YouTube link here.

Relevant discussion starts at around the 1 hour and 5 minute mark. Video should start there.

YouTube link here.

RT, 11/21/24

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended her decision to block Ukraine’s path to NATO membership during her tenure, warning that she knew inviting Kiev into the US-led bloc would provoke Russia and endanger European security.

In excerpts from her book ‘Freedom: Memories 1954-2021’ published by Die Zeit on Thursday, Merkel writes about the pivotal 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, where Ukraine and Georgia’s applications for Membership Action Plans (MAPs) were debated.

Merkel, then in her second term as Germany’s chancellor, opposed the move, arguing that it would antagonize Moscow without providing adequate security guarantees for the would-be applicants.

“I thought it was an illusion to assume that MAP status would have protected Ukraine or Georgia,” she explains. “Would NATO member states have responded militarily, with troops and material, if Russia attacked? Would I have received a mandate from the Bundestag to send German forces? I don’t think so.”

Merkel recounts an exchange with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who reportedly told her: “You won’t be chancellor forever. And then they’ll become members of NATO. And I want to prevent that.” She adds, “I thought: You won’t be president forever either. Nevertheless, my concerns about tensions with Russia at Bucharest remained unchanged.”

Critics argue that Merkel’s cautious approach emboldened Putin. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has been among her harshest detractors, accusing Germany of prioritizing its energy ties with Russia over Kiev’s security.

Merkel acknowledges that the summit’s ambiguous promise that Ukraine and Georgia “will become NATO members” was a provocation directed at Moscow. She describes it as a “battle cry,” adding that her hesitation was driven by the need to protect NATO’s collective security.

“New members must strengthen the alliance as a whole,” she writes, pointing out that only a minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership at the time.

Despite stepping back from public life, Merkel has faced continued criticism for her Russia policies, including Berlin’s reliance on cheap Russian gas. In 2022, she rejected calls to apologize, insisting that her decisions were grounded in the realities of the time.

Ukraine’s accession to NATO has been a point of debate among the bloc’s current members. Many states have spoken in favor of Kiev eventually joining the organization; Estonia has argued that the move would provide the best security guarantee for Ukraine. 

However, several member states, led by the US and Germany, have reportedly been reluctant to formally extend an invitation to Kiev. Washington’s ambassador to the bloc, Julianne Smith, told Politico last month that it has not yet reached a point where it is ready to offer Ukraine membership. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also expressed concern that such a move could lead to a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.

Excerpt from Moon of Alabama website, 11/28/24

*Prof. Geoffrey Roberts brought this to my attention – Natylie

Ukraine is losing its children. Demographers are sounding the alarm because of the mass departure of schoolchildren abroad

Experts began to talk about the second wave of emigration of Ukrainians to European countries. Now we are talking about traveling abroad for high school students, who go there not by themselves, but mainly with their parents. RegioNews found out what this threatens Ukraine in the future, given whether our country will have enough labor to restore the state after the end of the war.

Director of the distance school Vladimir Strashko published his observations on the mass departure of schoolchildren to other countries. According to him, over the past few months, he has been receiving an abnormal number of applications for completing Ukrainian schools remotely, saying that students are leaving Ukraine. Uladzimir Strashka also says that there are more and more students in the 11th grade who will not write the National Multi-Subject Test (replacing the EIT during martial law). In other words, this means that all these children do not plan to enter Ukrainian universities. Moreover, according to the director of the distance school, in some classes of Ukrainian schools, about 90% already refuse NMT.

What makes you want to leave Ukraine

Leading researcher at the Institute of Demography and Quality of Life Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Lydia Tkachenko in a comment to RegioNews noted that parents decide to take their children out due to the terrible forecasts of some experts that there will be no heating or light in Ukraine.

“Therefore, parents, if they have the opportunity, try to take their children abroad, so that they, as they say, have a normal childhood at least for the period of this winter. In addition to everyday issues, there are also quite a lot of statements that almost children should already fight in the future. The general information tone greatly influences the decisions of parents, ” says Lydia Tkachenko.

