I would very much encourage you to read and listen to Andrei Martyanov’s article and youtube from yesterday. Here it is, titled Why Would Putin Say This. His talk and writing are about Mr. Putin’s statement of genocide in the Donbass. Martyanov reckons that a world reckoning may be incoming.
https://mid.ru/en/press_service/articles_and_rebuttals/rebuttals/nedostovernie-publikacii/1799521/
Below, we have presented false statements by Western officials concerning Russia’s alleged fabrication of pretexts to invade Ukraine as well as numerous examples from the past demonstrating who in fact has been consistently creating false excuses to act aggressively against a foreign country.
Thus, London and Washington are the historical champions in fabricating pretexts for destructive actions, including the invasion of other states.
Clearly, the current long-term marathon of information terror is in the vein of the West’s traditional policy. With the prompting from the US and UK ruling circles, the world’s leading media are whipping up hysteria to brainwash their audiences and create a new reality by convincing everyone of Russia’s “imminent invasion of Ukraine”.
The volume of fake news fabricated and disseminated by US and European media outlets has grown by many times over the past few months. The collective West is planting more and more reports on the dates of Russia’s alleged invasion of Ukraine and non-existent attack plans while hypocritically denying the fact that Donbass residents are suffering from the crimes of the Kiev regime.
For our part, we are taking regular steps to disavow these allegations. Below, we have presented false statements by Western officials concerning Russia’s alleged fabrication of pretexts to invade Ukraine as well as numerous examples from the past demonstrating who in fact has been consistently creating false excuses to act aggressively against a foreign country.
Statements by US, NATO and UK officials on Russia’s alleged fabrications of pretexts to invade Ukraine
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby on January 14:
“Without getting into too much detail, we do have information that indicates that Russia is already working actively to create a pretext for a potential invasion, a move on Ukraine.”
US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on January 14:
“Our intelligence community has developed information that Russia is laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating a pretext for an invasion, including through sabotage activities and information operations, by accusing Ukraine of preparing an imminent attack against Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.”
UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss on February 17:
“Reports of alleged abnormal military activity by Ukraine in Donbass are a blatant attempt by the Russian government to fabricate pretexts for invasion.”
US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken on February 17:
“In response to this manufactured provocation, the highest levels of the Russian Government may theatrically convene emergency meetings to address the so-called crisis. The government will issue proclamations declaring that Russia must respond to defend Russian citizens or ethnic Russians in Ukraine.”
According to the secretary of state, first Russia will manufacture a pretext to start a war. Blinken suggests that it could be, for example, a terrorist attack in Russia itself, a staged drone strike against civilians, or a staged – or even actual – sabotage using chemical weapons. Blinken says Russian media outlets have already started pushing the provocation story.
US President Joe Biden on February 17:
“They have not moved any of their troops out. They’ve moved more troops in, number one. Number two, we have reason to believe that they are engaged in a false-flag operation to have an excuse to go in. Every indication we have is they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine.”
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on February 17:
“I wish I could give everybody better news about this [Ukraine] but I have to tell you that the picture is continuing to be very grim. Today, as I am sure you have already picked up, a kindergarten was shelled in what we are taking to be a false-flag operation designed to discredit the Ukrainians, designed to create a pretext, a spurious provocation for Russian action.”
US Department of State spokesperson on February 18:
The United States is considering reports of evacuation and explosions in Donbass as an excuse for a false-flag operation against Ukraine, the official spokesperson for the US Department of State told RIA Novosti.
“Announcements like these are further attempts to obscure through lies and disinformation that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict. This type of false flag operation is exactly what Secretary Blinken highlighted in his remarks to the UN Security Council.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on February 20:
“We are concerned that Russia is trying to stage a pretext for an armed attack against Ukraine, there is still no clarity, no certainty about the Russian intentions.”
Examples of Western countries fabricating pretexts for aggression against other states
Below is a brief review (the list is far from complete) of provocations prepared by the US and Great Britain, in particular, which show clearly the kinds of tools that have long been an integral part of the foreign policy of the Anglo-Saxons and their allies. We would also like to note our detailed report, Political Crimes Committed by the UK, dated April 19, 2018.
Latin America has been the main region of concentration for the US’s constant control and interference ever since the Monroe Doctrine was announced on December 2, 1823. For almost 200 years now, the US has been trying to dictate how and by what standards Latin Americans should live. The region became a testing ground for Washington’s intervention technology, later to be used all over the world. The most common (and cynical) excuses for incursions south of the US border have been:
- The protection of American citizens like in Haiti in 1922: “The crisis… called for immediate and vigorous action by the Navy to protect the lives and property of Americans and foreigners, and to restore order throughout this distressed country.” (From a report by Secretary of State Robert Lansing to Congress.)
- The delegitimization of official authorities, which is most often related to Washington’s dissatisfaction with sovereign electoral processes in Latin American countries. As US President Woodrow Wilson said after his inauguration in March 1913: “I am going to teach the Latin American republics to elect good men!”
In June 1835, an armed rebellion was organised by the American colonists living in Texas, which belong to Mexico at the time, against the Mexican authorities. A close friend of President Andrew Jackson, Colonel Samuel Houston, was sent there to seize the territory. At the same time, the US provided massive support (sending volunteers, weapons, and ammunition) to the rebels, who soon declared “independence” in Texas, and in March 1837 recognised it as an “independent state.”
The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The border between Mexico and Texas, previously annexed with the direct involvement of the US authorities, served as a pretext to start hostilities. American troops occupied the disputed area between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers and blocked Mexican ports, which forced Mexico to declare war. Soon after the first skirmishes, US President James K. Polk, who had previously intended to justify the war with financial claims, turned to Congress, declaring that the Mexicans “invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil.” Mexico lost the war and had to recognise Texas as part of the US. It lost more than half its territory, including today’s California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah.
