Les deux textes ci-dessous sont de deux auteurs que nous tendrions \u00e0 classer sans h\u00e9sitation comme antiSyst\u00e8me, qui ont une r\u00e9putation de s\u00e9rieux dans le monde de la presse-antiSyst\u00e8me, une influence certaine, des engagements (notamment pro-russe) assez proches, etc. Nous les citons r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement, \u00ab\u00a0en confiance\u00a0\u00bb dirions-nous, \u00e9galement en connaissant leurs formes de raisonnement et leurs expertises respectives. Les deux textes concernent le m\u00eame sujet, – les expulsions de diplomates russes des pays du bloc-BAO en \u00ab\u00a0riposte\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 l'\u00a0\u00bbattaque\u00a0\u00bb de l’affaire Skipral\/Novichok<\/em>. (Notre \u00e9poque est, dans l’emploi des mots courants, l’\u00e9poque de l’emploi \u00e0 profusion des guillemets, – m\u00eame parr gestes, comme si nous \u00e9tions tous sourds, pardon mal-entendants, – tant leurs sens et leurs valeurs sont l’objet de distorsions extraordinaires .)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pourtant, on ne peut imaginer deux textes d’esprit aussi diff\u00e9rents bien que refl\u00e9tant le m\u00eame jugement de fond, que celui du Saker-<\/em>US et celui d’Alexander Mercouris. L’un, celui du Saker-<\/em>US, est un cri d’alarme terrible et pressant, cherchant \u00e0 communiquer \u00e0 ses lecteurs le sens d’une folle \u00e9volution vers des \u00e9v\u00e8nements apocalyptiques<\/strong> sous la forme de la possibilit\u00e9 d’une guerre nucl\u00e9aire d’an\u00e9antissement ; l’autre, celui de Mercouris, est une analyse pond\u00e9r\u00e9e sur les expulsions, tendant \u00e0 r\u00e9duire l’affaire \u00e0 un affrontement d’influence et de renseignement<\/strong> entre les USA et la Russie où les premiers ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 perdu.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les deux auteurs ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 montr\u00e9 des \u00e9tats d’esprit inverses, toujours avec le m\u00eame accord de fond, dans d’autres occasions, sur d’autres sujets. Cela signifie que nous n’avons pas affaire \u00e0 deux formes d’esprit, – l’un pressante, l’autre retenue, – mais \u00e0 deux r\u00e9actions de formes radicalement diff\u00e9rentes, toujours selon le m\u00eame accord de fond, de deux esprits qui ne c\u00e8dent pas unilat\u00e9ralement \u00e0 une seule forme, deux esprits qui expriment aussi bien la pression de l’urgence que la retenue de la pond\u00e9ration selon les circonstances. Le Saker<\/em>-US a souvent montr\u00e9 qu’il savait, sur les sujets les plus graves, faire preuve d’une pond\u00e9ration et d’une retenue n’excluant en rien la clart\u00e9 et la fermet\u00e9 de l’analyse (voir d’innombrables textes de sa plume, pond\u00e9rant avec calme les capacit\u00e9s militaires russes et am\u00e9ricanistes, et les risques d’affrontement) ; Mercouris a d\u00e9j\u00e0 montr\u00e9 qu’il savait, dans son propre style, pr\u00e9senter un cas où il d\u00e9crivait avec une extr\u00eame vigueur et d’une fa\u00e7on pressante une situation qu’il jugeait monstrueuse et extr\u00eamement inqui\u00e9tante (voir sur la m\u00eame affaire Skipral\/Novichok <\/em>son texte du 20 mars 2018<\/a> où il met en \u00e9vidence la perversion quasi-pathologique de la psychologie des commentateurs antirusses de la presse britannique).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Notre but est, ici, de montrer combien les esprits-antiSyst\u00e8me les plus remarquables ne peuvent \u00e9viter d’\u00eatre soumis \u00e0 une sorte de schizophr\u00e9nie<\/strong> \u00e0 laquelle l’extraordinaire comportement du sujet de leurs commentaires les oblige ; nous-m\u00eame, \u00e0 dedefensa.org<\/em><\/strong>, n’\u00e9chappons pas \u00e0 ce qui n’est ni une pathologie, ni un d\u00e9faut d’humeur, mais une sorte de \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thode\u00a0\u00bb d’analyse selon deux modes compl\u00e8tement diff\u00e9rents, qui nous est impos\u00e9e par le sujet de l’analyse. En un sens cette sorte de \u00ab\u00a0schizophr\u00e9nie m\u00e9thodologique\u00a0\u00bb nous est impos\u00e9e<\/strong> d’une part par la situation du monde, d’autre part par le comportement de ceux qui servent le Syst\u00e8me, directions-syst\u00e8me et zombies-Syst\u00e8me c’est selon. Les deux formes de raisonnement qui en r\u00e9sultent, qui semblent diam\u00e9tralement oppos\u00e9es sont tout le contraire ; elles ne sont pas seulement compl\u00e9mentaires mais v\u00e9ridiques et fortement li\u00e9es sinon amalgam\u00e9es l’une avec l’autre, toujours selon ce que nous impose l’objet de l’analyse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ainsi, il conviendrait que ce que nous avons \u00e9t\u00e9 conduits \u00e0 d\u00e9signer comme une \u00ab\u00a0schizophr\u00e9nie m\u00e9thodologique\u00a0\u00bb devrait \u00eatre plut\u00f4t d\u00e9sign\u00e9e, d’une fa\u00e7on fond\u00e9e et mesur\u00e9e, comme une \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thodologie schizophr\u00e9nique\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>. De m\u00eame, l’\u00e9nigme dont il est question dans le titre, si elle semble concerner notre \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thodologie schizophr\u00e9nique\u00a0\u00bb, concerne en fait l’objet de