At the same time, in a comment to RegioNews, Boris Krimer, a senior researcher at the Institute of Demography and Social Research, said that today it is actually very difficult to say how many people are leaving. They say that information from different sources is very different: the data from the European Union may be the same, and the data provided by the UN is also different, and from the Ukrainian border guards are completely different.

“In general, Ukrainians who take older children abroad consider it more profitable in the future, justified than staying in Ukraine. This may be related to the issue of safety, as well as forecasts for the coming winter, ” says Boris Krimer.

Will emigrants return

In general, if we take into account the mass departure of women with children after February 24, 2022, then the current outflow of Ukrainian schoolchildren abroad can already be safely called the second wave of emigration of Ukrainians. Of course, the Ukrainian state hopes that all Ukrainians will return home sooner or later, but whether this will happen en masse is a big question.

Boris Krimer, a senior researcher at the Institute of Demography and Social Research, says that whenever there is a migration flow, some people still come back.

“It all depends on how long the migration of the population will be and how much Ukrainians will take root abroad. If the fighting ends in Ukraine and it becomes safe, economic development begins, then at least some of the emigrants can be expected to return. I hope that Ukraine will still join the European Union and then it will be so that we will have one free space for the movement of people, ” says Creamer.

In turn, Lidia Tkachenko, a leading researcher at the Institute of Demography and Quality of Life Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, notes that if there are many jobs in Ukraine with normal pay and working conditions, then of course Ukrainians who have left abroad will have more incentives to return to Ukraine.

“But many Ukrainians abroad now choose not even large fortunes and opportunities, but simply the opportunity to live in peace without explosions of all sorts and the like. For many, the sense of security may even outweigh the opportunity to get a position in Ukraine or a lot of money, ” says Lydia Tkachenko.

There is also a lot of discussion about how long it takes for Ukrainians to take root in the same Europe, after which they will not return to Ukraine. According to Borys Krimer, on the one hand, this is very individual, because even a year is enough for someone to take root, but of course, the longer a person stays abroad, the less desire they have to return to Ukraine later.

“For example, in the first year of a full-scale war, we estimated that 50% of those who went abroad would remain there, and 50% would still return. Then we focused on a variety of surveys. Today, the share of those who will not return is more than 50%, but this is again a situational thought. If, for example, the economic situation in the country where a particular Ukrainian is located worsens, he will be ready to return home. But the vector is really such that the longer people live in another country, the more they will have new connections, the more children will get used to kindergarten or school. As a result, they are less likely to return to Ukraine, ” Borys Krimer sums up.

What can be the consequences of population outflow

Experts say that in any case, the consequences of the war for Ukraine will be terrible, because in some places the impact of military operations in countries can last even 50 years after their completion.

According to Lydia Tkachenko, it is now very difficult to make any demographic forecasts for Ukraine.

“Previously, everything was calculated based on the birth rate and mortality, and migration did not significantly affect this. For example, since the beginning of the zero years, the migration growth was already small, but with the beginning of a full — scale war, migration flows, of course, have increased very much,” the expert says.

She confirms that there will still be a large percentage of those Ukrainians who do not want to return to Ukraine, and there may also be such a problem that as soon as the borders are opened, many men may still leave, not only those who already have a wife and children abroad, but also men who have survived the war. war is very stressful. Lydia Tkachenko emphasizes that this will be the loss of the young population, which can still work for the development of Ukraine for a long time. That is, the state will gradually lose the necessary amount of labor, and there will be no one to replace it. Relatively speaking, today high school students in 5-7 years should replace in the labor market those Ukrainians who are now of pre-retirement age. If students continue to leave the country en masse and do not return, then those who retire will have no one to replace them in the labor market.

