Monday 10th of December 2018

why putin poisoned the skripals...

sneaky putin

PUTIN: Our Soccer World Cup is going to give us too much kudos… How can we muck this up?
P: What’s that?
L: Old Soviet poison prepared by your old Auntie Kay Geebee.
P: Ah yes… I remember. The good old days...
L: So we poison a traitor but in a manner that can be traced back to us…
P: Brilliant! Poland would be difficult, but England would be a piece of cake, no?
L: Sure. I’ve heard of two guys we could use to do the deed.
P: good ones?
L: No. Total crap... They came last at spy school. Could not tie their shoe laces without being seen by CCTV.
P: Sounds good.
L: … and they have no clue on how to use underarm deodorant. They smell like “piss and Russian”.
P: When can we start?
L: A couple of months before the kick off.
P: you sure these bumbling idiots can do poisoning without killing themselves?
L: We'll give them fake poison in a perfume bottle. They will stay clear of the stuff.
P: should we tell MI6 about these guys?
L: No need to. MI6 is a fantastic superior tremendous, remarkable, great, terrific, enormous, huge, striking, impressive, outstanding, phenomenal, monumental, overwhelming spy organism of the Royal United Kingdom— it’s far better than our tired recycled GRU...
P: Did you say bicycle clips?
L: Sure. Our spies can’t even afford cars. They have to travel by train.
P: How can a perfume simulate poisoning?
L: Hey? Have you smelled the stuff? It’s anti- “piss and Russian” odor…
P: So who are we targetting?
L: Ol' Skripal… He’s Russian and he pissed on us before. As an anti-piss and Russian, that perfume will make him pass out.


P: We’re devious, aren’t we?
L: It's going to work like clockwork... as long as the English trains run on time...

not the bidet by duchamp...

In this mad world where our Orstrayan governments are run by bogans, idiots and crap that would make a turdy Abbott look good, we introduce art in the raw, in Newtown, Sydney...:

not a pissoir.


Actually, Duchamp never exhibited a bidet to our great chagrin, but he did a "fountain" disguised as a pissoir. Or was it the reverse? But to tell the truth, this is what our government is doing pissing on us rather than aiming at the utensil.


really suspect supect...

The tiny village of Loyga in the Russian far north is not the kind of place you would expect to be at the centre of an international spy scandal.

With fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, it has rail access but no paved roads. It's too small even to show up on Google Maps.

But Loyga has proved crucial to piecing together the story of the real "Alexander Petrov" - the second man the UK authorities suspect over the Skripal poisoning case in Salisbury.

On Monday the Bellingcat online investigations team announced they had discovered Mr Petrov was actually Dr Alexander Mishkin, born in Loyga, in the Archangel region. So BBC Russian began trawling through Russian social media sites.

They looked for people aged between 29 and 49 who were born in Loyga, and within two hours they had found four who all remembered Alexander Mishkin from their school days and recognised him from the photographs uncovered by Bellingcat and, crucially, from the UK official photo of the Skripal suspect "Petrov".

Read more:


Note: no-one is the tiny village of Loyga remembers Mr Petrov nor Dr Alexander Mishkin, apart from those, mostly a dog and a goat, who were paid by Bloody-cat with US dollars. So farcical that no-one is seriously believing this shit... You're not, are you? Oh shit... 

another false flag...


The curious case of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury continues to puzzle. So let's get the key, undisputed facts down and approach it logically, without fear or favor, and see what conclusions we come to...

Here are fifteen facts in relation to the Salisbury poisonings case:

1. We haven't seen any photographs or heard anything from Sergei Skripal since 4th March.

The last confirmed images we have of Skripal is CCTV footage of him in a shop in Salisbury at 12.47pm on 27th February.

We haven't seen Yulia Skripal, Sergei's daughter since a short video statement featuring her was released on 23rd May.

2. Investigative website Bellingcat contends that the two suspects identified by the police, and traveling under the names Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, are in fact Anatoliy Chepiga, a highly decorated colonel from Russian military intelligence, and Alexander Mishkin, a doctor working for Russian military intelligence.

