Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was pulled out of Russian hiding on March 2 for a press conference seemingly aimed at denying that he had ‘really’ asked for Russian troops to be sent into Ukraine.  His rather confused denial follows the about-face by Russia regarding this same letter which was used quite unambiguously back in March 2014 to justify Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
At the high-security event in Moscow, Yanukovych claimed for the first time that back in February 2014 he had also written an appeal to Russian President Vladimir Putin proposing to hold consultations and to consider “sending a police peacekeeping mission”.  This appeal was allegedly analogous to appeals sent on 22 February to the heads of Germany, France and Poland.
The trial in absentia of Yanukovych is underway in Kyiv on charges of state treason. The document entitled ‘Statement’ [Заява]  from 1 March 2014, in which Yanukovych asks Putin to “use Russian armed forces to reinstate legality, peace, law and order,  stability and to protect the population of Ukraine”, is a major element in the indictment.
Yanukovych was at the press conference with the two lawyers representing him in Kyiv, and it is just conceivable that the attempt to minimize the importance of his request for Russia to invade Ukraine was linked solely to that trial and aimed at asserting his innocence.
It is, however, 16 months since Yanukovych last gave such a press-conference.  During each previous appearance, he invariably pushed a position which seemed closely coordinated with that of the Kremlin.
The press conference had received considerable advance publicity with the implication being that Yanukovych was about to make some explosive revelation.  This was certainly not the excerpt shown of a supposed documentary by Italian filmmaker Gian Micalessin, based on interviews with three Georgians who claim to have come to Kyiv at the request of ex-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and gunned down Maidan activists s in order to overthrow the Yanukovych regime.  The film’s credibility has been seriously undermined by, among others, the BBC.
The ‘breaking news’ from the press conference seemed to be the alleged ‘appeal’ to Putin talking only about ‘peacekeepers’, with Yanukovych trying to mention the 1 March document as little as possible and to dismiss its message as “of no legal force”.
It may be of significance that in March 2017, Moscow came out with an extraordinary claim that the ‘statement’ signed by Yanukovych had never been received.  This was particularly startling given that it was Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin who had first made the contents known at an emergency session of the UN Security Council on 3 March 2014,, claiming that it had been received by the Kremlin on 1 March.
It was on that day that Putin asked the upper house of Russia’s parliament for permission to deploy forces in Ukraine.  This was supposedly “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens”.  Permission was swiftly provided.
The typed document signed by Yanukovych was needed to provide a ‘human rights coating’ for Russia’s actions. Churkin was widely reported, for example, by the Kremlin-funded Russia Today / RT, as speaking of “open acts of terror and violence,” and of people “being persecuted for language and political reasons,”
All of this, as well as Yanukovych’s alleged legitimacy as president, have continued to be cited, despite the lack of any substantiating evidence, for Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  They are still pulled out with respect to Donbas, however western response proved rather different, especially after a sophisticated Russian BUK missile was used to down Malaysian airliner MH17 over territory under the control of Russian-backed militants.
Russia is currently facing a suit at the UN International Court of Justice, with one of the charges Ukraine has brought being violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism over its funding and arming of fighters in eastern Ukraine.  The International Criminal Court at the Hague has already issued a preliminary conclusion finding that the occupation of Crimea is an international armed conflict, falling within its jurisdiction, and is presently considering the evidence for Russia’s involvement in Donbas leading to the same conclusion there too.
The political and legal situation had clearly changed, and the document was no longer to be flourished as ‘justification’.  Quite the contrary.
On 10 March 2017, Russia’s Prosecutor General Yury Chaika asserted that Yanukovych had never asked Putin to deploy Russian forces in Ukraine
Then on 16 March, Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov said that the Kremlin had not received “any letter of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich with the request to deploy Russian forces to Ukraine”.
Neither denial could be confirmed or refuted by Churkin who had died suddenly, of unclear causes, on 20 February.
One silenced Russian diplomatic voice proved insufficient, however, as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General and media were swift to point out that Putin had himself cited such an appeal from Yanukovych as grounds for the deployment of Russian forces.
During a press briefing on March 4, 2014, Putin had stated the following: “What could serve as grounds for the use of the Armed Forces?  This is, of course, an extreme situation, simply extreme. It is firstly an issue of legitimacy. As you know, we have a direct appeal from the current and legitimate, as I have already said, President of Ukraine Yanukovych, about the use of Armed Forces for the defence of the life, freedom and health of Ukrainian citizens …. And if we see that this lawlessness is beginning in eastern regions, if people ask us for help, and we already have an official appeal from the current legitimate president, we reserve the right to use all means at our disposal to protect these citizens. And we consider that this is entirely legitimate.  That is an extreme measure.”
By the following day, Marina Zakharova, spokesperson from the Foreign Ministry, had come up with a semantic turn-around.  She claimed that there was no letter, just a “statement” that Yanukovych had never denied signing.  Putin had, in fact, stated that Russia might use troops and be justified since there was an appeal (обращение)  from Yanukovych.
Yanukovych is continuing to use the line that what he wrote was a ‘statement’, not a ‘letter’ or ‘appeal’, though what this proves is a mystery given the undisputed content of this document.
Since Russia has clearly understood that this document, whatever it is called, cannot justify its military aggression against Ukraine, it is worth noting a further argument regarding Yanukovych’s supposed illegitimate removal from office which was also raised at the press confidence.  Yanukovych and his lawyers have tried to claim that he never fled, but simply left Kyiv for Donetsk – on a business trip, so to speak – and was deposed in his absence.  No attempt is made to explain why this business trip required the removal of multiple truck- and helicopter-loads of goods from his residences, with the moves recorded as having begun back on 18 February 2014 (three days before his flight).