The Anglo-French-Spanish intervention in Mexico in 1861-1867. The Government of Benito Juarez, who came to power after the Mexican Civil War 1858-1861, refused to recognise the debts of the previous allegedly unconstitutional authorities to foreign powers, which triggered its largest creditors – Great Britain, France and Spain – to intervene.
It is noteworthy that part of the British “media” preparation for the intervention took the form of a campaign in The Times with news of “terrible riots in Mexico where foreigners are suffering.” In turn, Paris quickly granted French citizenship to a Swiss banker whose debt Mexico City also refused to pay off, which served as yet another reason to legitimise the intervention.
London and Madrid soon withdrew from the war while French troops captured most of the Mexican territory. A referendum was held during the military occupation, where a majority of the population voted for the establishment of a monarchy. Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph, then ascended to the imperial throne. After the invaders lost in 1867, the republic, led by President Benito Juarez, was restored in Mexico.
1854, Nicaragua. The Americans razed San Juan del Sur to the ground, a purely civilian town in Nicaragua, after the US Ambassador was slapped in the face for obstructing the prosecution of an American citizen suspected of murder.
In 1856-1857, American mercenaries led by Willian Walker staged a coup to seize power in Nicaragua. The United States recognised Walker as the legitimate president. He surrendered and was repatriated through the combined efforts of Central American states.
In the 1890s, the Americans occupied Nicaraguan ports several times. In 1909, relations with Washington soured again, the legitimate government of Nicaragua was overthrown, and American troops invaded the country. The United States occupied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933, leaving the country only after the victory of the guerrillas led by Augusto Sandino.
February 15, 1898. The USS Maine, anchored off Havana, Cuba (then a Spanish colony), exploded and sank. A US commission investigating the incident came to the unsubstantiated conclusion that the ship had been sunk by an external explosion. The United States put the blame on Spain, using the incident to launch a war the result of which was taking over Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. Cuba was declared an independent state but remained under strong US influence. Under the Cuban constitution, the United States could station troops on the island until 1934. After the USS Maine was lifted in 1912, and after new investigations by several US commissions, it was established that the explosion had been caused by spontaneous combustion in the coal bunkers.
During the 1910-1917 revolution in Mexico, the United States occupied the port of Veracruz after eight American sailors were arrested by the Mexican military patrol for entering off-limit areas in Tampico in April 1914. Although the sailors were released as soon as the circumstances were clarified and the Mexicans offered an oral apology, Washington sent an ultimatum demanding a written apology within 24 hours and a 21-gun salute to show respect for the American flag. When Mexico refused to honour that humiliating demand, US Marines landed in Veracruz and held it until November 1914.
In 1937, a military coup was staged in Nicaragua with US military assistance, as a result of which the Somoza dynasty held power in the country until 1979, when the people, led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), replaced the Anastasio Somoza regime with the government of FSLN leader Daniel Ortega. This provoked the opposition of the anti-government fighters (contras), supported by the United States, to engage in a civil war, which lasted from 1981 and until 1990. When the US Congress officially prohibited the financing of the contras, the CIA provided the money covertly. The fact of direct US interference in Nicaragua was reaffirmed in the verdict handed down on July 27, 1986, by the International Court of Justice in The Hague within the framework of the Iran-Contra affair.
Several attempts have been made over the years since then to overthrow the Sandinista government under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights. The last attempt was in April 2018, when a state coup was provoked against the backdrop of public unrest incited by external forces.
April 1961, Cuba. The Bay of Pigs Invasion is a failed attempt by American mercenaries to invade Cuba and a textbook example of US interventionist policy. The 1962 blockade of Cuba (John F. Kennedy’s Embargo on All Trade with Cuba) and the subsequent numerous measures to increase the sanctions against Havana, such as the 1992 Torricelli Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, add up to an open economic aggression, which the United States has conducted despite international condemnation, including at the UN General Assembly.
After a short-lived thaw during the Obama administration, President Donald Trump resumed the policy of restrictions and added several new sanctions against Cuba. The Biden administration is pursuing the same policy. In May 2021, Cuba was again put on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In July 2021, it was listed as a country that does not satisfy US standards for combatting trafficking in persons.
On September 7, 2021, President Biden extended trade restrictions with Cuba for another year. On December 21, 2021, the US Department of State reaffirmed Cuba’s position on the Trafficking in Persons list. In November 2021 and in January 2022, Washington adopted two packages of visa restrictions against Cuban officials over their alleged connection to suppressing protests in July and November 2021.
August 1953, Iran. The CIA and the UK Secret Intelligence Service orchestrated the joint Operation Ajax to topple Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and his government who had nationalised the Iranian oil industry. The goal was to restore Western control over the country’s oil revenues and to create favourable conditions for pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to return from exile.
London and Washington started their seditious activity against Mohammad Mossadegh with an international boycott of Iranian oil products. Then a full-scale information campaign was launched against the prime minister and his associates based on fabricated news about cooperation with Communists. That Anglo-American manipulation of public opinion, coupled with the palm greasing of Iran’s military and political elite, put General Fazlollah Zahedi’s puppet leadership in power. At the demand of his foreign bosses, he signed fettering oil contracts.
August 2 and 4, 1964, Vietnam —the Gulf of Tonkin incident. On August 7, 1964, US President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to adopt a resolution that granted him the right “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States” in Southeast Asia. The alleged bombing of US destroyers by torpedo boats of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin the day before served as the formal pretext. Later, the Senate commission admitted that the reports of the incident had been intentionally distorted in order to launch military operations in Vietnam.