3. We haven't seen any CCTV footage of the Skripal's house on 4th March, or of the Skripals on the bench where they were found at around 4.15pm.


Read more:


buttering the skripal affair...

On the first of May, the UK’s National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill told MPs that the agencies he oversaw – MI6, MI5 and GCHQ – had no information on who was responsible for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter two months earlier.

Three days later police searched the room in the City Stay Hotel used by “suspects” Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, and took swabs which were “found to contain Novichok” by Porton Down. The police did not make this information public until September 6th, when they chose to break the story of the now notorious “Russian assassins”.

As I have speculated before, and as is now becoming increasingly clear, the “suspects” put in the frame by the UK government were evidently known to its intelligence agencies long before Mark Sedwill’s denial, and in fact before they even reached London, on their way, we are told ad nauseum, to hit the Skripals with toxic perfume.

Obviously that story is not true, but it now appears that the mission assigned to the unwitting Russian couple was much more than simply to be caught on CCTV in the vicinity of the elusive Skripals, and that they were a pivotal part of “Operation Nina”– both in the planning stages and in the extended “action phase”, currently playing out in the media and institutions of the Western world.

The researches of Elena Evdokimova, explained in systematic detail on her twitteraccount, allow us to turn what was previously just informed speculation into solid assertions which now look “highly likely” to be true, and which then become a basis for further well-informed speculation. I use the term “highly likely” with reservation, having previously argued that it lies a long way from certainty. In this context however, it’s only fair to adopt Mark Sedwill’s own interpretation of the phrase as meaning “100% certain”, bizarre as that is.

This adjustment to the standard of proof by the UK’s intelligence agencies was contained in an intelligence briefing to NATO’s chief Jen Stoltenberg, made public on Friday April 13th – the day before the combined US/UK/French missile attack on Damascus. Without labouring the point, it’s worth quoting from Sedwill’s letter to NATO.

Sedwill wrote:

I would like to share with you and allies further information regarding our assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian state was responsible for the Salisbury attack. Only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and the motive. The term “highly likely” is one commonly used by the intelligence agencies when they believe something is 100% certain – since they are unwilling to express that opinion without a caveat in case of error.”

Sedwill wisely left himself a caveat however, concluding that: “there is no plausible alternative explanation.”

So how might we classify “implausible” on the scale of probability? Implausible certainly doesn’t mean impossible, nor perhaps even “highly unlikely”. But to say something is “not plausible” is to make a judgement that reflects one’s point of view, or in this case the UK’s strategic attitude. The “explanation” for the attack on Sergei Skripal being offered by the UK government and its top advisors is clearly not plausible in Russia’s eyes, nor in those of most independent observers and commentators.


Read more:

Read from top.


Russia has more oil to sell...

When President Trump chose Riyadh to make his debut on the world stage last year, he was placing a bet on Saudi Arabia, which serenaded him with military bands, dazzled him with a flyover of fighter jets and regaled him with a traditional sword dance.

The mastermind behind that wager — the White House adviser who convinced Trump to visit Saudi Arabia for his maiden foreign trip and who choreographed a veritable lovefest between the new president and the desert kingdom’s white-robed ruler, King Salman bin Abdul Aziz — was Jared Kushner.

The president’s son-in-law has carefully cultivated a close partnership with the heir to the Saudi throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom Kushner has championed as a reformer poised to usher the ultraconservative, oil-rich monarchy into modernity.

But the U.S.-Saudi alliance — and the relationship between Kushner, 37, and Mohammed, 33 — is now imperiled by the un­explained disappearance and ­alleged gruesome murder of ­Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who had been living in the United States and wrote columns for The Washington Post. The suspected killing has sparked inter­national outcry and calls for tough punishment of Riyadh.


Read more:


While the Saudis are threatening to cut supplies of oil, the price of the stuff is going to go up. Other countries, in the OPEC cartel, that do not support the Saudis might short cut them and increase production at a bigger margin. Trump has to play all this carefully and try to look like he is administering a severe punishment, while using a feather... Someone is going to die laughing...