BERLIN (Reuters) – The German government said on Monday it was in talks with its allies about a possible military deployment in Syria, prompting a sharp rebuke from the Social Democrats (SPD) and setting up a fresh conflict in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s loveless coalition.

Overseas military action remains a sensitive and deeply unpopular topic in Germany, given its Nazi past. Participation in any air strikes in Syria would also put Germany on a collision course with Russia, the main backer of President Bashar al-Assad.
Government spokesman Steffen Seibert said Germany had discussed with the United States and European allies its possible military involvement if Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against the last major rebel stronghold in Idlib, now under heavy Syrian and Russian bombardment.
“There has not been a situation where a decision has had to be made,” Seibert told a regular news conference, adding that any decision would first have to be approved by parliament.
Earlier, Bild newspaper had reported that Germany’s conservative-led defense ministry was examining possible options for joining U.S., British and French forces in any future military action if Damascus again used chemical weapons.

It said parliament would only be notified of any military action after the fact if speedy action were required.

SPD OPPOSITION

Andrea Nahles, leader of the SPD – junior partner in Merkel’s coalition – ruled out backing any German involvement.
“The SPD will not agree – either in parliament or in the government – to the participation of Germany in the war in Syria,” Nahles said in a statement, adding the party backed diplomatic efforts to avert a humanitarian crisis.
Sources familiar with the issue, confirming the Bild report, said German and U.S. officials had discussed last month the possibility of German fighter jets helping with battle damage assessments or dropping bombs for the first time since the war in ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The German air force already provides refueling support and carries out reconnaissance missions using four Tornado fighter jets from a base in Jordan as part of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant movement in Iraq and Syria.
Bild said a decision on whether to join any strikes would be made by Merkel, who ruled out joining April 2018 air strikes against Syria by U.S., French and British forces after a previous use of chemical weapons.
In a joint statement on Monday, the German foreign and defense ministries urged restraint in Syria.
“The goal is that the conflict parties … avoid escalating an already terrible situation … That is particularly true for the use of banned chemical weapons which the Assad government has already used in the past,” it said.

DW: In your book, “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,” you wrote about the policies of the Nazis towards Islamic political entities. What did these policies look like?
David Motadel: At the height of the war in 1941-1942, when German troops entered Muslim-populated territories in the Balkans, North Africa, Crimea, and the Caucasus, and approached the Middle East and Central Asia, Berlin began to see Islam as politically significant. Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the “Muslim world” against their alleged common enemies — the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America and Jews.
Read more: How Nazi policies of expansion led to World War II
In the war zones, Germany engaged with a wide range of religious policies and propaganda to promote the Nazi regime as the patron of Islam. As early as 1941, the Wehrmacht distributed the military handbook “Islam” to train its soldiers to behave correctly towards Muslim populations. On the eastern Front, the Nazi occupiers ordered the rebuilding of mosques, prayer halls, and madrasas — previously destroyed by Moscow — and the re-establishment of religious rituals and celebrations in order to undermine Soviet rule.
German military authorities also made extensive efforts to co-opt Islamic dignitaries. German propagandists in the eastern territories, the Balkans, and North Africa tried to use religious rhetoric, vocabulary and iconography to mobilize Muslims. They politicized sacred texts like the Quran as well as religious imperatives, most notably the concept of jihad, in order to foment religious violence for political ends.
From 1941 onwards, the Nazi Wehrmacht army and the paramilitary SS recruited tens of thousands of Muslims, mainly to save German blood. Muslim soldiers fought on all fronts. German army officials granted these recruits a wide range of religious concessions, even lifting the ban on ritual slaughter, a practice that had been prohibited for anti-Semitic reasons by Hitler’s Law for the Protection of Animals of 1933.
A widespread assumption exists that Muslims supported the Nazi Regime because they shared an anti-Semitic perspective. This is precisely why the Nazis tried to get Muslims on the regime’s side. What can you tell us about this assumption?
On the German side pragmatic, strategic interests were the most important driving force behind this policy. In its propaganda, however, especially in the Arab world, anti-Semitic themes played an important role. Anti-Semitic propaganda was often connected to attacks against the Zionist migration to Palestine which had emerged as a main topic in Arab political discourses.
On the Muslim side one cannot generalize. Some of the Muslim allies of the Nazi regime — most importantly the famous Mufti of Jerusalem — shared the Nazis’ Jew-hatred. In the war zones, in the Balkans, in North Africa, and in the Eastern territories, the picture is more complicated. In many of these regions, Muslims and Jews had lived together for centuries. And in some cases, Muslims would now help their Jewish neighbors, for example hiding them from the Germans.

