Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks: More on the ironies of History:
“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.
|Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks|
|neo fascism in Ukraine – Google Search|
|neo fascism in Ukraine – Google Search|
|neo fascism in Ukraine – Google Search|
|Yanukovych switches story about letter Putin used to justify Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine|
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).
|Germany and Syria – Google Search|
|Germany and Syria – Google Search|
|Germany says in talks about possible military role in Syria|
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.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel listens during a news conference in Skopje, Macedonia September 8, 2018. REUTERS/Ognen Teofilovski
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.
It said parliament would only be notified of any military action after the fact if speedy action were required.
Andrea Nahles, leader of the SPD – junior partner in Merkel’s coalition – ruled out backing any German involvement.
Reporting by Andrea Shalal, Riham Alkousaa and Holger Hansen; Editing by Gareth Jones
|Germany AND Arab world – Google Search|
Haaretz–Sep 2, 2018
“Anti-Semitism has been present in Germany for centuries, not just since …. World War, and with them came the first Muslims to Germany – from Turkey. … If 5 million people of the Muslim faith live in Germany, then of course …
Tampa Bay Times–Sep 25, 2018
Saudi Arabia pulled its ambassador from Germany last year after then …. and the United Arab Emirates has only caused “our Arab region to …
The Latest: Germans take latest Trump criticism in stride
San Mateo Daily Journal–Sep 25, 2018
Haaretz–2 hours ago
The Mossad gave Germany, France and Belgium crucial … advocates of salvaging a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, which …
France seizes Iranian assets in response to foiled bomb plot
Reuters–6 hours ago
Lawfare (blog)–2 hours ago
Iran Launches Missiles at Syria, Sends Message to United States … Ahvaz National Resistance, a coalition of Arab separatists, claimed … Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Germany last week in an effort to …
|How Nazis courted the Islamic world during WWII | Middle East| News and analysis of events in the Arab world | DW|
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.
The Mufti of Jerusalem met with Adolf Hitler in 1941. According to Motadel, some of Hitler’s Muslim allies shared the Nazi leader’s hatred of Jews.
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 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.
|Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world – Wikipedia|
The relationship between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the leadership of the Arab world encompassed contempt, propaganda, collaboration and in some instances emulation. Cooperative political and military relationships were founded on shared hostilities toward common enemies, such as British and French imperialism and colonialism, communism, and Zionism. Another key foundation of this collaboration was the anti-semitism of the Nazis, which was admired by some Arab and Muslim leaders, most notably Hajj Amin al-Husayni. In public and private, Hitler and Himmler made warm statements about Islam as a religion and political ideology, describing it as a more disciplined, militaristic, political, and practical form of religion than Christianity, and commending what they perceived to be Muhammad’s skill in politics and military leadership. However, official Nazi ideology also considered Arabs to be racially inferior to Germans, a sentiment echoed by Hitler and other Nazi leaders to deprecate them.
The Arab-speaking world has attracted particular attention from historians examining fascism beyond Europe. Focusing exclusively on pro-Nazi and pro-Fascist forces, these scholars have tended to emphasize the appeal that Fascism and Nazism had across the Arab world. More recently however, this narrative has been challenged by a number of scholars who assert that that Arab political debates in the 1930s and 1940s were quite complex. Fascism and Nazism, they argue, were discussed alongside other political ideologies, such as Communism, Liberalism, and Constitutionalism. Moreover, the recent revisionist works have stressed the anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi voices and movements in the Arab world.
|NATO counterintelligence Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) – Google Search|
|NATO counterintelligence Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) – Google Search|
|NATO counterintelligence Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) – Google Search|
Sputnik International–Sep 28, 2018
Sergei Skripal Worked for Four Different NATO Intel Agencies – Reports … a source in NATO’s Allied Command Counter Intelligence (ACCI).
Sergei Skripal worked for 4 NATO countries turning in Russian spies
<a href=”https://en.crimerussia.com/” rel=”nofollow”>https://en.crimerussia.com/</a>–Sep 28, 2018
Russian Ex-Spy Skripal Worked For 4 NATO States’ Intelligence …
UrduPoint News–Sep 28, 2018
The Sun–Sep 29, 2018
… a “senior employee of NATO counter-espionage Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI)” from its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
Deutsche Welle–Sep 28, 2018
… bis 2017 für vier Geheimdienste von NATO-Staaten gearbeitet haben. … Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) im belgischen Mons.
Skripal soll für vier Nato-Geheimdienste gearbeitet haben
Sputnik Deutschland–Sep 28, 2018
Skripal: Ex-Doppelagent arbeitete für vier Nato-Geheimdienste
Nordbayern.de–Sep 28, 2018
Telepolis–Oct 1, 2018
Der Focus will von von einem “ranghohen Mitarbeiter” der NATO-Spionageabwehr Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) in Brüssel …
FOCUS Online–Sep 28, 2018
Das erfuhr der FOCUS von einem ranghohen Mitarbeiter der NATO-Spionageabwehr Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) in Brüssel.