This is the great opportunity for the Saudi to befriend the Iranians...


Read also:


Read from top.

why MI6 "poisoned" the skripals...

MI6 boffins discovered that Skripal, far from being a reformed "double agent" working for them, was still a "double agent" working for Russia. The "switch-snitch" had been discovered as usual, when some exclusive information, only known by Skripal and his MI6 handlers ended up on the Russian secret services desk. MI6 operatives knew they had a problem, especially in regard to the task Skripal had been assigned to: investigate the Russian Mafia, which the Russian government also hates.

Contrarily to the Jamal Khashoggi affair, IN WHICH THE SAUDI HAD A POWERFUL MOTIVE to get rid of him, Russia did not have a single motive to get rid of Skripal. He was still one of its assets.

All this information is provided to you by the Gus Leonisky "Intelligence" Network without any proof. The Skripals have not been poisoned but "spirited away" as not to communicate to any Russian personnel ever after. Think about it.


Read from top.

the rogue players?...

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and politics at Princeton and NYU, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at Cohen comments on the following subjects currently in the news:

1. National intelligence agencies have long played major roles, often not entirely visible, in international politics. They are doing so again today, as is evident in several countries, from Russiagate in the United States and the murky Skripal assassination attempt in the UK to the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) or were “rogue” operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against them.

There have been plenty of purely criminal and commercial “rogue” operations by intelligence agents in history, but also “rogue” ones that were purposefully political. We know, for example, that both Soviet and US intelligence agencies—or groups of agents—tried to disrupt the Eisenhower-Khrushchev détente of the late 1950s and early 1960s, and that some intelligence players tried to stop Khrushchev’s formal recognition of West Germany, also in the early 1960s.

It is reasonable to ask, therefore, whether the attacks on Skripal and Khashoggi were “rogue” operations undertaken by political opponents of the leaders’ policies at home or abroad, with the help of one or another intelligence agency or agents. Motive is a—perhaps the—crucial question. Why would Putin order such an operation in the UK at the very moment when his government had undertaken a major Western public-relations campaign in connection with the upcoming World Cup championship in Russia? And why would MBS risk a Khashoggi scandal as he was assiduously promoting his image abroad as an enlightened reform-minded Saudi leader?

We lack the evidence and official candor needed to study these questions, as is usually the case with covert, secretive, disinforming intelligence operations. But the questions are certainly reason enough not to rush to judgment, as many US pundits do. Saying “we do not know” may be unmarketable in today’s mass-media environment, but it is honest and the right approach to potentially fruitful “analysis.”   

2. We do know, however, that there has been fierce opposition in the US political-media establishment to President Trump’s policy of “cooperating with Russia,” including in US intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI—and at high levels of his own administration.

We might consider Nikki Haley’s resignation as UN ambassador in this light. Despite the laurels heaped on her by anti-Trump media, and by Trump himself at their happy-hour farewell in the White House, Haley was not widely admired by her UN colleagues. When appointed for political reasons by Trump, she had no foreign-policy credentials or any expert knowledge of other countries or of international relations generally. Judging by her performance as ambassador, nor did she acquire much on the job, almost always reading even short comments from prepared texts. 

More to the point, Haley’s statements regarding Russia at the UN were, more often than not, dissimilar from Trump’s—indeed, implicitly in opposition to Trump’s. (She did nothing, for example, to offset charges in Washington that Trump’s summit meeting with Putin in Helsinki, in July, had been “treasonous.”) Who wrote these statements for her, which were very similar to statements regarding Russia that have been issued by US intelligence agencies since early 2017? It is hard to imagine that Trump was unhappy to see her go, and easier to imagine him pushing her toward the exit. A president needs a loyalist as secretary of state and at the UN. Haley’s pandering remarks at the White House about Trump’s family suggests some deal had been made to ease her out, with non-recrimination promises made on both sides. We will see if opponents of Trump’s Russia policy can put another spokesperson at the UN.