As a result, Ukraine risks facing another problem — there will be fewer working citizens than the same pensioners. For example, even before the full-scale war in Ukraine, there was about one working citizen per pensioner. That is, in fact, we can say that one employee withheld one pensioner at the expense of his taxes. Lydia Tkachenko says that while this ratio still remains, if Ukrainians continue to go abroad en masse, in particular, high school students who will later be able to work, the situation will worsen. If this trend continues, then sooner or later, relatively speaking, there will already be two or three pensioners per person working in Ukraine. But according to experts, no pension system can withstand such a load, and therefore we will have to resort to drastic measures. For example, raise the retirement age.

https://regionews.ua/ukr/articles/1730982278-ukrayina-vtrachae-ditey-demografi-b-yut-trivogu-cherez-masoviy-viyizd-shkolyariv-za-kordon (via translation add-on.)

Posted by: Jeremy Rhymings-Lang | Nov 28 2024 20:32 utc | 85

By John Helmer, Website, 11/16/24

Yulia Skripal communicated from her bedside at Salisbury District Hospital on March 8, 2018, four days after she and her father Sergei Skripal collapsed from a poison attack, that the attacker used a spray; and that the attack took place when she and her father were eating at a restaurant just minutes before their collapse on a bench outside.

The implication of the Skripal evidence, revealed for the first time on Thursday, is that the attack on the Skripals was not perpetrated by Russian military agents who were photographed elsewhere in Salisbury town at the time; that the attacker or attackers were British agents; and that if their weapon was a nerve agent called Novichok, it came, not from Moscow, but from the UK Ministry of Defence chemical warfare laboratory at Porton Down.

Porton Down’s subsequent evidence [3] of Novichok contamination in blood samples, clothing, car, and home of the Skripals may therefore be interpreted as British in source, not Russian. 

This evidence was revealed by a police witness testifying at the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry in London on November 14. The police officer, retired Detective Inspector Keith Asman was in 2018, and he remains today the chief of forensics for the Counter Terrorism Policing (CTPSE) group which combines the Metropolitan and regional police forces with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Security Service (MI5).

According to Asman’s new disclosure, Yulia Skripal had woken from a coma and confirmed to the doctor at her bedside that she remembered the circumstances of the attack on March 4. What she remembered, she signalled, was not (repeat not) the official British Government narrative that Russian agents had tried to kill them by poisoning the front door-handle of the family home.

The new evidence was immediately dismissed by the Sturgess Inquiry lawyer assisting Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley), the judge directing the Inquiry. “We see there,” the lawyer put to Asman as a leading question, “the suggestion, which we now know not to be right, of course”.  — page 72. [4]

Hughes then interrupted to tell the witness to disregard what Skripal had communicated. “If the record that you were given there is right, someone suggested to her ‘Had you been sprayed’. She didn’t come up with it herself.”   — page 73 [4]. Hughes continued to direct the forensics chief to disregard the hearsay of Skripal. “Anyway the suggestion that she had been sprayed in the restaurant didn’t fit with your investigations? A. [Asman] No, sir. LORD HUGHES: Thank you.”

So far in in the Inquiry which began public sessions on October 14, this is the first direct sign of suppression of evidence by Hughes.

Hearsay, he indicates, should be disregarded if it comes from the target of attack, Yulia Skripal. However, hearsay from British Government officials, policemen, and chemical warfare agents at Porton Down must be accepted instead. Hughes has also banned Yulia and Sergei Skripal from testifying at the Inquiry [5]. 

The lawyer appointed and paid by the Government to represent the Skripals in the inquiry hearings said nothing to acknowledge the new disclosure nor to challenge Hughes’s efforts to suppress it.

Asman described his career and credentials in his witness statement to the Inquiry, dated October 23, 2024. His rank when he retired from the regular police forces in 2009 was detective inspector. He was then promoted to higher ranking posts at the operations coordinating group known as Counter Terrorism Policing for the Southeast Region (CTPSE). By 2018 Asman says [6] he was “head of the National Counter Terrorism Forensics Working Group since 2012, and was the UK Counter Terrorism Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) forensic lead.”  In June 2015 Asman was awarded the Order of the British Empire (MBE) “for services to Policing.”  