notre analyse qui nous oblige \u00e0 cette \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thodologie schizophr\u00e9nique\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’essentiel est de garder son sang-froid et de savoir conserver ce \u00ab\u00a0double regard\u00a0\u00bb qui, en m\u00eame temps, regarde l’objet \u00e0 analyser, et se regarde soi-m\u00eame en train de regarder l’objet \u00e0 analyser<\/strong>. Les deux auteurs cit\u00e9s ont ce double regard, mais en cette occasion l’un choisit d’exprimer le caract\u00e8re urgent et pressant qui est l’une des deux perceptions de sa \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thodologie schizophr\u00e9nique\u00a0\u00bb, et l’autre l’inverse. Bien entendu, aucun des deux ne perce pour autant l’\u00e9nigme qui est l’objet de leur analyse<\/strong>, comme c’est le cas \u00e9galement pour nous-m\u00eames, ici \u00e0 dedefensa.org<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Car c’est finalement, bien entendu, l’essentiel du d\u00e9bat, – cette \u00e9nigme, leur \u00e9nigme qui nous force \u00e0 cette \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9thodologie schizophr\u00e9nique\u00a0\u00bb. Comment expliquer cette situation du monde compl\u00e8tement incoh\u00e9rente et chaotique, m\u00eame si l’on parvient, \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de cette incoh\u00e9rence et de ce chaos, \u00e0 d\u00e9gager des lignes, des tendances, des relations de cause \u00e0 effet permettant des jugements \u00e9quilibr\u00e9s de certains aspects du contenu de cette incoh\u00e9rence et de ce chaos ? Comment comprendre le comportement absurde et impuissant des acteurs-figurants, aussi zombies-Syst\u00e8me que l’on puisse imaginer, r\u00e9agissant comme des perroquets sans l’ironie flegmatique de ce volatile (le perroquet imite nos mots comme s’il se moquait de nous), semblant priv\u00e9s d’\u00e2me et de conscience, m\u00eame si l’on parvient \u00e0 d\u00e9crire l’absurdit\u00e9 et l’impuissance de ce comportement ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Au-dessus de cela r\u00e8gne l’ombre de cette \u00e9nigme : comment et pourquoi agissent-ils comme ils le font dans le sens de l’absurdit\u00e9 et de l’impuissance sans s’interroger sur la cause de leur action, comment et pourquoi produisent-ils cette incoh\u00e9rence et ce chaos sans relever ce qui les pousse \u00e0 cette production ? Il y a bien du temps d\u00e9j\u00e0, selon nous, qu’aucune explication rationnelle<\/strong> dans le sens de la machination, qu’aucune explication humaine<\/strong> dans le sens de l’emportement de la passion, ne nous suffisent pour apporter des r\u00e9ponses satisfaisantes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Chaque jour qui passe, chaque nouvelle crise qui s’installe dans le \u00ab\u00a0tourbillon crisique<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb qui d\u00e9finit la situation du monde, confirme et confirme encore que la cause de cette grandiose et furieuse \u00e9poque de d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration du monde est n\u00e9cessairement de forme et d’essence suprahumaine<\/strong>. L’\u00e9nigme est \u00e0 ce niveau, \u00e0 cette forme de manifestation de puissance hors de port\u00e9e de l’action et de l’explication de l’esprit humain<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nous ne cessons pas d’en revenir sempiternellement \u00e0 ce constat, sans pour autant apporter quelque \u00e9l\u00e9ment que ce soit qui puisse ressembler \u00e0 une explication accessible \u00e0 la raison, – et pour cause d’ailleurs, puisque nous savons bien que l’\u00e9nigme est ce qu’elle est \u00e0 cause de notre incapacit\u00e9 de la percer \u00e0 jour<\/strong> avec les instruments disponibles dans la r\u00e9duction au seul esprit tel que nous croyons trop souvent qu’il est. Nous ne cessons pas d’en revenir sempiternellement \u00e0 ce constat qu’il faut ouvrir notre esprit \u00e0 l’intuition dans l’attente d’en obtenir quelque lumi\u00e8re<\/strong> ; car cette lumi\u00e8re, n\u00e9cessairement, \u00e9claire parfois et \u00e9clairera encore ce que nous nommons des v\u00e9rit\u00e9s-de-situation<\/a>, parcelles d’une V\u00e9rit\u00e9 d’au-del\u00e0 de l’humain qui est seule capable de rendre compte des fondements, des ambitions et des projets d’une telle \u00e9poque de d\u00e9chaînement m\u00e9tahistorique, pour enfin ouvrir une porte \u00e0 ce qui doit suivre, au-del\u00e0 de la catastrophe<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n …Pour en arriver l\u00e0, nous \u00e9tions partis de l’affaire des expulsions de diplomates russes, trait\u00e9e par deux chroniqueurs, et nous terminons en revenant \u00e0 ces deux chroniqueurs dont nous pr\u00e9sentons ci-dessous les textes respectifs. Malgr\u00e9 toute la pr\u00e9sentation que nous en avons faite, qui s’est \u00e9loign\u00e9e bien entendu du sujet, il faut savoir que bien entendu leurs deux textes ont leur int\u00e9r\u00eat propre<\/strong>, et nous risquons m\u00eame l’hypoth\u00e8se que cette pr\u00e9sentation qui nous a tant \u00e9loign\u00e9s de leur sujet n’est nullement inutile pour aider \u00e0 leur lecture, qu’il est m\u00eame possible qu’elle la rende plus fructueuse encore, d’une certaine mani\u00e8re.