On April 28, 1965, the US Marine Corps started an intervention in Barahona and Haina, Dominican Republic. US President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed that the military intervention was necessary to protect US citizens in the civil war in the country after Francisco Caamano’s leftist government came to power. The country was occupied until July 28, 1966.
On September 11, 1973, with direct support from the United States, a military coup took place in Chile, deposing democratically elected president Salvador Allende and establishing the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet that lasted for a long 17 years, and that included executions, harsh repressions and deep discord in Chilean society.
In 1982 in Guatemala, extensive efforts by US intelligence to create certain newsworthy events put a military government in power. In the 1990s, the United States provided military aid to Guatemala’s pro-American government allegedly to fight Communism, a fight that was in reality manifested in mass murders. By 1998, 200,000 people had fallen victim to this “fighting,” tens of thousands had fled to Mexico and over a million had become internally displaced persons.
On October 25, 1983 United States military units and a coalition of six Caribbean countries invaded Grenada to topple the government of Maurice Bishop, who was unwanted by Washington. An official appeal for help from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States following conflicts inside the People’s Revolutionary Government of Grenada served as a pretext for the operation. Maurice Bishop was killed as a result. The US administration claimed that the military intervention was necessary due to “concerns over the 600 US medical students on the island.” The invasion was criticised by a number of countries, including Canada. On November 2, 1983, the UN General Assembly also condemned the military operation as a “flagrant violation of international law” (108 countries voted for the resolution and nine against).
Since 1986 in Colombia, so-called social cleansing was conducted as part of the US policy to support favoured regimes, allegedly to counter drug trafficking. Trade union leaders and members of any movement or organisation with at least some influence, as well as farmers and unwanted politicians were eliminated. Tens of thousands of people were killed as a result.
1989, Panama —The United States invades Panama. Formally George H. W. Bush announced Operation Just Cause on December 21, 1989 to protect American citizens and ensure the security of the Panama Canal in accordance with the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, as well as to restore democracy and bring the informal leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega, to trial after accusing him of supporting drug trafficking. At the same time, Panamanian analysts noted that the real goal of the Americans was to install a government loyal to Washington, since the Manuel Noriega regime had begun distancing itself from Washington, something that did not fit into the US’s strategy to ensure reliable control over the Panama Canal.
The immediate reason for the American aggression was the alleged killing by Panamanian defence forces of an American Marine who was “lost” on Panamanian territory. In fact, a later investigation showed that this Marine and others in his unit were part of a special group acting under US Naval Intelligence, whose task was to provoke an open conflict with the Panamanian military. This armed group ignored Panamanian Defence Forces’ roadblocks, despite the warning signs, as well as orders to stop, and shot several local residents, including a child. In this situation, the Panamanian military simply had to use weapons; as a result, one of the attackers was killed.
American media reports that several bags of cocaine were allegedly found in a house frequented by Manuel Noriega was another fabrication that the US used to intervene. These bags allegedly confirmed the link between the Panamanian leader and drug traffickers, but during the search, ordinary flour was found instead of drugs, something that was later acknowledged by the US military.
During the invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989, the lawful Panamanian authorities were brought down, and the country found itself occupied by American troops for some time. According to the local association for victims’ relatives, the Americans committed numerous war crimes, including massacres of civilians (about 4,000).
March 24 – June 10, 1999 —Operation Allied Force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. American citizen William Walker, head of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission, made big news with a completely false allegation of a civilian massacre in the village of Racak (January 1999). It was proven later that these civilians were armed militants killed in action. The European Union later established this beyond a doubt. Back then, William Walker announced publicly that it was an act of genocide. He took it upon himself to announce the withdrawal of the OSCE mission from Kosovo. In fact, this was used as a trigger for NATO’s aggression against the former state of Yugoslavia.
March 20 – April 9, 2003, Iraq —The US and its allies invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. For 12 years, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and then the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) had been searching Iraq for hidden stocks of biological, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the existence of which Baghdad denied. Nevertheless, during a UN Security Council meeting on February 5, 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell accused Iraqi leaders of manufacturing WMDs and showed a vial of white powder, which allegedly contained anthrax found in Iraq: “The facts and Iraq’s behaviour show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions…”
The powder did not convince the UN Security Council members, and they refused to sanction the invasion of Iraq. But that did not stop the Americans. In March-April 2003, under the pretext that these notorious WMDs must be destroyed, the United States, with support from its allies, launched an armed invasion of Iraq in violation of international law, which led to an occupation of the country. The legitimate president, Saddam Hussein, was overthrown and executed, and the country was plunged into many years of chaos, from which it has not fully recovered to this day.
No biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were ever found after the destruction of Iraq, and Powell apologised publicly. In July 2016, a British independent commission led by John Chilcot, which had been investigating Britain’s participation in the military campaign in Iraq for seven years, announced the results of its inquiry. Conclusion: the invasion in Iraq was a “terrible mistake,” and the Tony Blair government’s decision to become involved was “hasty” and “based on inadequate evidence.” Even Tony Blair himself admitted that the invasion of Iraq had been carried out on the basis of false intelligence and that the actions by the Western coalition, in effect, facilitated the rise of ISIS. Тhe former prime minister apologised to the families of the British soldiers who died in Iraq but somehow, in a typical British manner, forgot to apologise to the families of the murdered Iraqis.
the London played a particularly important role in this respect. It initiated a series of provocations starting with the Litvinenko case in 2006. Under the far-fetched excuse that Moscow refused to contribute to the investigation into his being poisoned, the United Kingdom imposed a number of sanctions on Russia in July 2007. Thus, it expelled four Russian diplomats from the country, suspended all contact with the Russian Federal Security Service and any work on military-technical agreements or a bilateral agreement on easing visa requirements. In addition, Britain insisted on the extradition of Russian citizen Andrey Lugovoy, which would be a crude violation of our constitution.