As to which aspects of US foreign policy Trump actually controls, we might ask more urgently if he authorized, or was fully informed about, the joint US-NATO-Ukraine military air exercises that got under way over Ukraine, abutting Russia, on October 8. Moscow regards these exercises as a major “provocation,” and not unreasonably.

3. What do Trump’s opponents want instead of “cooperation with Russia”? A much harder line, including more “crushing” economic sanctions. Sanctions are more like temper tantrums and road rage than actual national-security policy, and thus are often counterproductive. We have some recent evidence. Russia’s trade surplus has grown to more than $100 billion. World prices for Russia’s primary exports, oil and gas, have grown to over $80 a unit while Moscow’s federal budget is predicated on $53 a barrel. Promoters of anti-Russian sanctions gloat that they have weakened the ruble. But while imposing some hardships on ordinary citizens, the combination of high oil prices and a weaker ruble is ideal for Russian state and corporate exporters. They sell abroad for inflated foreign currency and pay their operating expenses at home in cheaper rubles. To risk a pun, they are “crushing it.”

Congressional sanctions—for exactly what is not always clear—have helped Putin in another way. For years, he has unsuccessfully tried to get “oligarchs” to repatriate their wealth abroad. US sanctions on various “oligarchs” have persuaded them and others to begin to do so, perhaps bringing back home as much as $90 billion already in 2018.

If nothing else, these new budgetary cash flows help Putin deal with his declining popularity at home—he still has an approval rating well above 60 percent—due to the Kremlin’s decision to raise the pension age for men and women, from 60 to 65 and from 55 to 60 respectively. The Kremlin can use the additional revenue to increase the value of pensions, supplement them with other social benefits, or to enact the age change over a longer period of time.

It appears that Congress, particularly the Senate, has no Russia policy other than sanctions. It might think hard about finding alternatives. One way to start would be with real “hearings” in place of the ritualistic affirmation of orthodox policy by “experts” that has long been its practice. There are more than a few actual specialists out there who think different approaches to Moscow are long overdue. 

4. All of these dangerous developments, indeed the new US-Russian Cold War itself, are elite projects—political, media, intelligence, etc. Voters were never really consulted. Nor do they seem to approve. In August, Gallup asked its usual sample of Americans which policy toward Russia they preferred. Fifty-seven percent wanted improved relations vs. only 36 percent who wanted a tougher US policy with more sanctions. (Meanwhile, two-thirds of Russians surveyed by an independent agency now see the United States as their country’s number-one enemy, and about three-fourths view China favorably.)

Will any of the US political figures already jockeying for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 take these realities into account?


Stephen F. Cohen


Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.

meanwhile at the disinformation HQ — the NYT....

From the NYT:

Russia’s meddling in the United States’ elections is not a hoax. A three-part video series from Opinion.





I can wait to read it when it's available as one of my 10 free NYT articles for the month...



Read from top.


Please note that "fake news" was invented A LONG TIME AGO... in BC times... A lot of "fake news" was used by the Israelites to maintain their status of superior "victims". 


Fake news is the essence of any spy agency, even going back to times of the knights of the Round Table...


INFEKTION is the way The NYT promotes its news...


ALL religions are based on fake news...



See also:





it was 3-quinuclinidyl Benzilate...

It is one of the great contradictions of our society, whose essential operations are now so inextricably linked to technology, that understanding of and respect for “science” is worse than ever before. This ignorance amongst the presumably well-educated Western public extends to almost all the areas of knowledge one can imagine – it is “in-omniscient”.

So instead of critical understanding of – say – the Carbon cycle or astronomy, we have the denial of catastrophic climate change and the mythology of hyper-temporal space travel. A recent report that a new planet had been discovered, whose “proximity to Australia” made it of special interest illustrates this cognitive disjunction. At only six light years from Earth it is close in astronomical terms – but still about 6000 times the distance to the Sun.

While the detection of this planet is remarkable – like finding a pea on a distant mountain peak – its actual existence has about as much meaning as that would in our daily lives. It only serves to bring home the acute loneliness of humanity as it faces obliteration – drowning in its own waste or turned to ash in a holocaust of nuclear idiocy.