What goals did the Nazi regime pursue with its attempt to persuade Muslims to join them and what were sympathetic Muslim leaders hoping for?
The Third Reich’s engagement with Islam was not only that Muslim-populated regions had become part of the war zones, but also, more importantly, that from 1941 to 1942, Germany’s military situation had deteriorated. In the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Blitzkrieg strategy had failed. As the Wehrmacht came under pressure, strategists in Berlin began to seek broader war coalitions, thereby demonstrating remarkable pragmatism. The courtship of Muslims was to pacify the occupied Muslim-populated territories and to mobilize Muslims to fight on the side of Hitler’s armies.
Many of those Muslims who worked with the Nazi regime had pragmatic reasons. They believed that Nazi Germany in 1941-1942 would be victorious and that it would determine the future world order and that the Nazis could help them become liberated from, for example, British imperial rule.

The motives of these soldiers varied considerably. Of course some recruits were driven by religious hatred and anti-Bolshevist, ideological fervor. Overall, however, Muslims often had rather profane motives for enlisting.
Did the Nazis really see Islam as something inherently positive or were the Muslims only a means to an end?
Overall, I think that Muslims were means to an end. Nazi policies towards Islam were informed by pragmatism. Some leading Nazis, particularly Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, repeatedly expressed their respect for Islam. Whenever denouncing the Catholic Church, Hitler routinely contrasted it with Islam. While he denounced Catholicism as a weak, effeminate religion, he praised Islam as a strong, aggressive, martial religion. Overall, however, it was strategic considerations, not ideology, that led to Nazi Germany’s campaign for Islamic mobilization.
Read more: The ‘good German doctor’ who saved Greek lives during WWII occupation
Wasn’t Nazi racism a major obstacle to collaborating with Muslims?
Hitler had already postulated the racial inferiority of non-European peoples in “Mein Kampf.” Once in power, however, German officials showed themselves to be more pragmatic: Non-Jewish Turks, Iranians and Arabs had already been explicitly exempted from any official racial discrimination in the 1930s, following diplomatic interventions from the governments in Tehran, Ankara, and Cairo. And during the war the Germans showed similar pragmatism. Muslims everywhere, it was clear to every German officer, were to be treated as allies.
The realities on the ground were by no means straightforward. In the first months of the Nazi invasion of Russia, SS squads executed thousands of Muslims on the assumption that their circumcision showed that they were Jewish. Eventually, Reinhard Heydrich, chief Nazi security officer, sent out a directive cautioning the task force executing squads to be more careful. On the southern fringes of the Soviet Union, however, German killing squads still had difficulties distinguishing Muslims from Jews. Moreover, in North Africa, the Balkans, and on the Eastern Front, German soldiers were confronted with diverse Muslim populations, including Muslim Roma and Jewish converts to Islam.
Dr. David Motadel is an Assistant Professor of International History at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He works on the history of modern Europe and Europe’s relations with the wider world. In 2017, Motadel was awarded the Philip Leverhulme Prize for History.

The FOCUS learned this from a senior member of the NATO counterintelligence Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) in Brussels .
Skripal was arrested in 2004 for espionage for the MI6 foreign intelligence and released in 2010 in an agent exchange. Since then, he lived in Salisbury, southern England, where he and his daughter had been attacked with the nerve agent Nowitschok half a year ago.
In 2012, Skripal traveled to Prague, accompanied by British MI6 officials, and briefed local security agencies on Russian espionage networks . Some of the Moscow agents should have known Skripal FOCUS information even from his active service.