At page 19 of his recent witness statement, this is what Asman has recorded for the evening of March 8, 2018:

Source: https://dsiweb-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/INQ006140_strong-compression.pdf [8] — page 19.

Asman’s went on to claim in this statement: “At this point Yulia Skripal was described as being emotional and fell unconscious. I made notes of my conversation with DI [Detective Inspector] VN104 in one of my notebooks, and in addition this information was confirmed to me in writing the next morning. The information she provided about being sprayed at the restaurant [Zizzi] was seemingly inconsistent with the presence of novichok at the Mill public house and 47 Christie Miller Road. On hearing this, I personally wondered whether Yulia Skripal knew more about it than she had alluded to and therefore whilst being fully cognisant of the SIO’s [Senior Investigative Officer] hypothesis and the need to be open-minded continued to prioritise her property.”

THE SCENE OF THE NOVICHOK CRIME

The Skripals reportedly spent 45 minutes at lunch in Zizzi’s restaurant. Witnesses described Sergei Skripal as upset when he left with Yulia to walk to the bench. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ [10]

THE EVIDENCE THE CRIME WAS BRITISH

Left: Yulia Skripal in May 2018, the scar of forced intubation still visible; read more here [12].  Centre; Dr Stephen Cockroft who recorded the exchange with Skripal at her bedside on March 8, 2018; that was followed, Cockroft has also testified, by forced sedation and tracheostomy – read more [13]. Right: read the only book on the case evidence. [14] 

Open-minded was not what the judge and his lawyers wanted from Asman when he appeared in public for the first time on Thursday, November 14. Referring precisely to the excerpt of Skripal’s hospital evidence, Francesca Whitelaw KC for the Inquiry asked Asman: “ We can take that [witness statement excerpt] down, but this information as well, was it consistent or inconsistent with what you had found out in terms of forensic about the presence of Novichok at The Mill and 47 Christie Miller Road? A. [Asman] It, I would say, was inconsistent on the basis that she said she was sprayed in the restaurant.”  — page 73. [4]

Asman was then asked by Whitelaw to comment on Yulia Skripal’s exchange with Cockroft. “My question for you is: how, if at all, this impacted on your investigations? A. It only very slightly impacted on it…It was information to have but not necessarily going to change my approach on anything.”  — page 73 [4].

Left, Francesca Whitelaw KC, counsel assisting Hughes, asked Asman about Yulia Skripal’s hospital evidence – click to watch from Minute 2:01:27. Right: Hughes interrupting the witness to dismiss Skripal’s evidence from Min 2:03:23 [16].   On Hughes’s order, Asman’s face was not transmitted during his testimony, and the audio record was delayed by ten minutes before broadcast.

In the Inquiry record [17] of hearings and exhibits since the commencement of the open sessions on October 14, there have been eleven separate exhibits of documents purporting to record what Yulia and Sergei Skripal have said; they include interviews with police and witness statements for the Inquiry; they are dated from April 2018 through October 2024. Most of them have been heavily redacted. None of them is signed by either Skripal.   

Neither Yulia nor Sergei Skripal has been asked by the police, by the Inquiry lawyers, or by Hughes to confirm or deny whether Yulia’s recollection of March 8, 2018, of the spray attack in Zizzi’s Restaurant is still their evidence of what happened to them.

***

BRITISH OPERATION KISS – “KILL INSTANTLY SKRIPALS” – HAS FAILED TO KILL BUT SUCCEEDED AT COVERING UP, ALMOST

By John Helmer, Website, 11/22/24

This is the comic book version of what really happened, as revealed by the clumsiest judge in England – Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley, lead image, right).

Even if all the evidence presented to Hughes and already endorsed by him is true – on the record of six and half years of British Government investigations and twenty-one days of hearings with concealed witness faces, censored documents, missing CCTV — there remains no direct evidence that the Russians attacked the Skripals by poisoning their front-door handle when they were inside their home, four hours before their collapse.