Such scientific illiteracy is of course not universal, though the huge “scientific community” may be increasingly fragmented and specialised, and ever more reliant on information technology to control processes that are almost beyond individual comprehension. One suspects also that holistic understanding of science – or what was once called “Natural Philosophy” – is dying out as its old-school reservoirs are drying up.

All this is a necessary preamble for the strictly scientific case I intend to make – or reinforce – on the apparent poisoning of the five Salisbury “Novichok victims” with the Incapacitant known as “BZ”, or 3-quinuclinidyl Benzilate. That I must do this against a new blizzard of misinformation from the BBC’s notorious “Panorama” programme only makes the presentation of this circumstantial evidence more necessary; for doubters to finally conclude that “it must have been Novichok” simply because there seems no alternative would be most unfortunate.

There is now ample evidence to say – with reasonable certainty – that the Skripals and DS Bailey were initially affected by BZ, and that the Amesbury couple, Sturgess and Rowley also likely were – based on their reported symptoms and some prejudicial assumptions. For those who haven’t been following the story of “Operation Nina”, it is again necessary to repeat that “Novichok” has been categorically proven absent from the Salisbury environment, due to its extreme toxicity and its mode of action. The latest scare stories that “thousands could have died” had the alleged contents of the alleged perfume bottle been spread around only confirm this, because they didn’t. They are a new low in misinformation from the “investigating” authorities.

The discovery of BZ as the likely culprit for the Skripals’ poisoning may not have happened had Russia not obtained the original test results from the Spiez lab, which showed traces of BZ in the Skripals’ blood samples. The hostile reaction to Lavrov’s leaking of the details from the OPCW, UK and Dutch authorities both verified the lab’s findings and increased suspicion about them.

The finding of BZ in the blood samples by Spiez lab was confirmed however, but with the bizarre claim it was present as a result of being a “control sample” in the testing for Novichok. Neither BZ nor its “precursors” bear the remotest resemblance to Novichok and other related nerve agents, neither physically nor in their effects, so this claim is quite mendacious. It is those effects that I’ll now focus on.

To understand the extreme difference between Incapacitants such as BZ and Nerve agents like Novichok/A 234, VX and Sarin, a little knowledge of neurophysiology is necessary, and particularly on the way that nerve impulses are transmitted. Both types of chemical produce their effects on muscles, glands and brain by affecting this “neurotransmission”.

The transmission of nerve impulses across the junctions between nerves and muscles or glands is mediated by the “neurotransmitter” Acetylcholine. A Ch is produced at the nerve ending and migrates across the junction – synapse – to the muscle or gland receptors. Following this action an enzyme – Acetylcholine Esterase – rapidly breaks down the A Ch so that the stimulus to the gland or muscle ceases.

Nerve agents are described as “Anti-Choline-esterase” or Choline-esterase Inhibitors, and act so the A Ch from nerve impulses accumulates and causes continuous stimulation of the muscle or gland, with consequent symptoms of excessive fluid secretion and muscle paralysis, including of heart and diaphragm.

By contrast, BZ and related Anti-Cholinergic substances (which include Atropine and Scopolamine) prevent Acetyl Choline from acting on the receptor sites across the synapse by being absorbed onto and blocking those sites. This interruption to nerve impulses has an entirely different action on the body, with very distinct and visible symptoms I’ll describe shortly.

So the two classes of chemical are in fact antagonistic, and with opposite or very different effects. It may also be noted that consequently these antagonists may act as antidotes for each other; Atropine is for example the choice antidote for nerve agents; that BZ might be assumed to have similar activity against Novichok raises some interesting questions.

When we consider the reported symptoms of poisoning exhibited by the Skripals when they were noticed behaving oddly in the Salisbury Maltings area, the discovery – or revelation – of BZ in their blood samples starts to make sense. One of the strange but apparently characteristic symptoms of BZ intoxication, described in this document from the US Military, is a reaching up action, as if “picking clothes” or “wool-gathering”. This was also described by the only recorded witness, Freya Church:

She was slumped over on the man’s shoulder. To be honest, I thought they might be homeless but they were perhaps better dressed.”