Russian spies were exposed by Skripal

In the summer of 2016 Skripal apparently provided the Estonian secret service in Tallinn with such precise indications that three spies could be unmasked in Moscow’s services. Among them was a Russian-born officer of the Estonian army and his father.
Also, the Spanish secret service CNI Skripal, who is currently recovering in a secret place from the assassination, have provided explosive information. According to FOCUS information, this was about criminal contacts of the Russian mafia on the Costa del Sol to influential politicians and officials in Moscow.
NATO analysts do not want to rule out that Skripal’s current activity in Western services to identify Russian spies was the real reason for the poison attack.

In video: Filmed at Russian airport – mother sells newborn for 38 euros to a stranger woman

Nato is expelling seven Russian diplomats in response to a nerve agent attack in the UK.
The international security organisation’s chief said the move would send a message to Russia that there are “costs and consequences” for its behaviour.
Twenty-six countries have expelled Russian envoys in the past two days, in solidarity with the UK.
They all believe Russia was behind the poisoning of two people in Salisbury.
Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned on 4 March in the southern English city, and investigators say a military-grade nerve agent was used.

Russia has denied involvement.
Speaking in Brussels, Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said he would also deny pending accreditation for three Russian staff, and would reduce the size of Russia’s mission from 30 to 20.
Nato made a similar move in 2015, in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Before that, there were 60 Russia personnel at its Belgium headquarters.
Earlier, Russia accused the US of pressuring other countries to join the mass expulsion of its diplomats.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Washington of “colossal blackmail” and said there were “few independent countries” left in modern Europe.
Mr Skripal and his daughter remain stable but critical in hospital.

What is Russia’s response?

Mr Lavrov said it was inevitable that there would be a response to the mass expulsion. He singled out the US for blame.
“When one or two diplomats are being expelled from this or that country, all the while whispering apologies in our ear, we know for sure that this is a result of colossal pressure, colossal blackmail, which unfortunately is Washington’s main tool now on the international area,” he said.
“It is hard to escape a conclusion that we were right when we stressed several times that there remain few independent countries in the modern world, modern Europe.”
Russia’s foreign ministry is said to be drawing up a number of possible retaliatory measures for President Vladimir Putin to consider.
One Russian senator, Vladimir Dzhabarov, was quoted as saying there would be a “tit-for-tat” response to the US decision to expel 48 envoys at the Russian embassy in Washington and 12 more at the UN in New York.
Mr Lavrov’s deputy, Sergei Ryabkov, earlier said a tough response was needed but stressed Moscow would not abandon strategic stability talks with Washington.

Who is expelling diplomats?

A total of 27 nations have now announced the expulsion of more than 140 Russian diplomats.
Moldova, Ireland, Australia and Belgium are the latest countries to act, after the UK made the first move by expelling 23 envoys earlier this month.
Belgium said it would expel one diplomat, having previously indicated it might not take the step because it played host to the headquarters of the EU and Nato. Its announcement came after Nato made its statement.
The majority of the countries making the move are either members of Nato or the EU, or both.
Nato’s Mr Stoltenberg said: “The practical implication of course is that Russia will have a reduced capability to do intelligence work.”
President of the European Council Donald Tusk said he would not rule out further measures.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has praised the “extraordinary international response” by the UK’s allies. He said “the world has had enough” of Russia’s behaviour but rejected suggestions a new Cold War was dawning.

Who is not expelling Russians?

EU countries that have said they have no intention of expelling diplomats include Austria, Greece and Portugal, although all have said they support the UK and condemn the poisoning.
Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz tweeted that while he backed the EU, “as a neutral country we will not expel any diplomats”, preferring to “act as a bridge-builder between East and West”.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said it did not have any undeclared Russian intelligence officers, but added: “If we did, we would expel them.”

Is there a diplomatic boycott of the World Cup?

The World Cup starts in Russia in June and the UK said earlier this month it would not send ministers or members of the Royal Family.
On Monday, Iceland said its leaders will not attend the football tournament. Others have mooted the idea.
Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop mooted the possibility of boycotting the World Cup altogether.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) convened on Thursday in Brussels amid continued friction between the alliance and Moscow over the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
It is the first time the council has met since NATO and many of its members expelled Russian diplomatsfollowing a nerve-agent attack on former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Britain, which the West has blamed on Russia.

What will be on the agenda

• The meeting is likely to discuss the situation in eastern Ukraine, where Moscow is supporting separatists in a civil conflict.
• The talks come just days after NATO called on Moscow to take responsibility for the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine, in which 298 people died.
• Both sides are also looking for ways to reduce the danger of inadvertent clashes, particularly during military exercises.
• The meeting may also cover the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in southern England in March, an attack several Western countries claim was carried out using a nerve agent whose likely source was Russia.

