvious you have much to gain as well as your countrymen.

Sincerely,

Gerold Rupprecht

—————————————————————————

NEWS IN BRIEF AND USEFUL LINKS

On Not Being Refuted – Several million people have now read my articles on the lack of evidence of Russian government guilt for the Salisbury attack.

Findings of 2016 Iranian study on novichok derivatives sent to OPCW

First Recorded Successful Novichok Synthesis was in 2016 – By Iran, in Cooperation with the OPCW

The brief history of British spies, “virgin queen worshipers,” and their bizarre occult traditions in the “Anatomyzing Divinity,” Jay Dyer Interview with Author James Kelley. Starts at 50 minutes. Both are renowned authors in the Eastern Orthodox Theology

The curious case of the Salisbury poisonings

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Rossiya’24 TV channel on Saturday: “Neither in the territory of the Soviet Union, nor in the Soviet era, nor in the Russian Federation has ever been performed research named directly or codenamed as Novichok,” she said.

‘I Think Skripal Attempted Murder Staged by US, UK Intel’ – Political Scientist

“Russia Did It!” Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

Zerohedge reposted the article.

Some readers comments are very helpful, like Looney’s timetable of alleged events pointing to a complete absurdity of the UK government’ claims.

JohninMK provided excerpts from Craig Murray’s articles on the matter.

Russian to Judgment

Of A Type Developed By Liars

Former MI6 spy Steele to give evidence in ‘dossier’ libel case

US training Syria militants for false flag chemical attack as basis for airstrikes – Russian MoD

Moscow expels 23 UK diplomats & shuts British Council in response to ‘provocative moves’

‘Not proxy’: Lavrov says US, British, French special forces ‘directly involved’ in Syria war

TASS just posted a statement that this agent was never developed or manufactured in Russia.

‘It’s nonsense’ to think Russia tried to poison Skripals ahead of elections & World Cup – Putin

Section II. Militarily Significant Aspects of Chemical Agents

——————

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

POKÉMON IN UKRAINE: Tactical War Game Introduction MANUAL (War Game Manuals Book

In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP

Follow me on twitter

#russia #u.k #U.S

0 notes