Connect with us

Latest

Video

Putin’s Novichok assassins identified. Pictured smiling, walking UK streets (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 99.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

3,959 Views

UK prosecutors have cracked the Novichok poisoning hoax by identifying two Russian they suspect of poisoning Sergei and Yulia Skripal as, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov.

The two are being charged with the attempted murder of the ex-double agent and his daughter along with a police officer.

British police stated that the suspects (both around 40 years old) were traveling on authentic Russian passports and had arrived in the UK days before the poisoning incident.

The UK’s head of Counter Terrorism policing, Neil Basu, said the two men were traveling under aliases.

Basu noted that traces of the lethal and deadly Novichok poison were found in the London hotel room where the two men had stayed from March 2 and up until March 4…but no need for alarm as both Russian men, and everyone who had stayed in the contaminated room thereafter, and all hotel staff, were only exposed levels of the lethal and deadly Novichok that were of no cause for concern.

Basu said…

“Tests were carried out in the hotel room where the suspects had stayed. Two swabs showed contamination of Novichok of levels below that which would cause concern for public health.”

Asked if the suspects were ‘Russian agents’, the Basu did not directly answer, appealing to the worldwide public to help identify the two men. “We would like to hear from anyone who knows them,” Basu said.

Russian authorities were quick to state that the names of the “Russian suspects” allegedly connected to the Skripal poisoning as published by UK, do not mean anything to Moscow.

According to RT, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the names and photos of alleged Russians suspected of poisoning Sergey and Yulia Skripal released by the UK does not mean anything to Moscow as of now.

The Foreign Ministry reacted to the news, saying the UK’s accusations over alleged involvement in the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents were groundless.

“Names as well as photos [of the suspects] published in the media don’t mean anything to us,” Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the ministry, said later in the day. She said Moscow is calling on London “to abandon making public accusations and media manipulations” and opt instead for “practical cooperation between law enforcement agencies.”

Moscow’s response came after UK prosecutors named two “Russian nationals” they said were involved in poisoning the Skripals. The two men, identified as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, were charged with the attempted murder of the ex-double agent and his daughter, along with a police officer.

A handout picture allegedly taken in Salisbury, on March 4, 2018, and released by the British Metropolitan Police purportedly shows Alexander Petrov (R) and Ruslan Boshirov, September 5, 2018 © AFP

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou examine the Novichok poisoning hoax that started as a gel on a door handle, moved on to be a liquid in a perfume bottle picked up by a couple of drug addicts on the street weeks later (that police somehow failed to see during their investigation), that is supposedly so lethal that one tiny drop kills you instantly, but nonetheless the Skripals, one drug addict, and a policeman survive their exposure to the deadly, military grade agent…and two Russian assassins, pictured walking the streets of Salisbury with smiles on their face and Novichok in their hotel room, are now the prime suspects.

And let’s not forget that Sergey Skripal was curiously connected to the Hillary Clinton paid British spy Christopher Steele, the same man that created the fake Trump dossier used by the FBI, as an insurance plan to destroy POTUS Trump.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Via RT

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced that they have enough evidence to charge the two men on conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal and the attempted murder of Skripal, his daughter and Nick Bailey, a British police officer who was taken ill while attending to the Skripals.

The pair are also charged with use and possession of Novichok, contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act.

Beyond identifying them as Russian nationals, the CPS gave no indication as to who the men were.

“Prosecutors from CPS counter terrorism division have considered the evidence and have concluded there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it is clearly in the public interest to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who are Russian nationals,” Sue Hemming, CPS director of legal services, said.

A realistic prospect of conviction means the CPS is satisfied on an objective assessment that the evidence can be used in court and that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury hearing the case, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict these two individuals of the charges,” Hemming added.

The prosecutor stated that they “will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals.”

Hemming noted that a European arrest warrant (EAW) had been obtained for the suspects, stating “if either man travels to a country where an EAW is valid, they will be arrested and face extradition on these charges for which there is no statute of limitations.”

Former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in Salisbury this March. The poisoning ignited a diplomatic row between the UK and Russia, with the British government blaming Moscow. Russia has consistently denied any involvement in the incident.