Russia was cooperating with its British colleagues in good faith, but London did not reciprocate. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office informed its British colleagues that if they provided the relevant materials, it would be willing to conduct legal proceedings in Russia.
In August 2014, the Investigative Committee of Russia had to refuse to take part in Britain’s public inquiry into this case. The problem was that, contrary to its name, it was not transparent for Russia. Hence, there were serious apprehensions about its potential for politicisation. Our apprehensions were eventually justified. Hearings on the open part of the “public inquiry” abounded in references to “secrecy,” various kinds of insinuations and undisguised bias, in part, as regards witness testimony that did not fit into the prosecution’s “general line.”
In September 2014, a US-led international anti-terrorist coalition was established in Iraq and Syria to counter ISIS. Indicatively, the SAR government was never asked for an agreement on the deployment of the coalition’s forces in this sovereign country. All coalition operations have been conducted without coordination with the lawful Syrian authorities under the pretext of implementing the right to self-defence as envisaged by Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The Syrian leaders have repeatedly called on the UN Security Council to hold the United States and its allies responsible for their actions. The coalition’s air forces have regularly subjected Syrian infrastructure, including oil facilities in ISIS-controlled areas, to massive attacks. According to the Syrian Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources, during the crisis, the oil-and-gas sector alone has sustained damaged of over $100 billion from these illegal actions and the continuing foreign occupation of parts of Syrian territory. Attacks have frequently targeted government troop units, after which the militants launch an offensive. Thus, airstrikes at Syrian Army positions in Deir ez-Zor killed 62 Syrian army personnel and wounded over 100 people. ISIS militants used this opportunity to seize the front lines of the besieged garrison’s defence in Deir ez-Zor that was surrounded by terrorists.
In April 2017 and April 2018, cases of fabricated uses of chemical weapons by Damascus, actually staged by Western secret services with the help of the notorious pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets (*) were used by NATO allies as a pretext for massive missile strikes at Syrian military and civilian facilities.
Accusations based on the fabricated use of “chemical weapons” and other false reports on Damascus’ alleged crimes (for instance, in Douma on April 7, 2018) became a dominant trend in the Western information war against the SAR. The persistent brainwashing of public opinion allowed the West to adopt the toughest, repressive measures and sanctions at the legal level, like the Caesar Act, which is pushing Syria towards a humanitarian disaster and is preventing post-crisis recovery and the return of millions of refugees.
(*) White Helmets (WH) NGO as a tool for staging fake chemical incidents in Syria.
The United State and Great Britain have actively relied on information from the WH for levelling accusations against the Syrian government by claiming that Damascus used chemical weapons. The UK later used these would-be accusations to buttress their line within the OPCW when they pushed for the introduction of an attributive mechanism to investigate and “punish” states for using chemical weapons.
The White Helmets is an informal designation of Syria Civil Defence, a non-governmental organisation that was formed in 2014 in Idlib as an umbrella structure for various rescue teams operating on Syrian territory not controlled by official Damascus.
The WH have been exposed multiple times for fabricating and planting fake news in the information space, including the following instances:
- Even before Russia’s Aerospace Forces launched their counterterrorism operation in Syria in October 2015, the WH arranged for new stories to emerge from the West Bank, Palestinian territory, on the “victims from airstrikes by the Russian military.”
- In September 2016, humanitarian organisations offered to evacuate a girl from Aleppo, who reported on Twitter about the “regime’s atrocities.” It turned out that it was an English-speaking WH activist who had written these Twitter posts in the girl’s name.
- In December 2016, the Egyptian police in Port Said detained a group of WH activists who were filming what they presented as true reports about a “girl in Aleppo covered in blood.”
- In late April and early May 2017, WH members and Al Jazeera worked on a report on what they claimed was a “chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime” in Saraqib, Idlib, but this incident never happened.
In some cases, the organisation recognised the fact that it was spreading “posed news stories” and justified its actions by the need to “to raise awareness of the suffering of the Syrian people.”
Some of the stories planted by the WH resulted from their ties to terrorist groups, as Stephen Kinzer, a reporter with The Boston Globe, a US newspaper, pointed out. He wrote that on March 16, 2015, the Sarmin Coordination Committee provided to the WH what it presented as video materials exposing the Syrian government, and the CNN, an American television network, then gave these materials a lot of publicity. However, it turned out later that this “committee” was affiliated with al-Qaeda. This led Stephen Kinzer to the conclusion that the American TV network relayed al-Qaeda propaganda to the international public opinion.
Experts from the World Health Organisation’s office in Damascus were also critical of the White Helmets, saying that the WH, together with Doctors Without Borders and the so-called Syrian American Medical Society, were spreading misinformation and planting fake news on Syrian territories controlled by illegal armed groups, including by releasing fake reports on “destroyed hospitals in Aleppo,” and “mass starvation” in the besieged areas. In their undertakings the WH officials use as their cover the so-called UN cross-border humanitarian mechanism in Gaziantep, Turkey, whose financing bypasses the UN’s official call for humanitarian assistance.
Respected politicians and civil society figures from Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Slovakia, and the United States, acting independently from one another, have been exposing planted fake news, misinformation, and fabrications.