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • L’article du Saker-<\/em>US, qui est un cri d’alarme sur une situation, illustr\u00e9e par un acte antirussiste compulsif de plus que constitue l’expulsion des diplomates russes, avertit qu’on se trouve dans un cas beaucoup plus grave que la crise des missiles de Cuba d’octobre 1962. Il r\u00e9affirme l’esp\u00e8ce de sensation qu’on a que les pays du bloc-BAO pensent qu’on peut faire capituler la Russie par la pression, l’invective, la diffamation, bref le simulacre de la narrative<\/em>, alors qu’au contraire la Russie ne c\u00e9dera jamais et ira jusqu’au conflit au plus haut niveau s’il le faut, avec les risques terribles d’an\u00e9antissement, – et le bloc-BAO aux premi\u00e8res loges, jusqu’au cœur de l’Am\u00e9rique profonde qui n’a absolument plus de capacit\u00e9s de sanctuarisation en aucune fa\u00e7on. (Site TheSaker<\/em>, 26 mars 2018<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • L’article de Mercouris, d’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, donne en grands d\u00e9tails les conditions diverses de l’expulsion des diplomates russes, – en tr\u00e8s petits nombres de la part des Europ\u00e9ens, en nombre important (60) de la part des USA. Il y aura certainement une riposte ruse, dans une circonstance où les pays du bloc-BAO ont beaucoup plus \u00e0 perdre en perdant leurs diplomates en Russie que le contraire. Pour Mercouris, la r\u00e9action US est en fait un geste de col\u00e8re \u00e0 la suite d’une expulsion massive de \u00ab\u00a0diplomates\u00a0\u00bb US de Moscou en août dernier (755 !), qui explique, avec d’autres mesures prises contre les \u00ab\u00a0ONG\u00a0\u00bb US ou \u00e0 financement US, l’absence totale d’agitation subversive durant les \u00e9lections pr\u00e9sidentielles russes. (Site TheDuran.com<\/em>, 27 mars 2018<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n __________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Frankly, I am awed, amazed and even embarrassed. I was born in Switzerland, lived most of my life there, I also visited most of Europe, and I lived in the USA for over 20 years. Yet in my worst nightmares I could not have imagined the West sinking as low as it does now. I mean, yes, I know about the false flags, the corruption, the colonial wars, the NATO lies, the abject subservience of East Europeans, etc. I wrote about all that many times. But imperfect as they were, and that is putting it mildly, I remember Helmut Schmidt, Maggie Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterrand, even Chirac! And I remember what the Canard Enchaîn\u00e9 used to be, or even the BBC. During the Cold War the West was hardly a knight in white shining armor, but still – rule of law did matter, as did at least some degree of critical thinking.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I am now deeply embarrassed for the West. And very, very afraid.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n All I see today is a submissive herd lead by true, bona fide, psychopaths (in a clinical sense of the word)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And that is not the worst thing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The worst thing is the deafening silence, the way everybody just looks away, pretends like \u00ab\u00a0ain’t my business\u00a0\u00bb or, worse, actually takes all this grotesque spectacle seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you people?! Have you all been turned into zombies?! WAKE UP!!!!!!!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Let me carefully measure my words here and tell you the blunt truth.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Since the Neocon coup against Trump the West is now on exactly the same course as Nazi Germany was in, roughly, the mid 1930s.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Oh sure, the ideology is different, the designated scapegoat also. But the mindset is *exactly* the same.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Same causes produce the same effects. But this time around, there are weapons on both sides which make the Dresden Holocaust looks like a minor spark.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n So now we have this touching display of \u00ab\u00a0western solidarity\u00a0\u00bb not with UK or the British people, but with the City of London. Now ain’t that touching?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Let me ask you this: what has been the central feature of Britain’s policies towards Europe, oh, let’s say since the Middle-Ages?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That’s right: starting wars in Europe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And this time around you think it’s different?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Does: \u00ab\u00a0the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb somehow not apply to the UK?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Let me also tell you this: when Napoleon and Hitler attacked Russia she was undergoing deep crises and was objectively weak (really! research it for yourself!). In both cases Russian society was deeply torn by internal contradictions and the time for attack as ideal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Not today.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n So I ask this simple question: do you really want to go to war against a fully united nuclear Russia?