Instead, Hughes and his lawyers have directed the police and other witnesses to stretch their circumstantial evidence and dictated their inferences of Russian guilt. In New York, the legal textbook difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is this [3]. 

To stretch the circumstantial evidence and inferences beyond the criminal standard of reasonable doubt, Hughes has prevented direct evidence from being presented, stopping the Skripals from testifying themselves. Their Home Office lawyer purportedly representing the Skripals in the hearings has said nothing at all; Hughes’s lawyers have manipulated witnesses with leading questions; alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence have been blocked by Hughes from the hospital doctors and independent experts. The way in which this has been done is comic book jurisprudence. The judges of the former British empire aren’t laughing; this is how they say the means and opportunity of a capital crime must be prosecuted, then judged [4]. 

The CCTV and other evidence presented at the Hughes hearings shows the Russians knew they had been marked by MI6 from the minute they booked their flights and landed at Gatwick Airport; and they then encouraged the video recording which took place, often mugging in front of the CCTV cameras for that purpose. There is no evidence of their coming close enough to the Skripal house, or to Sergei and Yulia Skripal (lead image, left) in person, in order to attack them.

Ergo, the evidence of the murder act is missing; the evidence of the murder weapon is missing; the evidence of the murder attempt at the bench is missing. Means, opportunity, motive are all missing from the British prosecution of the Russians for the crime.

Yulia Skripal has testified that the poison attack took place when she and her father were sprayed as they were eating lunch inside Zizzi’s Restaurant. They then walked outside, felt ill, sat down on a city bench, and collapsed.

Yulia Skripal’s evidence indicates the attackers were British.

The refusal of the British chemical warfare laboratory to name the weapon by its organophosphate name, and reveal its molecular composition and mass conceals the origin of the weapon. In police, forensic or courtroom practice, this is the equivalent of concealing ballistic evidence determining whether a fatal bullet was fired from the gun in the alleged shooter’s hand. 

The evidence, collected by the police and Porton Down agents, then analysed by Porton Down, then announced publicly by then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson days before he told Prime Minister May’s meeting of Cabinet, is as likely to be of a British-made organophosphate nerve agent subsequently called Novichok as of a Russian-made nerve agent.

What motive: why would the British attack the Skripals?

Their reason was that they believed Sergei Skripal was planning to return home to Russia, and that the GRU was planning an exfiltration operation on March 4, 2018. The Russians knew that MI6 would be suspicious, so they prepared decoys. These are the two men, Alexander Petrov (Alexander Mishkin) and Ruslan Boshirov (Anatoly Chepiga), now accused of the Novichok attack.

The British planned to kill the Skripals but camouflage the operation, as they have done. Motive was pressing for the British if Sergei Skripal had returned to Russia, revealing himself in Moscow to be one of the first successful triple agents in modern espionage history.

The Russian exfiltration failed; the British failed to execute the Skripals on the spot; for a few minutes from her hospital bed on March 8, Yulia Skripal revealed what had happened before she was put into an artificial coma, then silenced with a tracheostomy on March 21, and kept incommunicado ever since.

The British camouflage for their operation – Operation KISS, “Kill Instantly the Skripals” — relied on the door-handle as “ground zero” – the original source of the Novichok – and on Porton Down to replace the inconclusive or negative tests conducted by doctors treating the Skripals at Salisbury District Hospital.

A corpse had to be found, dead enough not to be able to testify otherwise as Yulia Skripal had done.

That turned out to be Dawn Sturgess, who died at her home on June 30, 2018, of cardiac arrest and brain hypoxia after consuming a combination of sleeping and anti-anxiety medications, cocaine, and fentanyl. The Novichok weapon, fabricated in a perfume atomiser by MI6 and Porton Down, was then placed on Sturgess’s kitchen table for the police to discover eleven days after her drug binge and collapse; and after medics and police had failed to find it through multiple and repeated searches.

For the evidence and the law, and to understand who laughs last in this comic book of British public inquiry, follow frame by frame, tweet by tweet, here [5].