<a href=”http://Romania-Insider.com” rel=”nofollow”>Romania-Insider.com</a>–Apr 11, 2017
The Bucharest ACCI Detachment will subordinate to the Allied Command Counter Intelligence and will undertake its activity as part of the South …
<a href=”http://krpress.ru/” rel=”nofollow”>http://krpress.ru/</a>–Sep 29, 2018
… журнал Focus ссылаясь на высокопоставленный источник в натовской контрразведке Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI).
SPIEGEL ONLINE–Apr 12, 2016
… begann mit einem Ermittlungsbericht der Nato-Spionageabwehr. Auf drei Seiten informierte das Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI) …
FOCUS Online–Aug 23, 2015
NATO-Sicherheitsoffiziere prangern an, dass der Militärische … zwei Offiziere des Allied Command Counter Intelligence (ACCI) aus dem …
|Poisoned double agent Skripal was active until 2017 for four secret services|
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.
In video: Filmed at Russian airport – mother sells newborn for 38 euros to a stranger woman
|Spy poisoning: Nato expels Russian diplomats|
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.
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.
Who is expelling diplomats?
A total of 27 nations have now announced the expulsion of more than 140 Russian diplomats.
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.
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.
|NATO-Russia Council meets for first time since Skripal poisoning | News | DW|
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.
Yulia Skripal: ‘We are so lucky to have both survived’
What will be on the agenda
Read more: MH17: Netherlands, Australia hold Russia responsible for downing plane
Russians cause anxiety on Gotland
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.”
|Salisbury Novichok victim Sergei Skripal targeted by assassins ‘as he was still active spy for FOUR intelligence agencies’|
Jump directly to the content
A German magazine has claimed the supposedly-retired Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was actually still active and working through an MI6 handler
By Neil Syson
29th September 2018, 8:15 pm
Updated: 29th September 2018, 10:52 pm
SALISBURY Novichok victim Sergei Skripal was targeted for assassination because he was still an active spy for four Western intelligence agencies – including Britain’s MI6, it has been claimed.
The 67-year-old supposedly retired Russian double-agent had betrayed Moscow in Spain, the Czech Republic and Estonia since moving to the Wiltshire town eight years ago.
The final straw for the Kremlin came when he fingered four spooks – including an old colleague – on undercover operations in the Baltic state of Estonia in 2016 and last year.
Revenge-hungry Moscow then sent-in two GRU military intelligence agents disguised as tourists Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov for the bungled nerve agent hit on Skripal.
The claims have been made in Germany’s respected Focus magazine which quotes a “senior employee of NATO counter-espionage Allied Command Counterintelligence (ACCI)” from its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
The mag’s article supports broad speculation since the failed hit in March that Skripal was still immersed in the murky world of espionage with his work channelled through an MI6 handler.
Chief reporter Josef Huffelschuelte, an acclaimed military and intelligence writer, said Skripal was deployed to Prague in 2012, two years after he was pardoned by Moscow and traded on a spy exchange with the UK.
With British assistance, the ex-colonel was expected to inform “local security authorities about active espionage networks of the Russians”.
The NATO source stated Skripal’s information was “so precise”, Czech officials afterwards travelled several times to Salisbury to debrief him.
Skripal then served on the Costa del Sol for Spain’s CNI secret service feeding information on Russian gangs hand-in-hand with oligarchs and high-ranking officials and politicians in Moscow.
The double-dealer had previous experience in the Iberian country – setting up a Spanish wine export business with a shady business partner in 1995 as he passed secrets of 300 colleagues to The West.
In July 2016, Focus reports, Skripal travelled to Tallin in nervous Estonia, which shares a 180-mile frontier with Russia and teems with its spooks.
It fears a Crimea-style takeover by hardline leader Vladimir Putin amid continuing border exercises by the president’s army countered by a rival NATO build-up.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says two suspects in Novichok poison attack on Skripals in Salisbury have been found but they’re ‘not criminals’
The Berlin-based magazine says: “Skripal, a man of good memory, identified at least three agents including an Estonian army officer and his father who he knew from their time in Moscow.
Pedestrian killed ‘after being hit by window pane that fell 250ft’
TK Maxx slammed for selling jacket for three-year-olds with SEX slogans
‘JUST NOT TRUE’
Schoolboy accused of making up claims of sex with ‘Smurfette’ teacher
FORCE OF NATURE
Hurricane-force Cyclone Leslie could hit UK after shock U-turn in Atlantic
Innocent businessman pepper-sprayed and called ‘paedo’ by cop wins £35k payout
Woman finds maggot in Toby Carvery meal… but they confirm it’s a caterpillar
“He talked about traveling a lot. He’s been back to Russia once in the past couple of years.”
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at email@example.com or call 0207 782 4368. You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.
Signed in as mikenova
Share this story on NewsBlur
Shared stories are on their way…
|Case Skripal in news ticker: Russia demands apology from Britain|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
|Скрипаль сотрудничал сразу с несколькими странами НАТО|
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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”.