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n You think that this is hyperbole?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Think again.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The truth is that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis. First, during the Cuban missile crisis there were rational people on both side. Today there is NOT ONE SINGLE RATIONAL PERSON LEFT IN A POSITION OF POWER IN THE USA. Not ONE! Second, during the Cuban missile crisis all the new was reporting on was the crisis, the entire planet felt like we were standing at the edge of the abyss.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war, possibly a thermonuclear war, where casualties will be counted in the hundreds of millions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n All because of what?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Because the people of the West have accepted, or don’t even know, that they are ruled by an ugly gang of ignorant, arrogant psychopaths.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n At the very least this situation shows this:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Representative democracy does not work.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The rule of law only applies to the weak and poor.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Western values have now been reduced to a sad joke.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Capitalism needs war and a world hegemony to survive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The AngloZionist Empire is about to collapse, the only open question is how and at what cost.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en masse<\/em> and they are feeling very strong and manly. Polish and Ukrainian politicians are undergoing a truly historical surge in courage and self-confidence! (hiding, as they do, behind Anglo firepower)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone calls. That kind of stuff happens when two sides are about to go to war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made preparations for war in Europe. And Russia is ready. NATO sure ain’t! Oh, they have the numbers and they think they are strong. The truth is that these NATO midgets have no idea of what is about to hit them, when the Russians go to war these NATO statelets won’t even understand what is happening to them. Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and Russia. Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history, the USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the continental US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I was born in a Russian military family and I studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all my life. I can absolutely promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second: Russia will not back down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization. The Russians really don’t want war, they fear it (as they should!) and they will do everything to avoid it. But if attacked then expect a response of absolutely devastating violence. Don’t take it from me, take it from Putin who clearly said so himself<\/a> and who, at least on that issue, is supported by about 95% of the population. From the Eastern Crusades to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, enough is enough, and the Russians will not take one more western attack, especially not one backed by nuclear firepower. Again, please ponder Putin’s words very, very carefully: \u00ab\u00a0what need would we have a world if there is no Russia?<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n All that for what? The USA and Russia have NO objective reasons to do anything but to collaborate (the Russians are absolutely baffled the fact the leaders of the USA seem to be completely oblivious to this simple fact). Okay, the City of London does have a lot of reasons to want Russia gone and silent. As Gavin Williamson, the little soy-boy in charge of UK \u00ab\u00a0defense\u00a0\u00bb, so elegantly put it, Russia should \u00ab\u00a0go away and shut up<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0. Right. Let me tell you – it ain’t happening! Britannia will be turned into a heap of radioactive ashes long before Russian goes away or shuts up. That is simply a fact.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What baffles me is this: do American leaders really want to lose their country in behalf of a small nasty clique of arrogant British pompous asses who think that they still are an Empire? Did you even take a look at Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gavin Williamson? Are you really ready to die in defense of the interest of these degenerates?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I don’t get it and nobody in Russia does.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yeah, I know, all they did is expel some diplomats. And the Russians will do the same. So what? But that’s missing the point!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n LOOK NOT WHERE WE ARE BUT WHERE WE ARE HEADING!!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n You can get 200,000 anti<\/em>–gun<\/em> (sigh, rolleyes) protesters in DC but NOBODY AT ALL ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What is wrong with you people?!