March 2018, the Skripal case. London used the incident in Salisbury linked with the suspected poisoning of former GRU employee Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia as a provocation against Russia. Without waiting for the results of its own investigation and ignoring an opportunity of using legal mechanisms and formats, including the OPCW and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the British government announced a number of unfriendly acts as regards the Russian Federation.
London expelled 23 Russian diplomats; drafted “new legislative powers to harden defences against all forms of hostile state activity”; adopted amendments to the draft law on sanctions so as to “strengthen powers to impose sanctions in response to the violation of human rights”; strengthened border control; threatened to “freeze Russian state assets where there is evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals”; promised to take all the “necessary steps against organised crime and corrupt elites”; suspended all high-level bilateral contacts, in part, rescinded the invitation to Sergey Lavrov to visit the UK; cancelled the visit to the 2019 World Cup by members of the royal family and the government; and adopted other measures that “cannot be made public for reasons of national security.”
In addition, the British government initiated the further exacerbation of tensions by engineering the expulsion of Russian diplomats by some other countries, mostly from the EU and NATO.
Speaking in parliament in September 2018, the then British Prime Minister Theresa May said the Crown Prosecution Service was ready to bring charges for the attempted murder of the Skripals against two Russian nationals – Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Bashirov. She said they are “officers from the Russian military intelligence also known as the GRU.” According to Theresa May, Petrov and Bashirov were “names believed to be aliases” used to penetrate the UK for the attempted murder of the Skipal family in Salisbury.
In her address to the MPs, Theresa May emphasised that only Russia had the technical means and operational experience of using the toxic agent – the so-called Novichok. She referred to a report of the OPCW Secretariat on the results of the inquiry into the Amesbury incident. However, this report does not contain any references to the origin of the toxic agent and does not use the term “Novichok.”
On September 21, 2021, the British law enforcement bodies announced their decision to bring charges against a third Russian citizen “involved in the Skripal case” – a certain Sergey Fedotov. Commenting on a new turn in this case in her speech to the British Parliament, Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel emphasised London’s intention to continue the toughest possible response to the persisting considerable threat from Russia until relations with its Government improve.
Speaking on November 18, 2021, Secretary Patel said: “We are establishing an inquiry to ensure that all relevant evidence can be considered, with the hope that the family of Dawn Sturgess will get the answers they need and deserve.” According to British officials, Dawn Sturgess, a British national, was poisoned by the nerve gas “Novichok” in Amesbury in 2018. The planned political process has nothing to do with justice. Its only goal is to lay the blame for these events on Moscow without any proof and at the same time put it into a kind of a “legal framework.”
That said, British officials have not yet replied to our numerous requests for clear answers to our questions regarding many incongruities in the “Skripal case.”
During contact with our British colleagues, we have consistently insisted on a professional and unbiased approach to investigating all the circumstances of the incident. We have repeatedly told London about our readiness to cooperate via law enforcement bodies and experts, if our British partners are truly interested in investigating the crime.
Venezuela held presidential elections on May 20, 2018. For political reasons the US has failed to recognize the legitimacy of winning candidate Nicolas Maduro, while it has also failed to provide any evidence of election fraud. In January 2019 Washington recognized Juan Guaido, a Venezuelan MP, as “interim president of Venezuela” in violation of the country’s constitution, after which the US Department of the Treasury sought to “support the people of Venezuela in their efforts to restore democracy” by sanctioning the country’s central bank and key sectors of the economy, mainly the petroleum industry, which generates most of the country’s revenues. There is a de-facto petroleum embargo and an embargo on petroleum products exports to Venezuela, the assets and accounts of Venezuela in Western banks have been frozen, and the country cannot borrow on foreign markets. As of now, the cumulative cost of US sanctions against Venezuela ranges from between $130 billion and $258 billion. The sanctions pressure is sapping Venezuela’s economy, and undermining the government’s ability to purchase necessities, including vaccines, medical equipment and drugs to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to estimates by the leading economist at Columbia University, Jeffrey Sachs, US sector-wide sanctions have led to the death of 40,000 Venezuelans.
According to UNHRC Special Rapporteur, Alena Douhan, “sanctions have exacerbated the pre-existing economic and social crisis,” and crisis in development, “with a devastating effect on the entire population.” Today, Venezuela faces “a lack of necessary machinery, spare parts, electricity, water, fuel, gas, food and medicine,” as well as qualified personnel, namely, “doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, judges, police officers.” This situation has had “a great impact on all categories of human rights including the right to life, food, health and development.”
Bolivia has faced many coups orchestrated by the US and its allies. The coup of 2019 is the more salient example. President Evo Morales was illegally removed from office following a colour revolution-style campaign in domestic and international media about alleged election fraud, which was encouraged by the leaders of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Meanwhile, Western ambassadors took a direct role in promoting Jeanine Anez to the presidency, in clear violation of constitutional procedures, in particular, discussing domestic Bolivian policy at unofficial meetings at Catholic University of Bolivia on November 11 and 12, 2019. The ensuing clashes in the cities of Sacaba and Senkata between demonstrators and the police that sought to forcefully disperse them claimed the lives of almost 40 people.
Another instance of US interference in Bolivia’s domestic affairs was the events of 2008 that forced President Evo Morales to expel US Ambassador Philip Goldberg, who, per Bolivian government sources, met with the leaders of the city of Santa Cruz to discuss the secession of eastern departments from Bolivia. This discussion took place amid separatist demonstrations that damaged a Bolivian-Brazilian gas pipeline and killed 30 locals.