Read more: MH17: Netherlands, Australia hold Russia responsible for downing plane
Reducing tensions
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told German news magazine Spiegel on Saturday that the meeting could help decrease tensions between the military alliance and Russia and decrease the risk of accidental military encounters.
Velvet glove: The meeting is seen as playing into NATO’s twin-track strategy of maintaining a strong defense against possible Russian aggression while continuing a “meaningful dialogue” with Moscow, a NATO official said on condition of anonymity. It gives an opportunity to discuss several issues where the two sides are at loggerheads, with the aim of mitigating tensions and the accompanying dangers of conflict.

What is the NRC? According to the NRC’s website, the council “is a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action, in which the individual NATO member states and Russia work as equal partners on a wide spectrum of security issues of common interest.”
When was it founded? The NATO-Russia Council was founded in 2002 but was suspended for two years following Moscow’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014.
How often does it meet? Thursday’s meeting is the seventh in the past two years, with the previous one taking place in October.

tj/rt (dpa, AFP)
Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW’s editors send out a selection of the day’s hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here

Special Session of the Executive Council of the Organization for a Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Wednesday, April 4, 8:38: Russian double spy Sergei Skripal, Britain and Russia meet for the first time directly on each other. The dispute is at the center of a special session of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) this Wednesday in The Hague. Russia had requested the special session. The panel includes diplomats from 41 countries including US, Russia, the UK and Germany.
The focus of the non-public meeting of the OPCW governing body is the UK’s fierce allegation that Russia blamed Russia for the Novitschok venom attack in Salisbury a month ago. The poison had been produced in the former Soviet Union. Moscow vehemently rejects the allegations and accuses London of anti-Russian propaganda.
So far, the UK has not been able to provide any evidence. A British research laboratory has not used a “precise source” for the nerve agent used. Gary Aitkenhead, head of a laboratory at the Porton Down research facility.
Auch OPCW-Experten hatten Spuren des Gifts und Blutproben untersuchen lassen. Unklar ist noch, ob die OPCW bereits Ergebnisse der Untersuchung vorlegen wird.

Russland fordert Entschuldigung von Großbritannien im Fall Skripal

21.25 Uhr: Russland hat von Großbritannien eine Entschuldigung für Vorwürfe im Fall des vergifteten Ex-Agenten Sergej Skripal gefordert. “Auf irgendeine Weise muss man sich bei Russland entschuldigen”, sagte Kremlsprecher Dmitri Peskow der Agentur Interfax zufolge am Dienstag bei einem Besuch von Präsident Wladimir Putin in der Türkei.
Der britische Außenminister Boris Johnson und Premierministerin Theresa May müssten ihren EU-Kollegen in die Augen schauen, sagte Peskow. Aus Solidarität mit Großbritannien hatten Dutzende westliche Länder zahlreiche russische Diplomaten ausgewiesen, auch Deutschland hatte vier Russen zu unerwünschten Personen erklärt. Russland hatte im Gegenzug das Gleiche getan.

Russische Herkunft von Gift im Fall Skripal im Labor nicht nachweisbar

Dienstag, 3. April, 17.43 Uhr: Für das britische Militärlabor ist eine russische Herkunft des Nervengifts im Fall Skripal nicht eindeutig nachweisbar. Diese wissenschaftlichen Informationen seien an die britische Regierung gegangen, die dann zusammen mit anderen Hinweisen ihre Rückschlüsse gezogen habe, sagte der Chef des zuständigen Porton Down Labors, Gary Aitkenhead, am Dienstag dem Sender Sky News. Moskau bestreitet jegliche Verantwortung für den Giftanschlag auf den früheren russischen Doppelagenten Sergej Skripal und wirft London vor, die Schuld voreilig Russland zugeschoben zu haben.
Aitkenhead sagte nun mit Blick auf das bei dem Anschlag verwendete Gift: “Wir konnten nachweisen, dass es sich um Nowitschok handelte, nachweisen, dass es sich um ein Nervengift militärischer Art handelte.” Aber sein Labor habe “nicht die genaue Herkunft” aus Russland nachweisen können.
Auf russischen Antrag hin gehen Experten der Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen (OPCW) am Mittwoch bei einem Treffen dem Vorwurf Großbritanniens nach, dass Russland hinter dem Giftanschlag stecke. Der frühere russische Doppelagent Skripal und seine Tochter Julia waren am 4. März in der südenglischen Stadt Salisbury vergiftet worden. Beide kamen in lebensbedrohlichem Zustand ins Krankenhaus, inzwischen ist die Tochter auf dem Weg der Besserung.
Der Fall hat zu einer schweren Krise zwischen Russland und Großbritannien sowie zahlreichen weiteren westlichen Staaten geführt. Als Konsequenz aus dem Anschlag wiesen Großbritannien und mehr als 20 Partnerländer wie Deutschland, Frankreich und die USA dutzende russische Diplomaten aus; Russland wies daraufhin seinerseits dutzende Diplomaten aus.