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What happened to the West where I was born in in 1963?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n My God, is this really the end of it all?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Am I the only one who sees this slow-motion train-wreck taking us all over the precipice?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n If you can, please give a reason to still hope.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Right now I don’t see many.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ____________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Before discussing the decision of the Western powers to expel Russian diplomats, it is necessary re-emphasise the total lack of logic behind the decision.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Though the decision is being presented in the media as an expulsion of \u00ab\u00a0Russian spies\u00a0\u00bb, it is also being linked to the Skripal case.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Skripal case however is still ongoing. The British police investigation is still underway. No suspect has been named and all the indications are that the British police still do not know how Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned or who poisoned them.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The OPCW has only recently become involved in the case, and only because the Russians insisted on it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The OPCW has not yet identified the chemical which was used to poison Sergey and Yulia Skripal. Supposedly identification by the OPCW of the chemical is weeks away.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile people like Craig Murray<\/a> and John Helmer<\/a> have pointed out that evidence submitted by the British authorities to the High Court suggests that the identification by Porton Down scientists of the chemical used to poison Sergey and Yulia Skripal as a Novichok may not be as conclusive as the British authorities have been leading everybody to believe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That is hardly surprising since it is difficult to see how the Porton Down scientists would only need days to identify a chemical agent as a Novichok when that will take the OPCW’s experts several weeks.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n For the record, I personally think the chemical used in the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal probably was a Novichok.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n However I cannot personally see how that is conclusive of anything given that there is now abundant evidence that Novichok agents have been produced in at least test quantities in any number of countries, including the US and Britain, and not just in Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As many have pointed out, saying that because Sergey and Yulia Skripal were poisoned with a Novichok means that Russia must have been involved in the attack on them is rather like saying that because Kim Jong-un’s brother Kim Jong-am was poisoned with VX – a chemical agent developed by Britain – that means that Britain must have been involved in the attack on him.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As for Russia’s motive in seeking to murder Sergey Skripal, no-one has come up with any motive that looks to me in the least convincing. Some of the motives suggested – eg. that Russia wanted to send a signal to Britain by poisoning Skripal with a deadly chemical or that Skripal was poisoned in order to deter other defectors – look to me frankly speculative and rather like conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nothing perhaps illustrates the chaos and muddle of this affair then a story which was given widespread coverage in the British media over the weekend.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This claimed that Sergey Skripal had supposedly written a letter to President Putin asking for a pardon and permission to return to Russia<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The story disintegrated after the Kremlin denied ever receiving such a letter.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In reality the story was obvious nonsense. Skripal had already been pardoned by President Medvedev before he came to Britain and since he was still a Russian citizen he was free to return to Russia whenever he wanted.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Not only is the Skripal case still ongoing, and the case against Russia far from made, but Britain, the EU and Western government even admit as much.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Though in her statement to the House of Commons of 14th March 2018 British Prime Minister Theresa May said that the British government deemed the Russian state ‘culpable’ for the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal, that claim since then has been retracted.