Distinct False Flag Aroma About Navalny Incident
During a Thursday Security Council session on Syria, Alexey Navalny’s alleged novichok nerve agent poisoning was discussed.
So far, Germany failed to present evidence that supports its claim about his condition.
Is it because there is none? Did Russophobic hardliners in Angela Merkel’s government convince her to accuse Russia of something no evidence suggests it had anything to do with?
What possible motive could Moscow have to want a political nobody with scant public support harmed?
What possible Kremlin benefit could be achieved? Who benefits from what happened to Navalny and whose interests are harmed?
The answers are self-evident. Nothing remotely suggests Russian responsibility for committing an act that would only bring it grief.
The US and its imperial partners alone benefit from Navalny’s alleged poisoning.
Whatever caused his illness has no Russian fingerprints on it.
At Thursday’s Security Council session, Trump regime acting deputy UN envoy Normal Chalet defied reality by falsely claiming that the Russian Federation “used chemical nerve agents from the novichok group in the past (sic).”
He referred to the 2018 father and daughter Skripal incident. Not a shred of evidence proved Russian responsibility for what happened to them in Britain.
Claims otherwise by the Theresa May regime at the time were fabricated.
To this day, no evidence was ever presented to show novichok poisoning caused their illness — the world’s most deadly toxin able to cause death in minutes from exposure.
They’re alive. So is Navalny, his condition improving, nearly three weeks after becoming ill on onboard a flight from Tomsk, Russia to Moscow.
Chalet and his Western Security Council partners unacceptably suggested Russian responsibility for Navalny’s condition at Thursday’s session.
Calling on Moscow “to be fully transparent and to bring those responsible to justice” flies in the face of reality.
No evidence indicates Kremlin responsibility for what happened to Navalny — nothing but baseless allegations and accusations that don’t stand up in the light of day.
At Thursday’s SC session, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia debunked the false accusation of Moscow’s connection to Navalny’s illness, saying the following:
“Today we are eye-witnessing another attempt at a scenario which is nothing new. We have seen it before.”
“It was tested on the Skripals case, to which, by the way, we still didn’t receive answers to still pending questions,” adding:
“As for Alexey Navalny’s case, everything we said was crystal clear.”
“We are the most interested party to know what happened, but even a first-year law student knows that any investigation should be preceded by evidence and by facts, based on available to us evidence. Or, rather, lack of it.”
“Our law enforcement authorities do not have grounds to open an investigation” — because no evidence was presented to indicate a crime was committed.
“Our doctors who, by the way, saved Alexey Navalny did not find any chemical weapon substances in his analyses.”
“The German laboratory claims it did. But we received no evidence from Germany that would allow us to make a conclusion that it was a crime by attempted poisoning and thus start an investigation.”
Medical analysis by Russian doctors indicated a metabolic disorder. They found no chemical, biological, or other toxins in his system.
Claiming he was novichoked by a German military lab has clear earmarks of an anti-Russia false flag.
When accusations lack supportive evidence, they’re groundless.
Russia’s request for Germany to provide information it claims to have about Navalny’s illness went unanswered since August 27.
Nebenzia stressed that Moscow’s request for Berlin to provide facts about Navalny’s condition is “absolutely legitimate and natural…and it should be honored in accordance with the agreement between our countries.”
Fulfilling its obligation is essential “to establish the truth by investigating an alleged crime.”
Instead, Russia was told that Berlin will not provide information it claims to have because “it could enable Russia to learn how much the Bundeswehr (military lab) knows about chemical substances.”
“Then we heard that the results were classified. How should we interpret this. What do you think?”
At the same time, Merkel’s government shared its findings with the US and other Western states.
The obvious double standard needs no elaboration.
In US judicial proceedings, parties are required to share relevant information relating to admissible evidence, including from documents and interrogations — what’s called the principle of discovery.
It can also be obtained from non-parties through subpoenas. Failure to disclose what’s required can result in mistrials or dismissal of charges.
Criminal case defendants notably have the right to relevant documents, witness depositions, questions and answers from interrogations, crime scene and other forensic evidence, including toxicology results, police reports, “raw evidence,” arrest and search warrants, grand jury testimony, and other relevant data.
Prosecutors are prohibited from concealing the above information.
Unlike Hollywood-style courtroom dramas, actual ones hardly ever include surprise Alfred Hitchcock/Perry Mason-type evidence by any party during proceedings, especially anything introduced near their conclusion.
No legitimate tribunal would accept accusations without hard evidence. What’s learned through discovery is essential to present during proceedings.
Nebenzia stressed that Berlin’s failure to provide Russia with information on Navalny’s condition “goes against the rule of law” it pretends to “champion,” adding:
“If you demand explanations, put the facts on the table and we will compare notes.”
“Why should we trust allegations uncorroborated by evidence…As of yet, we received nothing that would allow our relevant authorities to conduct their own de-jure investigation, although they started a de-facto (one) which is called pre-investigation procedures.”
Article VII of the Chemical Weapons Convention states the following:
“Each State Party shall cooperate with other States Parties and afford the appropriate form of legal assistance.”
If Germany and its Western partners are committed to uphold the CWC, why are they breaching the above provision?
Instead of comparing Russian and German analyses of Navalny’s medical condition, Berlin continues to suppress its findings, cooperation with Russia ruled out.
Cooperation cuts both ways. Because of stonewalling by Germany, Russia is “unable to engage in all the necessary procedural mechanisms to start an investigation,” Nebenzia explained.
The fault lies in Berlin, not Moscow. Unless corrected in compliance with the CWC and rule of law overall, the Navalny incident suggests “foul play being staged,” said Nebenzia, adding:
“Cui bono” from what’s going on? “Is fecit cui prodest.”
“Who is to benefit from this?”
The responsible part(ies) gain by falsely blaming Russia for what no evidence or motive indicate it had anything to do with.
If Navalny was poisoned by exposure to novichok in Tomsk, Russia, he’d have died before boarding a flight to Moscow.
My two Wall Street books are timely reading:
“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”
“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”