Moreover, the West put on an egregious display of disregard for international law and of engineering a pretext to breach the inviolability of a top Bolivian official when Evo Morales’ presidential plane was forced to land in Vienna on July 2, 2013 following his visit to Moscow. Spain, France, Portugal and Italy closed their airspace on suspicions that Edward Snowden was aboard the presidential plane. The then Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Garcia-Margallo made public the receipt of this intelligence without naming its source. This provocation resulted in the humiliating inspection of the Bolivian President’s aircraft to confirm Edward Snowden’s absence. A day later, Department of State Spokesperson Jen Psaki acknowledged during a press briefing that the US had been “in contact with a range of countries across the world who had any chance of having Mr Snowden land or even transit through their countries.”
January 3, 2020. Major General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed by a US drone strike at Baghdad Airport, Iraq. The Iranian military leader was on the US sanctions lists for the alleged “activities to disseminate disinformation” and assistance to the lawful Syrian government. The elimination of an official of one country on the territory of a third country is an unprecedented move. Many experts qualify this US crime as an act of state terrorism.
August 2020, the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny. The EU, the UK and the United States imposed sanctions against a number of Russian citizens and GosNIIOKhT (State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology) for the alleged involvement in Navalny’s poisoning with “Novichok.” They did not cite any facts or evidence of their involvement.
In August 2021, the British Government announced the imposition of sanctions as part of its national sanction regime under far-fetched and absurd pretexts. These were personal restrictions as regards “the individuals directly responsible for carrying out the poisoning of Mr Navalny.”
It was claimed that the imposed sanctions seriously curtailed Russia’s ostensibly irresponsible and harmful behaviour and were a logical extension of the October 6, 2020 OPCW statement, which “confirmed” the conclusions of three independent international laboratories on Navalny’s poisoning by a nerve agent from the “Novichok” group.
***
Thus, London and Washington are the historical champions in fabricating pretexts for destructive actions, including the invasion of other states, their occupation, inflicting damage with destructive strikes and use of illegal sanctions, to name a few.
Clearly, the current long-term marathon of information terror is in the vein of the West’s traditional policy. With the prompting from the US and UK ruling circles, the world’s leading media are whipping up hysteria to brainwash their audiences and create a new reality by convincing everyone of Russia’s “imminent invasion of Ukraine” with endless repetitions of Russophobic reports.
If you don’t know by now that the US lies its way into wars…well then you aren’t very informed or interested.
I believe the current situation well-qualifies as ethnic cleansing. This may be clearer and offer an additional angle to the genocide claims.
There was an aggression against SFR Yugoslavia approximately 8 years before the bombing of SR Yugoslavia. Why the Russian hypocrites, weather in politics or in media, never mention 10 years of aggression and civil war in the Balkans. Is it because Russia too, as a reliable ally of US and NATO, was on the same side? Russians didn’t seem to have any feelings when the Serbs were torn apart, they only understand when their own butt hurts.
I was born there in Yugoslavia, and also study military history, your comment is not accurate.
The main problem was that the Serbs themselves were very divided and thus open to manipulation, this is still true to this day. The destruction of Yugoslavia was deliberate and criminal! Those with blood on there hands will have to answer for it, Holbrooke is already paying for his crime eternally!Yes Russia played apart in all of this, one that I am not proud of, but one that due to their own weakness was dictated to them. They protested and complained but could not help or get into a war over. However look at where we are now, Russia is about to change the world for the good of all nations, through its own power and example. I wish that the Serbs would finally get their act together and get rid of the snakes that are ruling them, and join the fight!
From 1991 Russia fully and voluntarily and I would say even proudly, as an USA and NATO ally participated in destruction of SFR Yugoslavia, it directly supported Croats and other Serbian enemies. That’s why Russians NEVER speak about this period.
Neither do they ever speak about the break-up of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006, in which Putin played the most prominent role, more consequential of and more ruinous for Serbs than the role Anglo-Saxons had played. That was one of the greatest historical crimes against Serbian state, nation and people. It quashed all our hopes for future.The late metropolitan Amfilohije, an eminent rusophile, also accused Russia of that particular crime. All American and NATO deeds against Serbs fade i comparison to the devastation that Russia inflicted on us by deliberate destruction of Serbia and Montenegro.
From the break-up of the SFRY until today all Russian ambassadors to Zagreb, have been sick anti-Serbs. I always wondered how and where the Russian government manages to find them. They all visited tomb of the great Serbian enemy F. Tudjman, last time in 2020 and none of them ever visited Jasenovac.
Stick with Russia my friend.
What are you talking about,yes there were those in Russia at the time who were a disgrace but the Country was a basket case with a drunken court jester in charge,thats why the Reich chose that moment to attack,do you think they would have tried that now with Mr Putin in charge?
Not only @Leban
I was born in beautiful Yugoslavia too, and do not have any grudge with Russia for not jump-between into clash of Serbs and Anglos. We Serbs do not like anyone to fight our fights. We are mix of many great nations that passed our lands and still geneticaly 40% descendants of 10000+ years old breed. Many came and long gone, and we are still here. We witnessed rise and fall of many great empires. We’ll see the end of Anglos pansies too. Much faster than others.
When Anglos descended on us with 100X stronger military, Russia was in worse shape than we was. We were testing ground for attack on Russia.
Russia has, and still have, tens of millions of ethnic Russians left behind in exSoviet republics to take care off. They were pillaged the same way we was, maybe even worse. No polite Serb will ask help from someone who is in such dire situation.
The fact we have to read embarrassing rants here and there online, does not reflect reality. Reason is Anglos dominance in IT which results in huge bias in perception. Around 20 times. Which translates into extremely loud 5% and muffled 95%. It is in Anglos interest to drive a wedge betveen Russians and Serbs. Everybody has right to think whatever he wants, but not to work in the interest of the enemy. Being malicious or stupid, alike. Don’t do it.