Russland übt Kritik mit Hinweis auf Zombie-Film

Montag, 2. April, 12.39 Uhr: Russland wirft in zwei ungewöhnlichen Tweets Großbritannien eine Missachtung der diplomatischen Konventionen vor. Die russische Botschaft in London kritisierte so im Kurznachrichtendienst Twitter erneut, dass London keine Beweise für seine Anschuldigungen vorlege und keinen Zugang zu den Opfern gewähre. London macht Moskau für den Anschlag auf Skripal und dessen Tochter Julia verantwortlich.
In einem Tweet verwendete die Botschaft für ihren Protest das Logo des Zombie-Films “28 Days Later” (28 Tage später) in Anspielung auf den Anschlag, der am 4. März im englischen Salisbury verübt worden war. In dem Film geht es um den Zusammenbruch der Gesellschaft durch die Verbreitung eines tödlichen Virus aus einem britischen Forschungslabor und die dramatische Flucht einiger Überlebender. Auch 28 Tage nach de m Anschlag sei London seinen Verpflichtungen Moskau gegenüber nicht nachgekommen, kritisierte die russische Botschaft.

Ein anderer Tweet zeigt einen goldenen Schlüssel mit einem Satz, der im Deutschen der Goldenen Regel entspricht: “Was du nicht willst, das man dir tu’, das füg’ auch keinem andern zu.”

Russland hatte Fragenkatalog veröffentlicht

Zuvor hatte Russland einen Fragenkatalog zum Anschlag veröffentlicht und gefordert, Zugang zu Julia Skripal zu bekommen. Der 33-Jährigen geht es inzwischen deutlich besser. Ihr Vater befindet sich nach Angaben der Ärzte in einem kritischen Zustand. Beide waren bewusstlos auf einer Parkbank entdeckt worden. Sie wurden London zufolge durch einen Kampfstoff vergiftet, der zu Sowjetzeiten produziert wurde.
Kritik übte die russische Botschaft per Twitter auch daran, dass sie im Mordfall des Kreml-Kritikers Nikolai Gluschkow keine Informationen bekomme. Der Geschäftsmann war Mitte März tot in seinem Londoner Haus entdeckt worden. Gluschkow hatte für die russischen Großkonzerne Avtovaz und Aeroflot gearbeitet. Er kam nach Vorwürfen von Betrug und Geldwäsche ins Gefängnis und erhielt 2010 Asyl in Großbritannien.

Britischer Verteidigungsminister sieht “neue Ära der Kriegsführung” gekommen

1. April, 14.09 Uhr: Nach Ansicht des britischen Verteidigungsministers Gavin Williamson hat “die Welt eine neue Ära der Kriegsführung betreten”. Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin versuche, andere Länder zu unterminieren, unter anderem durch Cyberattacken. Der Anschlag auf den Ex-Doppelagenten Sergej Skripal vor vier Wochen sei eine “kaltblütige, chemische Attacke” gewesen und Putins Verhalten “bösartig”, schrieb Williamson in der Zeitung “Sunday Telegraph”. “Wir sollten nicht vergessen, dass das der erste offensive Gebrauch eines Nervengifts in Europa seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg war.”

In the video: Russia suspects conspiracy: “It’s all about taking away the World Cup from us”

 

Бывший российский двойной агент Сергей Скрипаль, которого весной пытались отравить сотрудники российских спецслужб сотрудничал со многими разведками мира.

Об этом сообщило немецкое издание Focus со ссылкой на высокопоставленный источник в контрразведке НАТО.
Сейчас уже известно, что Скрипаль в последнее время имел длительные переговоры сразу с несколькими спецслужбами стран НАТО.
Вместе с тем стоит отметить, что российского разведчика Сергея Скрипаля задержали в России еще в 2004 году за работу на британскую разведку, однако уже в 2010 году его обменяли на нескольких задержанных российских агентов.

Сразу же после обмена он начал проживать на юге Англии в городе Солсбери со своей дочерью.Там же его пытались отравить агенты російськох разведки химическим оружием “Новичок”.
Кроме того сейчас уже известно, что в 2012 году Скрипаль в сопровождении нескольких агентов британской разведки МІ6 ездил в Прагу для зустрчі с представителями местной спецслужбы, где рассказал по какому принципу работает российская шпионская сеть.
Более того по данным СМИ, летом 2016 года Скрипаль предоставлял эстонской разведке важнейшие данные, достаточные для изобличения трех российских разведчиков, которые работали в Таллине.
Также, Скрипаль предоставлял информацию испанской разведке о деятельности в стране “русской мафии”.