Напомним, с Чепигой покончено, следователи взялись за “Петрова”.
|German minister: UK nerve agent attack a ′serious violation′ of international agreements | News | DW|
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
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.”
British MP: Attack ‘a completely unacceptable warlike act’
“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.
|Skripal is German New Abwehr agent – Google Search|
|Раскрыты факты опытов на советских офицерах с применением «Новичка»: Общество: Россия: Lenta.ru|
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.
Больше важных новостей в Telegram-канале «Лента дня». Подписывайтесь!
|Нарышкин назвал “дело Скрипалей” грубо сколоченной провокацией – Политика|
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.
Перейти на сайт рекламодателя
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.
|“The Skripal Files” book – Google Search|
|Spy Poisoned in Britain Fed MI6 Agents Secrets on a Putin Ally, New Book Claims – The New York Times|
LONDON — Sergei V. Skripal, the former Russian spy targeted in a nerve agent attack this spring, fed Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service information about a 1990s-era corruption scheme that reached all the way up to Nikolai P. Patrushev, a top Russian intelligence chief and close ally of Vladimir V. Putin, a new book contends.
Mr. Skripal said this in interviews last year with Mark Urban, the BBC’s diplomatic and defense editor, who was researching a book about post-Cold War espionage.
The information on high-level graft was sensitive, Mr. Skripal said. A naval officer who worked in Russia’s military intelligence service alongside Mr. Skripal, who like him had been caught passing information to Western security services, was found dead in 2004, apparently strangled, in a military hospital after an interrogation by Russian intelligence agents, Mr. Skripal said.
The official explanation was suicide, but several of his fingers had been cut off, in a grisly and unmistakable message.
British intelligence concluded that Mr. Skripal had been spared the same fate because, during Russian interrogations, he had not mentioned the web of corruption leading to Mr. Patrushev, then the head of the Federal Security Service, the successor to the K.G.B. Mr. Patrushev has stepped down from that post, but remains close to Mr. Putin, serving as general secretary of Russia’s security council.
The interviews with Mr. Skripal, excerpted in Mr. Urban’s book, “The Skripal Files: The Life and Near Death of a Russian Spy,” to be published on Tuesday in the United States, do not answer the question of why Mr. Skripal was targeted, but they do paint the fullest picture to date of his life as a Russian spy and a British informant.
Deeply disillusioned by the Soviet collapse and disgusted by President Boris N. Yeltsin, he avoided swearing a new oath of loyalty to the Russian Federation, Mr. Skripal told Mr. Urban.
Then in 1992, he requested an audience with a general in the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence service, and tried to hand in his resignation, explaining that he “didn’t want to serve the new government.” But the service was so desperate for qualified officers that they did not accept his resignation and offered him a plum assignment in Madrid.
Four years later, as an informant for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, he passed on information about systematic graft in the Madrid headquarters of the G.R.U., as Soviet-era discipline relaxed. He told MI6 the identity of certain officers who were overcharging for procurements and inventing fictitious budget items, then distributing a cut to senior officers who served as their protectors.
Britain used Skripal’s information to help Spanish intelligence recruit the naval officer — the man who, in 2004, was found strangled in his hospital bed. Mr. Skripal’s MI6 handlers offered to remove him from Russia, the book claims, but Mr. Skripal decided to return to Russia, where, two months later, he was arrested.
During about 10 hours of interviews with Mr. Urban, in a house stocked with the jigsaw puzzles and model ships of an aging, solitary man, Mr. Skripal said he was afraid to attract attention by being quoted in the book.
“It’s because of Putin,” he told Mr. Urban. “You see, we are afraid of Putin.”
Mr. Urban, who has covered Britain’s security services for 30 years, frequently presents the thinking of intelligence officials without naming them. A portion of the book is told from the perspective of the MI6 officer who recruited Mr. Skripal, who is identified with a pseudonym.
Mr. Urban does not settle on one theory as to why Mr. Skripal, a relatively obscure figure, was targeted for such a spectacular attack. But one theory in the intelligence world is that Russian hit men were unable to locate their first choice — Col. Aleksandr Poteyev, deputy head at the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service’s American section, who in 2010 blew the cover of 10 Russian undercover spies living as Americans.
The C.I.A. spirited Mr. Poteyev out of Russia in July 2010 — the very week that then President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia had visited Washington for a smiley public meeting with President Barack Obama — and then broke the news to Moscow that 10 of its undercover spies had been betrayed by a Russian officer.
Mr. Putin, as a young man, had served in a role similar to Mr. Poteyev’s, providing support to undercover agents stationed abroad. He seethed with anger when asked about the betrayal, at one point saying at a national news conference, “How will he be able to look in the eyes of his children, the pig?”
Mr. Urban suggests that Russian intelligence services may have had trouble finding Mr. Poteyev, who had been resettled under an assumed identity by the F.B.I., and then “moved down the list” to other former agents deemed traitors who were easier to find — like Mr. Skripal, who lived openly in Salisbury.