I just thought this is weird, especially as she was clearly quite a bit younger than him.”

She had a red bag at her feet. He was gesturing at the sky, doing some kind of movements with his hands.”

He was looking up and his eyes were glazed.”

There was no one else there near them at this point. No one was helping them.”

Regrettably we have no more descriptions of the Skripals’ condition, except from Salisbury Hospital staff, as reported previously. No doubt the normal case notes for them would be in the hospital records for the first 48 hours while they were in A&E as suspected Opiate overdose victims. Those notes are now of considerable interest in fact, as the other symptoms of BZ intoxication are quite distinct.

Unlike nerve agents, BZ does not cause paralysis and loss of consciousness within minutes of exposure. Symptoms may not appear for up to four hours, but then last for up to four days, depending on the dose. Those symptoms listed in the US manual above and elsewhere – and evidently witnessed in trials during the development of BZ as a “military grade” agent include the following – hallucinations and bizarre behaviour, fast heartrate for 2 days, dilated pupils with dry eyes, red-hot flush, disrobing, senseless speech, delirium and stupor.

It is quite clear from this that the A&E staff who treated the Skripals on admission must have observed some of these symptoms and reacted accordingly – which as ward nurse Sarah Clarke reported was simply that “they were needing support with their breathing, and support with their cardio-vascular system”. It is however usual to treat suspected Opioid overdose cases with Naloxone injection immediately; that the patients would not have responded to this or responded adversely would surely have been noted.

Opioids like Fentanyl are depressants, with symptoms quite unlike those of BZ – including tachycardia and hyperthermia, and this seems to be acknowledged by the BBC’s Mark Urban:

as they continued treating their patients, the early theory about opioid poisoning was discarded”.

In fact we might question whether that “theory” or clinical diagnosis of opioid poisoning was ever seriously considered, and “discarded” as soon as the patients were examined. Perhaps then doctors would have realised they were dealing with something unusual, and contacted the experts at Porton Down, though the reference to “phone calls starting” early on Monday morning suggests otherwise.

At this point however, some more questions arise, as the BBC report states that the Skripals’ Cholinesterase levels were “next to zero” – indicating a nerve agent or Cholinesterase inhibitor was present. But it is not clear whether this clinical observation and test was made following the intervention by Porton Down specialists. The interview comments from SDH staff are ambiguous on this point:

Lorna Wilkinson, Director of Nursing:

by the Tuesday, through various tests and diagnostics that we were running, that’s where it became apparent we were looking at a cholinesterase inhibition….”

Dr Christine Blanchard, Medical Director:

whilst a district general hospital, a laboratory, cannot test specifically for a nerve agent, we can request tests for eg anticholinesterase levels. It was our colleagues in Porton Down that helped us with the testing.”

Following this “helpful intervention”, no further clinical details are available, other than the doctors’ reference to “untested drugs” being tried, and then finally the rather rapid and unexpected recovery of both patients.

Given that the effects of BZ last no longer than four days maximum, a further – and highly problematic – question arises; why did the Skripals not then recover from their “incapacity”?

What other conclusion can we draw than this: that Yulia and Sergei Skripal were given some “special treatment” by Porton Down experts that kept them in a comauntil it was expedient for them to “recover”?

Is it possible that the reported presence of trace amounts of “degraded Novichok” in the Skripals’ blood samples (along with the clearly false claim they contained “Novichok of high purity”) was evidence of this “special treatment”?

It also appears, now we have access to Det Sgt Bailey’s personal account, that he received rather different treatment:

I was conscious throughout the whole time,” he said. “I had lots of injections… I had five or six infusions at any one time in my arms. Physically, I felt quite numb after a while.”

Incapacitated even?

David Macilwain 

Sixties drop out, Scientist-farmer, cheesemaker-Luddite, late life activist for the Resistance, Putin/Assad/Nasrallah lover. Atheist. Traveller-student through MENA-Russia-Europe. Abandoned UK frying pan for Australian fire. Marginalised dissident. Author for Russia Insider/AHT and OffG.