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Western governments, including the US, the EU and the British government, now say no more than that Russia is \u00ab\u00a0highly likely<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb to have carried out the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As I have previously pointed out<\/a>, that comes nowhere close to meeting the standard of proof used in Britain in criminal cases, which is \u00ab\u00a0beyond reasonable doubt\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yet notwithstanding all this, and notwithstanding that the investigation into the case is still going on, that the case against Russia is far from made out, and that the US, the EU and the British government admit as much, the US and a score of other Western countries have now joined Britain in expelling Russian diplomats.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The logic of this escapes me, unless it is intended – as I have said previously<\/a> – to be a message to the British investigators and to the OPCW that any finding other than one which can be spun into saying that Russia is responsible for the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal will not be tolerated.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What then of the expulsions themselves?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The expulsions of Russian diplomats which have take place in Europe and in a number of other non-European and non-EU Western countries like Australia, Canada and Norway, have about them a token quality.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n None of the countries has expelled more than four diplomats, a level of expulsions which is not going to effect the operation of any of Russian embassy in any serious way.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Not only were the expulsions in Europe of a token character, but it seems that no European country is capping the number of diplomats the Russians can post to their embassies.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That means that after a decent interval the Russians will be able to replace all the diplomats who have been expelled. The small number of diplomats who have been expelled means that the Russians will have no difficulty doing this.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even this level of token expulsions was too much for some countries. Austria, Belgium, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal, Slovakia and Cyprus failed to announce expulsions, as have all the former Yugoslav republics apart from Croatia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Some countries, notably Austria and Bulgaria, have made known their disagreement with the expulsions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Turkey – still despite everything a member of the NATO alliance – has made its disagreement clear also.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even within some of the countries which have expelled Russian diplomats, the decision to do so has been controversial.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In Italy Matteo Salvini – the man most likely to become Italy’s next Prime Minister following the recent election<\/a> – has made clear his strong disagreement with the expulsions known. According to Reuters<\/a> Salvini has tweeted the following :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Boycotting Russia, renewing sanctions and expelling diplomats does not resolve problems, it aggravates them.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The expulsions of Russian diplomats in Europe have not just been token affairs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n They have also highlighted the growing division within the EU about policy towards Russia. In Italy as Salvini’s comments show they may have even hardened feeling against the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions policy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It is doubtless alarm about this growing division within the EU over policy towards Russia which explains the recent call from Germany for the abolition of national vetoes<\/a> in EU Council decisions on foreign policy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Why then if the expulsions were of a token character did they happen at all?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n For an answer to that one must look to the completely different reaction in the US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Here the expulsions of Russian diplomats is far from token. Not only have 60 diplomats been expelled – as many as all the other expulsions (including the British expulsion) put together – but in what may be an illegal move 12 Russian diplomats are being expelled from Russia’s UN mission even though these diplomats are accredited to the United Nations and not to the US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Why this disproportionately large number of expulsions in the US, which is so much greater than that any of the expulsions carried out by the US’s allies?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n There are various theories about this, including one which I consider farfetched, which is that the expulsions were supposedly forced on President Trump by his advisers as some sort of ‘punishment’ for his decision to ignore General McMaster’s advice not to telephone President Putin to congratulate him on his election victory.