When tide turns in Serbia, many will realise, this was the best advice in their life, they didn’t take serious.
.
Ukraine incident MH7 was a false flag action that started the process of attacking Russia economically, geopolitically. At the time Australian PM, Tony Abbott (threatened to shirt front Putin) and Froeign Minister Bishop had organized 1000 Australian troops to occupy Ukraine with the UK and intended to use the MH17 incident to justify their actions. This information was leaked to the Press but quickly taken down.
It was Putin’s prompt actions that nulified their intent.
It has been suggested that MH17 was a botched assassination attempt on Putin, who was scheduked to fly a similar route. This actually makes more sense than a deliberate false flag, which was an easy fallback position.
Please do not forget to include all the indigenous tribes that were betrayed by this exceptional and “Great Nation”
sarcasm mode off
Add to this the destruction of Indonesia in the 60s. 1/4 of Bali’s citizens were slaughtered and left on the beach to rot. Java was worse. This was because of “communism’’their favorite excuse from WW2 on. The real truth was getting control of their oil.
Korea is also another charm on the US bracelet of death with all aspects used chemical weapons biological weapons, carpet bombing and genocide
“The coup of 2019 is the more salient example. President Evo Morales was illegally removed from office following a colour revolution-style campaign in domestic and international media about alleged election fraud, which was encouraged by the leaders of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Meanwhile, Western ambassadors took a direct role in promoting Jeanine Anez to the presidency, in clear violation of constitutional procedures, in particular, discussing domestic Bolivian policy at unofficial meetings at Catholic University of Bolivia on November 11 and 12, 2019.”
I don’t know if you speak Spanish and followed the controversy as it was happening. I lived more than 25 years in Bolivia, grew up there and have family there. I don’t mean to make “an argument of authority” (“argumento de autoridad”, as they say in Spain about “authority” arguments without reasons). I don’t have now the recollection of all the details. Nations have their own dynamics and it was a massive national uprising that Evo Morales faced, where the whole country stopped working in an unprecedented strike that went on for many days. A lot of people had voted for Evo Morales, but they were mostly quiet during the long insurrection. There were struggles and deaths in the cities of El Alto and Santa Cruz, but the national sense of the protest and strike was real and in effect. The U.S. had nothing to do with it. It was a Bolivian thing. The OAS did not spark anything either, though they participated in acknowledging the controversy and taking a stand supporting the protesters (the protest was on anyway). Such was the massive national nature of the protest that the Police force stood down in the whole country, refusing to use force against it. Then the military took the same stance. It was a genuine uprising. Why? First of all, the main and very understandable cause: It was not constitutional for Evo Morales to run for reelection. So, a referendum in 2019 asked the voters if Evo Morales would or not be allowed to run again. Evo had to ask for this Referendum because, constitutionally, he could not run. They voted “no” by a clear majority. He lost this referendum, but he willy-nilly disregarded the result of this referendum and ran again for the presidency in 2020! Can you imagine the feelings of the majority that had voted against this? I’m sure you can imagine the insult or disrespect they may have felt. Evo has always been like this. He runs over you. Indeed, he is a world-class agitator, a man with rare powers when it comes to that, but that’s all, as his disregard of such a direct referendum showed. There was no revolution in 2019 because the occasion (possibility) for it was not there. The majority that voted “no” had to just swallow the frustration when a year later Evo just ran for reelection again (while accepting that the Referendum vote had been “no”). Ah, but it had to be at least an impeccable election. You can’t stop a vote count at a crucial moment of the election night like Evo did, and “win” by very few votes and under 50% of the vote under such a circumstance. Now people had had enough and they had the occasion now to show it and to “preserve democracy.” Evo, scared of being lynched, flew away to Mexico. It would be complex to explain how the MAS party was able a year later to win reelection, but Evo could not have done it personally even if legal (some opposition rose against him within the MAS party too).
The MAS is again acting today in an outrageous way, persecuting opponents and jailing them without trial. If Evo were to run again in the future someday, it can’t be excluded that he might win, but what happened in Bolivia was a genuine and fair insurrection against a dictatorial fellow who acted as if he were the only Bolivian with a strong character. I always thought that he had that wrong. Bolivians are a very anarchic people in the sense of being a “free people,” although they pay lip service to the State. A saying in the capital city La Paz goes, “La Paz, tomb of tyrants.” It can get scary. The MAS is pushing a lot right now. If a second successful revolt were to happen, the MAS party would likely be abolished by law.
Sorry to rain on your parade, tranquilocomp. Just what is the problem with the candidacy proper of Evo Morales? It’s plain to see that the only genuine thing here amounts to a well-founded fear of his popularity. If Morales only had the minuscule support of Guaidó and Navalny, who would be upset by his candidacy rightfully seen as little more than a silly publicity stunt?
Risible.
There is no election going on right now; the problem with his candidacy was in the last election. (I mentioned the problem and how a general insurrection was the reaction of such a large part of the population that it paralyzed the country and made the police and military forces refuse to obey Evo Morales any longer.)
The world media did not report it well! Well, think of it. It (general insurrection) was a “bad example” for left, right and center. Imagine reporting the truth along the lines I shared above. Other peoples could have been inspired by the amazing Bolivian reaction (they showed what is possible).
You had to know the language, follow the events live objectively, or else it was easy to become misinformed.