Вместе с тем стоит отметить, что агент ГРУ Анатолий Чепига (он же Руслан Боширов), которого подозревают в отравлении экс-ГРУшника Сергея Скрипаля в Солсбери, мог быть знаком со своей жертвой лично.
По информации издания Times, карьерный путь отравителя и цели проходил очень и очень похоже. Это может стать для следствия важным моментом. Чепига мог в прошлом не только слышать о Скрипача, но и быть с ним знаком лично.

Анатолий Чепига принимал участие в военном конфликте в Чечне, по возвращению получил множество медалей и наград. Он воевал в рядах спецназа до того, как начал строить карьеру в главной военной разведке Российской Федерации.
Кроме того стоит добавить, что в СМИ разгорается шумиха по поводу разоблачения вероятного отравителя бывшего разведчика Сергея Скрипаля Руслана Боширова. Стало известно, что Боширова самом деле зовут Анатолий Чепига, и он “заработал” звание Героя России.

Так, бывший командир Чепиги Александр Боржко в Дальневосточном высшем общевойсковом командном училище назвал информацию о том, что его воспитанник причастен к отравлению в Солсбери – “легкой шизофренией”.
Боржко подтвердил факт выпуска курсанта по фамилии Чепига в 2001 году, и им участие в военных действиях в Чечне. Также бывший начальник Чепиги заявил, что в его военном учебном заведении готовят офицеров для выполнения боевых задач, а не агентурных мероприятий.
Боширов, он же Чепига: Путин выдал полковника ГРУ за “солсберецкого” туриста

Напомним, с Чепигой покончено, следователи взялись за “Петрова”.
Как сообщал “Знай.ua” в деле Скрипалей упустили важного персонажа.
Также “Знай.ua” писал, что в России спрогнозировали финал дела с “Новичком”.

Russia must cooperate in an investigation into the nerve agent used against an ex-spy on British soil, Germany’s defense minister said Thursday.
The nerve agent attack was a “serious violation of international agreements on chemical weapons,” Ursula von der Leyen told Morgenmagazin, a joint breakfast show by public broadcasters ARD and ZDF.
Britain has said it was “highly likely” Moscow was behind the attack, or that it had “lost control” of the military-grade nerve agent used against ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, nearly two weeks ago. The two remain in critical condition.
“It’s the very first time since World War II that a horrible chemical weapon has been used on European soil,” von der Leyen said, demanding Russia contribute to providing clarity on the incident.
Russia has denied any involvement in the nerve agent attack, which prompted a UN Security Council meeting on Wednesday.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday also decried the attack as “unacceptable” and said nerve gas use has “no place in the civilized world.”
“The attack in Salisbury has taken place against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behavior over many years,” he said.
Stoltenberg is set to discuss the Skripal poisoning with the UK’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson next week.
Read more: US believes Russia is ‘responsible’ for UK spy poisoning
Consequences
Von der Leyen said that in addition to convening the Security Council, UN chemical weapons experts must examine the evidence.
“When we have an evaluation [from the UN], and it will come, then we must talk about consequences,” the defense minister said.
The UK on Wednesday announced a range of measures against Russia, including expelling 23 diplomats.
Moscow said it would retaliate. British actions “go way beyond the framework of basic decency,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.
However, Tom Tugendhat, a British MP and chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the House of Commons, told DW that Russia’s actions were “warlike.”

“Had [this chemical] been opened on the London Underground, for example, it would have killed hundreds of people. And to use it next to a children’s playground, where, had the children been there, it would have killed 30 or 40 children. This is a completely unacceptable, warlike act by a violent, deranged regime that is weakening and lashing out. This is a corrupt dictatorship that has to stop,” he said.
Read more: Sergei Skripal case adds to West’s ‘massive trust deficit’ against Russia
Russia has said it would cooperate in the investigation, but demanded Britain provide samples of the nerve agent. Russia wants 10 days to respond, in accordance with rules in the chemical weapons convention.
Von der Leyen also tied the UK nerve agent attack to events in Syria, where Russia is allied with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian regime has been accused of using banned chemical agentsagainst civilians and rebels.
“We see the Assad-allied forces using poison gas. Russia is the one the allies of Assad. That’s why it’s crucial for Russia to clarify what happened there,” von der Leyen said.
Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW’s editors send out a selection of the day’s hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.