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In my opinion there is a far more likely explanation, which is that the expulsion is belated US reaction to Russia’s gigantic purge of US diplomats and staff from the US embassy and consulates in Russia last summer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This purge attracted extraordinarily little attention, even though it was by far the biggest single expulsion of diplomats and embassy and consular staff to have happened in modern history. Here is what I wrote about it at the time<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The Russians order to the US to reduce the staff at their embassy and consulates in Russia by 755 persons<\/a> is in fact unprecedented. As the BBC rightly says<\/a>, though a large part of the reduction will no doubt be accounted for by non-diplomatic staff, the Russian announcement still constitutes what is by far the single biggest expulsion of diplomats in modern history<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The decision to expel staff was made on Friday, but Mr Putin has now confirmed the number who must go by 1 September.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It brings staff levels to 455, the same as Russia’s complement in Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is thought to be the largest expulsion of diplomats from any country in modern history, says the BBC’s Laura Bicker in Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The number includes Russian employees of the US diplomatic missions across Russia, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford in Moscow adds.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Staff in the embassy in Moscow as well as the consulates in Ekaterinburg, Vladivostok and St Petersburg are affected, she says.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Moreover the Russian decision now establishes the principle that the number of personnel at US embassies and consulates in Russia will in future be held to the same level – currently 455 – as the number of personnel at Russian embassies and consulates in the US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That means that any future expulsions of Russian diplomats in the US – or any US refusal of visas to Russian diplomats to fill vacant posts at the Russian embassies and consulates in the US, as has apparently been happening – will be matched exactly equal expulsions of US diplomats from Russia, and refusals of visas to US diplomats seeking to fill vacant posts in US embassies and consulates in Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That this is a heavy blow to the US is highlighted by one interesting fact. It turns out that the number of personnel working at US embassies and consulates in Russia was almost three times greater than the number of personnel working at Russian embassies and consulates in the US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That begs the question of what all these extra US personnel were doing there? Perhaps US embassies and consulates are less efficient than Russian ones. However I suspect that the Russians believe that many if not most of these extra people were actually engaged in intelligence gathering and ‘democracy promotion’ activities.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Many people have commented on the quiet atmosphere in which the recent Russian Presidential election was conducted. Compared to the last Presidential election in 2012 there were no significant anti-Putin protests, no violent or embarrassing incidents, and Navalny’s call for a boycott was ignored.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n No one so far as I know has made the connection between the quiet atmosphere of the election and the gigantic purge of US embassy and consular staff which took place in the summer of 2017.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nor has anyone connected the quiet atmosphere of the election to the effect of Russia’s 2012 Foreign Agent law, which requires Russian NGOs which receive foreign funding and which engage in political activities to register as foreign agents.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Perhaps there is no connection between the quiet atmosphere of the election and those two things.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n However if such a connection does exist – and I suspect it does – then it is not difficult to see why Washington’s powerful ‘democracy promotion’ lobby might have found President Putin’s triumphant re-election even more infuriating than it might otherwise have been.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n If so then that might explain why the US appears to have seized on the Skripal affair to carry out such a disproportionately large number of expulsions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In that case it is at least possible that the wave of expulsions in Europe and elsewhere were coordinated by the US in order to give cover to its expulsions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What consequences will these expulsions have?<\/p>\n<\/p>\ndedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
What happened to the West I was born in?!<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Saker-<\/em>US<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Expelling Russian diplomats: tokenism in Europe; petulance in Washington<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n