The arguments you’re making are the just the typical US propaganda talking points. The fact that the OAS supported the “protestors” shows that they were involved and that this was not just a domestic Bolivian “thing”. Controlling the military and police is one of the first things the US tries to do when they’re preparing a coup by bribing the leaders into disobeying the government’s orders. That way the “protestors” (rioters) can take over the country without any opposition.
They did the same thing in Ukraine during the “Orange revolution” in 2004 when they claimed, with no evidence, that the election was rigged and then organised “protests” outside the parliament building. When President Yanukovych ordered the police to protect government buildings the leaders of the security services refused to follow his orders and he was forced to resign, even though he had just won the election. His pro-US rival, who lost the election, was then installed in his place. Apparently this is how “democracy” works US-style.
When the next election was held 6 years later, Yanukovych won again. America organised another coup under the guise of “mass protests” and overthrew him again in 2014, which is what started the civil war that has been going on ever since. After the coup, his party – the Party of Regions, was banned along with all other parties that didn’t support joining the EU and NATO. Just as you’re suggesting the pro-US “opposition” (traitors), want to do in Bolivia. The reason they have to resort to banning these parties after they seize power is because they know they could never beat them in a fair election, so the only way they maintain their power is to ban them.
Ayayay, Alieu. How do I not use “authority arguments”? You have a theory. It dovetails with what you said about Ukraine. You will accept that Ukraine and Bolivia are entirely different countries, with a different social, political, and cultural history, with their own internal dynamics too. It doesn’t matter who says these facts: That the 2019 Referendum was organized by pres. Morales so that he could be president again, that he lost the Referendum, that he ignored this result, that in the presidential election (the next year) he stopped a vote count in the night (because he was losing ground in the vote count), and that the next day he said he won by a little. Too many people were tired of his rule, especially after he lost that Referendum and ran anyway! That’s very dislikeable, and maybe something that only he does.
You forgot to mention that when Cuba became independent, it was forced to give a perpetual lease to Guantánamo Bay, After Castro took over Cuba, the government has refused the annual payment from the US. This is an example of the US government imposing itself on other countries (similar to Syria and Iraq).
Wonderful article
Esqueceram da presidenta Dilma do Brasil.Em 31 de agosto de 2016, Dilma Rousseff foi afastada do cargo de Presidente da República após três meses de tramitação do processo iniciado no Senado, que culminou com uma votação em plenário resultando em 61 votos a favor e 20 contra o impedimento. Aqui está a mao escondida mas conhecida.
They forgot about President Dilma of Brazil. On August 31, 2016, Dilma Rousseff was removed from the position of President of the Republic after three months of processing the process started in the Senate, which culminated in a vote in plenary resulting in 61 votes in favor and 20 against the impediment. Here is the hidden but known hand
This link was posted in MOA very good always wondered why I new Nothing about the Korean War!
https://jeff-kaye.medium.com/censored-north-korea-accused-u-s-of-working-with-unit-731-war-criminals-on-bw-attacks-d7fd819ed8b7
Why does Western media continue with the demonization of Russia, and/or any leader that in in disfavor with Uncle $hmuel? Because it works. Americans are a bloody stupid demographic. I wish I could remember who said “Americans are the most gullible, easily beguiled nation on earth. Maybe the limeys should be added to that. Oh, and just where are the Skripals? Why haven’t they been seen, or heard from since 2017?
“gullible” – That may be a valid comment up to a point but the point is being reached when the penny drops and they will strike back with full force at the appropriate moment.
I was recently told the US patriot groups are biding their time waiting for the right moment to move.
Certain ex military ones and individuals unconnected with groups who liberated a lot of equipment over the years I am told already have weapons trained on various CIA, media & communications and other govt and commercial facilities – and there’s nothing they can do about it as most they have long range capacity. There’s even a lot of home made equipment – missiles, beams, artillery, chemical, you name it etc… One of them even knows the formula for ancient Greek Fire. And the home addresses of those behind and implementing all this chaos have been collated so arrests etc.. can be effected at the right time.
Its very easy to make a weapon – anyone can do it – even using the most simple things (eg a woman’s bra elastic and can make slingshot to hurl a metal nail at 300 mph like a Roman crossbow).
And there also people in UK and EU also.
All those in charge need to do is step over a particular line and the axe will fall.
And it won’t be long before it happens so Biden, Macron, Trudeau, BoJo etc… better watch out.
All of them are finished anyway whether they realize it or not.
And war with Russia may be the tipping point that synchronizes with it.
What Russia needs to do in all this is meticulously record UKN & NATO attacks on their forces terrioory across the border (missiles, shells, troop incursions, drones etc.) with video or other electronic means and unload all this on the Internet noting location date time etc and who was firing at them. For historical proof.
Then record Russia response (in firing back if it happens) so as to show Russia is only responding to the aggressor.
But the question is what is it that pushes the US into these wars ?
The US didnt engage in sizable wars until after the Civil War in 1865 and most actions prior to WW1 were to enforce or protect US regional or investment interests aka Cuba Spanish War.
It was when the railroad industrialists moved into armaments and EU UK elites got control of the USin the period 1865-1913 they turned it into their running dog / world enforcer for their own interests since 1920 but more particularly since 1945. J P Morgan was one of the principal villains in all this.
The US had no real valid reason for involvement in WW1 (which was internal EU squabbles between royal houses) so why did they become involved ? It was only shipping and trade to UK, France etc that was at risk and opportunity to grab reparations. And there was a incursion into Russia at once stage of that war.
The American people if they had their own say wouldnt be pursuing these war venture activities.
It is certain investment elements in the US acting in collusion with the EU UK elites that is the cause of all this.
But history shows, in the end, the lairs and thieves always are always brought to justice.