Боевое отравляющее вещество класса «Новичок» могли испытывать на советских военнослужащих, сообщает издание «Проект» со ссылкой на судебные материалы и свидетельства участников исследований. Верховный суд (ВС) подтвердил как минимум один факт опыта на человеке с использованием поражающего вещества.
В 2002 году Верховный суд вынес определение по делу Владимира Петренко, который утверждал, что в 1982-м служил на секретном объекте в городе Шиханы Саратовской области, и на нем протестировали неизвестное вещество. Позже у Петренко нашли десятки заболеваний, он подал иск о компенсации вреда здоровью.
ВС подтвердил, что эксперимент проводился, но пришел к выводу, что Петренко не пострадал в результате опыта. «Заболевание имелось у истца до его прибытия к прохождению службы в войсковую часть, его доводы о причинении вреда здоровью в ходе эксперимента в 1982 году подтверждения не нашли… Вред здоровью истца причинен не в ходе проведения эксперимента в 1982 году, и после проведения эксперимента он не нуждался в медицинской помощи и реабилитации», — говорится в определении.
В материалах также имеется объяснение подполковника медицинской службы Поспелова, которое свидетельствует о том, что в опытах участвовали и другие военнослужащие. «Воздействию таких же концентраций при тех же временных сроках контакта с веществом подвергались также лица, которые в настоящее время продолжают нести службу и не предъявляют никаких жалоб на состояние своего здоровья», — заявил Поспелов в 1993 году, отвечая на вопросы прокурора.
Кроме того, в эксперименте участвовала контрольная группа: ее члены дышали плацебо, то есть не подвергались воздействию вещества, но не знали об этом. Сам Петренко в одном из интервью говорил, что «расписываясь в бухгалтерии за деньги, обратил внимание, что со сходной формулировкой в бумаге было записано еще около 40 офицеров».
Что именно тестировали на Петренко — неизвестно. Ученый Владимир Углев, которому удалось синтезировать вещество класса «Новичок», подтвердил, что это могли быть именно эти вещества в допороговых дозах. Как следует из объяснений Поспелова, сразу после эксперимента у Петренко были выявлены «изменения в активности ацетилхолинэстеразы крови». «Это происходит в результате применения фосфорорганических отравляющих веществ, по такому принципу действует “Новичок”», — добавил Углев.
О том, что в Шиханах разработали боевое отравляющее вещество «Новичок», рассказал в начале 1990-х ученый Вил Мирзаянов. Против него было возбуждено уголовное дело за нарушение гостайны, которое закрыли в 1994 году. С 1995-го Мирзаянов живет в США.
4 марта в британском городе Солсбери было совершено покушение на бывшего сотрудника ГРУСергея Скрипаля и его дочь Юлию. Британские власти утверждают, что пострадавших отравили с помощью «Новичка» агенты ГРУ под псевдонимами Александр Петров и Руслан Боширов. Россия отрицает обвинения в причастности к случившемуся.

МОСКВА, 2 октября. /ТАСС/. Директор Службы внешней разведки Сергей Нарышкин считает дело об отравлении Скрипалей в Солсбери грубо сколоченной провокацией.
“Если бы даже перед какой-то спецслужбой стояла такая задача, то так, как это было сделано, сделано непрофессионально. Поэтому я могу еще раз подтвердить, что это была грубо сколоченная и сшитая провокация”, – заявил Нарышкин на презентации в ТАСС двухтомника “История Крыма”, отвечая на просьбу прояснить его мнение как специалиста в области работы спецслужб.

По версии британской стороны, 4 марта экс-полковник ГРУ Сергей Скрипаль, осужденный в РФ за шпионаж в пользу Великобритании, вместе со своей дочерью Юлией подвергся в Солсбери воздействию боевого нервно-паралитического вещества семейства “Новичок”, нанесенного на дверную ручку его дома. Лондон выступил с утверждением, что Москва с высокой долей вероятности причастна к этому инциденту. Россия категорически отвергла все спекуляции на этот счет, указав, что программ разработки такого вещества ни в СССР, ни в РФ не существовало.
5 сентября премьер-министр Великобритании Тереза Мэй проинформировала британский парламент о выводах расследования, заявив, что в покушении на Скрипалей подозреваются двое россиян с паспортами на имена Александра Петрова и Руслана Боширова, которых британские спецслужбы считают агентами ГРУ. Сами Петров и Боширов дали интервью телеканалу RT, в котором отвергли эти обвинения.

В минувший четверг сообщалось, что британская газета The Daily Telegraph назвала настоящее имя человека, который подозревается в отравлении Скрипалей. По утверждению издания, под именем Руслан Боширов скрывается некий 39-летний полковник Анатолий Владимирович Чепига, награжденный госнаградами.