Via Zerohedge

In what appears to be the latest escalation in the UK government’s campaign to blame Russia for the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia Skripal and three other seemingly random Britons (one of whom succumbed to the deadly Novichok nerve agent used in the attacks), British prosecutors are saying they have “sufficient evidence” to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, both Russian nationals, with conspiracy to murder Skripal, as well as the attempted murder of his daughter and police detective Nick Bailey, according to Reuters.

The news comes nearly two months after investigators said they had identified the suspected perpetrators of the Novichok attack by crossing referencing CCTV feeds with records of people who entered the country around that time.

Per the BBC, the Crown Prosecution Service said both men, who were identified by the suspected aliases they used to enter the country, flew in from Moscow two days before the poisoning. Both are also around the age of 40. In a statement released after the charges were announced, a spokesperson for the Russian government said the names “don’t mean anything to us.”  UK Prime Minister is expected to give a statement later today.

Of course, Russia has denied any involvement in the poisoning, though Russian officials aren’t the only ones who have been skeptical of the UK government’s claims. Tory MP and UK Security Minister Ben Wallace declared that “I think this story belongs in the ‘ill informed and wild speculation’ folder”after investigators said they had identified the suspectsWhile the Skripals survived the poisoning,  Dawn Sturgess, who fell ill around the same time as her boyfriend, Charlie Rowley, eventually died. Police say the latter two victims encountered residue from the Novichok used in the Skripal attack. Bailey, who purportedly encountered the nerve agent during the investigation, eventually recovered.

We imagine Russia will not be pleased if two of its citizen are arrested for a crime considering the serious doubts that have been raised about the evidence. Allies of the UK, including the US, expelled dozens of diplomats following the accusations, which emerged just before Russia hosted the World Cup – an inopportune time to instigate a global diplomatic crisis. While the UK has been content with jumping to conclusions, Russian involvement in the operation would mean they targeted a former MI6 spy, who they released from prison eight years ago, using an ineffective, slow-operating, “military grade” nerve agent, which could be easily traced back to them.

But none of this has deterred the UK so far. However, assuming the men are no longer in the UK, we imagine prosecutors will likely have a difficult time extraditing them to face these charges.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
11 Comments

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
AM HantsShahnaJackvethaleksandar Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

Brilliant comment on DM, from ‘fight_the_nw0’ ‘…Hold on, the picture of them arriving at Gatwick and passing into arrivals through duty free has the exact same timestamp? How can they occupy the same space at the same time? Arrival on 2/3/18 both at exactly 16:22:43?…’ Military Grade Nerve agent, that only has 20% success????? Victim, chronic drug/alcohol addict, with long term health problems. How long does a military grade nerve agent last, once created, hours or months? Julia is a Russian Citizen, even if worried about her home nation, she could have used the services of a neutral embassy, such… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

Check out these photos of the suspects folks…..
Both men in exactly the same place at exactly the same time…. to the second.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Jack
Guest
Jack

How ridiculous the Goverment of puppets of Uk looks in the eyes of real world with this endless saga of Skripals aiming to distract their own people from Brexit

veth
Guest
veth

Most Russians support the poisoning of he Skripals………….

aleksandar
Guest
aleksandar

Look a this pic. The 2 men have a tiny white halo around them.
Photoshopped, cut out from another pic and replace in this one.

aleksandar
Guest
aleksandar

These two men are probably tourists, even not russian, painted as GRU secret agents.
That’s stinks
But the fact that MET agree to play such a ‘farce” is appealing.

aleksandar
Guest
aleksandar

Since the beginning this Skripal case is connected to Syria and Russia.
Propaganda by association. Put in average Englishman mind : Russia = chemical attack = Syria.
I hope that English people are not so stupid

colum
Guest
colum

May and friends now want Russia to justify themselves (again) by revealling their chemical arsenal. Where have we heard that story before?

rymlianin
Guest
rymlianin

I much prefer the photos of Arnold Swartznagger and Dolf Lungren dressed in GRU uniforms and identified as Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov. If we are going to be treated to English old wives tales , it should at least be made entertaining.

Mishelkin
Guest
Mishelkin

Russian gay couple on a honeymoon

SICK OF THE IDIOTS
Guest
SICK OF THE IDIOTS

Unfortunately folks; the British people are the captive audience of their media. They only get one side of every story and they have to pay a TV licence fee to the BBC. Which is short for British Bull S#it Corporation.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending