|By Mylene Doublet O’Kane, UTC +1

|MD O’Kane is an Israeli-French teacher, a postgraduate in Philosophy, in History of ideas and an independent analyst in Geopolitics

    Throughout their long, tumultuous and bitter sweat relationship, the French have always conceded to England a virtue ; It never hesitates to lie and betray its oath in order to defend its own interests. This is how it earned its French nickname of “perfide Albion”, after England’s Latin name. Meanwhile, the Kingdom had a tradition that would shape its reputation. It used to push its egocentric and hegemonic agenda as a global maritime power with élégance or let’s say “in the name of civilization”. At the dawn of the third millennium, its Plantagenêts French cousins whose modern political leaders have become obsequious subservients to the Anglozionist hegemon are however deeply saddened to have to consider that Britain has lost the last attributes of apparent respectability. It has lost both consistency and style. If Britain begins to twist historical facts “as it pleases” to satisfy its perpetual necessity of having the Germans hate the Russians (and vice versa) with the detestable ambition of weakening the “Heartland”, one may find the core geopolitical explanation for doing so in reviewing British Halford Mackinder’s theory (1904 -1910).

Is “History truly written by the winners”?  History is smarter than you think. In fact, History is as stubborn as facts. This makes me think of an article by George Orwell that I happen to have read when I was a young student and that was published in his “As I please” column in the British Tribune on February 4 , 1944.

“When Sir Walter Raleigh was imprisoned in the Tower of London, he occupied himself with writing a history of the world. He had finished the first volume and was at work on the second when there was a scuffle between some workmen beneath the window of his cell, and one of the men was killed. In spite of diligent enquiries, and in spite of the fact that he had actually seen the thing happen, Sir Walter was never able to discover what the quarrel was about; whereupon, so it is said—and if the story is not true it certainly ought to be—However, he burned what he had written and abandoned his project.”

History is not written by winners, for winners shall never be stronger than facts. This is the reason why the last frontier is the access to factual occurrences corroborated by solid evidence; not MI6-fabricated myths.
Was Boris Johnson’s latest outburst, comparing the upcoming World Cup in Russia to the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler, a provocation too far?

Appearing in front of a Commons Foreign Affairs Committee meeting, the UK foreign secretary took up an embarrassing frenetic enthusiasm in backing the most regrettable assertion made by Labour backbench MP Ian Austin that “Putin is going to use it [the World Cup] the way Hitler used the 1936 Olympics. In response, Johnson said, “I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right and frankly, I think it is an emetic prospect to think of Putin glorifying in this sporting event.” How could the Head of the British Diplomacy possibly dishonor his country and fellow citizens by such vocal expression of absolute ignorance of History?

Britain’s Eton-educated Foreign Secretary’s comment immediately caused a ravaging consequence. it showed the true colors of the British strongest soft power ; Its worldwide educational fabric of Anglozionist indoctrination also known as the British Council. The damage is immense and irreversible. The recent rolling thunder of Russophobia that has been unleashed across the UK’s political and media landscape should have never gone as far as to the willful and unconscionable distortion of history. We are talking about a sacrifice of 27 millions of souls. We are talking about a person who is writing this article today ; a fact which could have never been possible if a Russian did not help an ancestor of hers throughout 4 years of odious tribulations in Nazi camps. This sort of meaningless diplomacy is unforgivable. Russia’s role in defeating Anglozionist-funded Hitler in World War II, the role of the Russian people in liberating Europe from the scourge of Nazism (and who financed Nazism does matter), is an objective and unalterable fact. It is a role acknowledged by none other than Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Boris Johnson’s supposed political hero. Actually, Winston Churchill was the most symbolic figure of the Latinized Anglozionist exceptionalist hegemon. He was the symbolic figure of  a hierarchy ordering on races long before Nazism was born.

During a statement to the House of Commons on August 2- 1944, the very same House of Commons in which Boris Johnson now sits as an usurpateur of knowledge, Churchill however had the elementary decency to declare:

It is the Russian armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being… that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet armies.”

Twenty-seven million dead tells its own story when it comes to Russia’s sacrifice in the struggle to defeat Hitler. Johnson’s statement was obviously made as part of a campaign to sabotage the upcoming World Cup in Russia – a campaign that is now well underway in the UK – thus making it all the more contemptible as the secret wish was to instil an anti-Russian sentiment in future traveling English supporters to the World cup and an anti-English sentiment in Russia. In other words, it is safe to admit the resurgence of the nineteenth century Russophobic tropes being peddled by the Anglozionist country’s establishment press, dredged from a swamp of British jingoism and racism. The MI-6-fabricated Skripal’s case has however failed to show one shred of concrete evidence to support the accusation that culpability for the military-grade gas nerve attack lies at the door of the Kremlin. Moreover, since its fabricated evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction which ignomiously gave an infamous legal ground for a war against Iraq in 2003, it is only safe to say that the British intelligence service has durably lost any form of credibility. What’s much more worrisome and telling however, is to have to consider the gregarious attitude of Germany and France rushing to condemn an unproven “story” and to take up regrettable actions without quite realizing the counterproductive effects for the European Union lying under a divisive British strategy. Or, if this attitude had to be considered as meaningful, then the crime would be even worse, as it would prove the involvement of a European political class, in Britain and in the western chancelleries combined with the countries’ aforementioned establishment press acting in cooperation with a murky and evermore influential network of US Anglozionist-held Neocon think tanks to the detriment of the European public. Before a necessary in-depht analysis is provided with regard to the British political strategy, as it is clear that a pusillanimous British government mired in crisis over Brexit tries to disseminate the malign influence of the most extreme anti-Russia elements within the media, let me state this clear so that the European and ignorant American chancelleries have a free sporting history lesson of Nazi Germany in the 1930s :

  I shall therefore direct this deplorable gathering of nefarious minds to the year 1938, two years after the Berlin Olympics – a Berlin Olympics which soit dit en passant Moscow boycotted unlike Great Britain and France – at a time when the British government and ruling class, with few exceptions, were mired in the appeasement of Hitler’s Nazi regime. Besides, and soit dit en passant (for the record), who founded Nazism as far as 1942 ? Anglozionism is the undiputable historical answer. It is shameful period in the country’s history, culminating in Britain colluding in the Nazi dictator’s expansionist ambitions in Europe with regard to his desire to annex Czechoslovakia. This collusion was enshrined in the Munich Agreement, reached in conjunction with France and Italy on 30 September 1938. I won’t even mention the factual connivence between a future King of England, his American divorcee girlfriend and Adolf Hitler. I shall only remind that in May of the same year (1938), England’s national soccer team had travelled to Berlin to play a friendly against Germany. As both teams lined up for the usual pre-match rituals, the England players, under instruction from the British Foreign Office, gave a Nazi salute. England would eventually win the match, but Hitler won a far more relevant trophee: cultural and sporting recognition of the barbarous Latinized Anglozionist race ideology that was to lead to the death of tens of millions across Europe and beyond, over the succeeding decade. What is happening in Syria, Yemen, D.R Congo. or Afghanistan is the continuation of this Nazi ideology that wasn’t born with Adolf Hitler. Russia, who in many ways embodies the Greek and Roman Empire’s Eastern inheritance, has no lecture to be given by a sordid bunch of ignorant western leaders who usurp their elections via scandalous methods.

That Putin is not Hitler and that Russia is not Nazi Germany goes without saying. These lame analogies are the paramount of a Nazi Hegemon on the verge of collapse. While such people may have prospered in British political life in 1818, in 2018 they have no legitimacy occupying positions of responsibility and leadership in frontline politics within a country that wishes to be taken seriously. I won’t hereby even mention the case of France whose “Resistance” force’s highest peak during WW2 was 300,000 people in a country of 45 million citizens whose heirs now all claim “a passive resistant” past for their ancestors. 74,000 French Jews would never return home. Actually, their homes are occupied by these brave French heirs. If France wants to jump into the gutter, then I shall confidently watch her fall, as atrocities never die. Historical facts are like ghosts. They survive all failed ideologies.

This being said, let’s be serious and consistent. Let’s get to the core of a failed British strategy.


The Anglozionist-controlled British government and several of its allies, including France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have attempted to launch a Cold War against Russia in recent weeks. Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and, at the same time, a chemical attack throught their US-NATO/GCC/Zionist-backed terrorists dispatched in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta region. The conspirators’ intention was to take advantage from Syria’s Army troops’ (SAA) efforts to liberate the suburbs of its Damascus capital city in the midst of a temporary change in Russia’s priorities on the occasion of her Presidential election. Had these concocted manipulations worked under the guise of “an urgent humanitarian assistance to Eastern Ghouta civilians”, the United Kingdom would have pushed the US Administration to bomb Damascus, including the Presidential palace in the same fashion as the British-French operated in Libya in 2011, and then demand that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) exclude Russia from the Security Council (UNSC); a position which would have had the additional thrilling profit of putting China in a delicate diplomatic situation as new opposing frontliner and receptacle of critics that is traditionnally Russia’s scapegoat inalterable role within the precincts of this honourable institution.

However, only ignorants in Russian political philosophy would have expected for such immature outcome. Not after 1917. Not after 1945. Not everafter 1991. The plot was anticipated by the Syrian and Russian intelligences as there was a strong possibility that the US-NATO-IL military advisors and technical experts hidden in Al Ghouta’s underground tunels who were preparing chemical attacks by supervised terrorist groups against civilians would block their access to humanitarian corridors on purpose and that these intelligence expert teams were not actually working for the Pentagon, but for another U.S. agency.

This is how should have been interpretated Damascus’ public address through the voice of Syria’s Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fayçal Miqdad, when he set up an emergency Press conference for 10 March 2018 inside the United Nations’ building in order to alert his fellow citizens. On  its side, Moscow had previously reiterated vain attempts to contact Washington through the traditional diplomatic channels with little hope for success as Russia was aware that the US Ambassador, Jon Huntsman Jr,was and still is the Director of Caterpillar; the company which had precisely supplied tunneling materials to US-NATO/GCC/Zionist-backed jihadists in order for them to build their fortifications. Under these circumstances, Russia decided to bypass the usual diplomatic channels. What happened from that moment on?  How did things play out? Welcome to the back scene of the Shakespearean “Humanistic” Democracy à l’anglaise.

Act I- From London to Syria, with Love

On March 12th and 13th 2018, the Syrian army troops seized two chemical weapons laboratories, the first on 12 March in Aftris, and the second one on the next day in Chifonya. In the meantime, the Russian diplomats most of whom (23) have been expelled by now were trying to convince the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to get involved in the U.K criminal investigation in Salisbury amid Skripal’s son and daughter alleged Russian-led poisoning .

On the House of Commons front, a theatrical British Prime Minister Theresa May was condemning  Russia of having ordered the attack in Salisbury in the strongest terms. According to her, the ex-double agent Sergueï Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military nerve gas of a certain type “developed by Russia” under the name of Novitchok. From there, an immature causality principle was artificially created linking defecting Russian citizens to “the Stalinist-like” Kremlin as legitimate targets. The syllogism built on thin air would finally proudly conclude :  There is a “highly likely” possibility that the Kremlin ordered the crime.

Novitchok [nerve gas] is known from what has been revealed by two former Soviet personalities, the scientist Lev Fyodorov and Vil Mirzayanov. In the Russian weekly “Top secret” of July 1992 [so right after the US-fomented collapse of the Soviet Union which shall mark in time the worst mistake of the Latinized Anglozionist hegemon], Fyodorov would publish an article warning about the extremely dangerous nature of this substance, while warning against Western powers’ temptation of using Soviet weaponry to destroy the environment in Russia and make it unlivable. A few months later, he reiterated his alerting scientific message through a second article published in the News of Moscow with Mirzayanov, denouncing the corruption of a number of former Soviet Generals and the traffic of Novitchok in which they were involved. The curious thing about it was that they would denounce a wrongdoing but they were unable to quote names. Then on which solid ground did they formulate this accusation? Mirzayanov was  arrested, questioned, accused of high treason then released. As for Fyodorov, he died in Russia last August. Mirzayanov is currently living in exile in the United States, where he perfectly falls in the category of traitor and confabulator that ever since collaborates with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Russian ex-counter intelligence officer Vil Mirzayanov defected to the United States. Now 83 years old, he comments on the Skripal affair from Boston.
Soviet chemist Vil Mirzayanov defected to the United States in 1995. He is now 83 years old and commented from Boston on the Skripal case.

Novitchok was fabricated in a Soviet laboratory located in Nukus, in what is now Uzbekistan. In 1999, the United States and Uzbekistan agreed to destroy that plant. By direct logical reasoning, both Uzbekistan and the United States have therefore possessed and studied samples of this substance. They were/are hence both capable of producing it.

In the aftermath of the this farcicial prologue, a buffonesque British Minister for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson summoned the Russian ambassador in London, Alexandre Iakovenko, giving him an ultimatum of 36 hours to check if any Novitchok was missing from their stocks; an occurrence that could not be consistent with any irrational narrative as Russia had destroyed all of the chemical weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union, as witnessed by the OPCW, which had drawn up a certified report. This is when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made his first apparition on stage only to wrap himself in more burlesque ridicule in condemning Russia for the attack in Salisbury.

At the same moment, a debate was under way at the UN Security Council amid the situation in Syria’s Ghouta region. And here are the best lines from the Highlight character of the musical ride ; namely, the permanent representative for the US at the U.N, Mrs Nikki Haley :

“Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the Syrian regime’s sarin gas attack at Khan Sheikhoun, the United States offered a warning to this Council. We said that when the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action. The Security Council failed to act. And the United States successfully struck the airbase from which Assad had launched his chemical attack. We repeat this warning today…”

This was when the Russian diplomats would hand out documents from the U.S. staff. objectifying the Pentagon’s imminent intention to bombard the Syrian Presidential palace and the Syrian Ministries in the same fashion as it had done during the taking of Baghdad (3 to 12 April 2003) based on MI-6 fabricate evidence to launch a war. Commenting the declaration by Nikki Haley, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had always called the attack in Khan Sheikhoun a “Western manipulation”, revealed that the false information which had led the White House into error and triggered the bombing of the Al-Chaayrate air base in April 2017, had in fact come from a British laboratory which had never revealed how it came to possess its chemicla gas samples.

Act II – From Russia, with Love xx.

The next day, on March 13th 2018, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergueï Lavrov published a press release condemning a possible US military intervention, while clearly stating that if Russian citizens were harmed in Damascus, Moscow would riposte proportionally, since the Russian President is constitutionally responsible for the security of his fellow citizens.

Bypassing the official diplomatic channels whose we have just proven how they only serve as western sauf-conduits for information manipulation , Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri Gerasimov contacted his U.S. counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him about his deep concern that a false flag chemical attack was in preparation in Ghouta. Dunford took this information in the most serous manner and immediately referred to the U.S. Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, himself swiftly referring the matter to the U.S. President Donald J. Trump. In view of the strong Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy. Although we do not know the full details and results of this internal enquiry, what was however rapidly and directly observable was that President Trump would acquire the conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated in this irresponsible machination. This provides the core reason why the U.S. Secretary of State was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to Washington in the best delays. He would later claim that he had no clue amid the motivation for his cold firing.

The “perfid Albion” in the person of Theresa May wrote to the General Secretary of the United Nations in which she would accuse the Kremlin  of  having orchestrated the attack in Salisbury without however bothering to provide any sort of solid evidence. She finished the written correspondence, convened an emergency meeting of the Security Council and without waiting for its actual holding, she took the most extravagant and wreckless initiative of expelling 23 Russian diplomats from the British soil. In the aftermath later in the afternoon and at the express request of the President of the House of Commons Interior Committee, Mrs. Yvette Cooper, British Secretary for the Interior Amber Rudd announced that MI5 (Military Interior Secret Services ) is going to re-open 14 enquiries into deaths which, according to US sources, “were ordered by the Kremlin”.

This overall method adopted by the British government  seems to reflect of the theories of Professor Amy Knight, an American ‘Sovietologist’ who published the most extravagant theory in her book ‘Orders to kill – The Putin regime and political murder’ released last January 22, 2018, in which the author who declares she is also ‘a specialist’ on the former KGB, poorly attempts to demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is a serial killer responsible for dozens of political assassinations, from the terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999 to the attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013, by way of the execution of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 or that of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015. In her own words, she admits that she has no proof of her accusations. Actually, the entirety of her ‘scientific’ published books are based on western ideologies and clichés disseminated during the Cold war upon which her mind seems to be running in circles. She also holds a PhD in Philosophy which is more surprising. Philosophers ground their thoughts on rational thinking ; therefore on solid evidence. It is not enough to be born in Russia or to have lived in Russia to become an expert on Russia. You have to think Russian; which is a humanistic state of art I am afraid that Mrs Knight is totally incapble of reaching.

To stick to the chronology, the European horde of unpopular Liberals began to join the fray at that point. Ex-Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, who presides the Liberals’ group in the European Parliament, called on the European Union to adopt sanctions against Russia. His counterpart at the head of their British party, Sir Vince Cable, proposed a European boycott of the World Football Cup while Buckingham Palace had earlier announced that the royal family had canceled their trip to Russia. Furthermore, the UK communications regulator, Ofcom, announced that it might “ban the channel RT as a retaliatory measurethough at no time had RT violated the British law. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs summoned the British ambassador in Moscow to inform him that reciprocal measures would soon be indicated in retaliation for the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London. The regrettable khafkaesque  irrationality of these cascading announcements did actually underscore one single cartesian fundamental rule : Where is the solid evidence? If none can be produced, the direct consequence is an international condemnation which itself emphasizes on the radical disconnection between this sphere of elites in denial still abiding to a collapsing Anglozionist hegemon and the public opinion. Their info war arsenal is absolutely discredited, with scandals emerging at a scary daily pace. Meanwhile, it seems that this select club of partners in crime is not ready yet to come to grips with the reality. The world has entered in an epochal transition between unipolarity and multipolarity and none of these nuisances shall survive necessary consistent reorganizations towards a true humanistic century.

This is in the midst of this quiet back-scene political landscape by contrast with their respective vociferous or falsely solemn attitudes on the mediatic scene that President Trump bluntly announced via twitter the termination of Secretary of State Tillerson’s mission. This is how could be understood the nomination of former Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, to replace him. For the record, the night before, Mike Pompeo had confirmed the authenticity of the Russian information transmitted by General Dunford. On his arrival in Washington, Tillerson obtained confirmation of his dismissal from White House General Secretary General John Kelly. Culturally close to England, he did not hesitate, when he became President of the mega-multinational Exxon-Mobil (2006-16) to recruit mercenaries in British Guiana to safeguard Anglozionist interests. He is said to be a member of the Pilgrims Society, the most prestigious of Anglo-US clubs, presided by Queen Elizabeth II, a number of whose members were part of the Obama Administration. And now, I have reached the point in the present article where the reader has to understand a major internal dispute within Anglozionism. Contrary to what is commonly believed, the primary source of discord is not on whether or not one should praise Globalization or Nationalism but on the best way that should be chosen to perpetuate the unipolar Western domination. During his mandate, Rex Tillerson happened to have disagreements with President Trump on three major topics which shall allow us to draw the ideological lines of the conspiration’s instigators within the Deep State and at the same time, the features of opposing forces. Rex Tillerson was actually the representant of the branch which promotes:

  • The demonization of Russia in order to consolidate the power of the Anglo-Saxons in the Western camp ;
  • The perpetuation of Western colonialism in the Middle East. In this respect, it was necessary to praise the Iranian President Rohani against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei. The goal was to quietly generate growing dissenssions between the secular and democratic-based iranian government led by the moderate Rohani and the religious college. The idea of pushing for a JCPOA plan (The Iran Deal) signed between the P5+1 and Iran in July 2015 would fall in line with this prospect. Rex Tillerson strongly advocated for the U.S. preservation of the agreement. On the contrary, President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the Saudis were and are still clearly opposed to this option;
  • On the Pacific front, Tillerson and his ‘huge Anglo-Saxon faction’ within the Neocon Deep State, considered that the swing of North Korea towards the United States should remain secret, and be quietly used to justify a military deployment in the North Pacific ocean which would be directed, in reality, against the People’s Repubic of China. He was therefore in favour of official talks with Pyongyang, but opposed to a meeting between the two heads of State.

Act III –  The British  all-out strategy

While the next day, March 14th, Washington was still considering its options against the British offensive aimed to start  Cold war 2 which would have favoured the aforementioned ambitions in collaboration with the U.S Deep state, Germany France and more generally the EU, Theresa May spoke once again before the House of Commons to elaborate on her accusation. In the meantime, British diplomats were mobilized from all around the world in the same fashion as a clone info army of mass diinformation/misinformation to disseminate the unsubstantiated narrative that Russia has ordered “another” murder of former spy. In turn, including the most honourable inter-governmental organisations started to echo this most irresponsible lie backed on thin air, while answering to the Prime Minister, Blairist deputy Chris Leslie qualified Russia as a “rogue” state and demanded its suspension from the UN Security Council. This planned scenario allowed Theresa May to agree on examining the question, though insisting [supreme pernicious remark] that the outcome could only be decided by the General Assembly in order to avoid the Russian veto.

After the illegal legal ; the military level

Upon the United Kingdom’s request , the North Atlantic Council (NATO) met in Brussels as the 29 member-states agreed on drawing a lame link between the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the attack in Salisbury. They then decided that there was a “highly likely” possibility that Russia be responsible for these two events. As for the reader, he knows already about the truth.

Meanwhile, Russia’s diplomacy continued its efforts to bring the truth to light. In New York U.N. headquarters, the permanent representative of Russia, Mr. Vasily Nebenzya, proposed to the members of the Security Council that they adopt a declaration attesting to their common will to shed light on the attack in Salisbury and handing over the enquiry to the OPCW in the due respect of international procedures. Needless to mention that  the United Kingdom immediately refuse any text which did not stipulate in the most formal written form that Russia was “probably responsible” for the attack.

During the public debate which followed, the British Zionist U.K. chargé d’Affaires Jonathan Allen represented his country. He is an agent of MI-6 who created the British War Propaganda Service and gives a pro- active support to the US-NATO/GCC-backed terrorists in Syria. Please, the reader has to realize that Zionism has firstly nothing to do with Judaism. Secondly, he has to understand that Zionism is as old as the Chritianized Roman Empire. Thirdly, he has to seize that within the Zionists, there are those who support the Anglo-saxon / French / UE preservation of the hegemon via the instillation of a dissenssion in Iran’s political/religious spectrums whereas another faction praises a a more direct confrontation. Usually, the Israeli Zionist government plays on double-boards. This being said, Jonathan Allen declared that  “Russia has already interfered in the affairs of other countries. Russia has already violated the international law in Ukraine [ wrong: US-NATO-IL-orchestrated coup in 2014] Russia has comtempt for civilian life, as witnessed by the attack on a commercial aircraft over Ukraine by Russian mercenaries, Russia protects the use of chemical weapons by Assad (…) The Russian state is responsible for this attempted murder”.

As for him, the permanent representative for France, François Delattre, who, by virtue of a derogation by President Sarkozy, was trained [brainwashed] at the US State Department, noted that his country had launched an initiative to end the impunity of those who use chemical weapons. He implied that the initiative, originally directed at Syria, could also be turned against Russia. In stating so, this person has dishonoured France ; once more. However,  the reader should be aware that hardly any diplomatic word spoken by a French diplomat is consistent with the French people’s will. As sad as it is, the same comment may apply to all western citizens as a whole with regards of their respective foreign chancelleries.

I happen to have carefully watched and listened to Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya’s response whose manners and calm were the excellence of style and consistency.

  1. He pointed out that the session had been convened at London’s request, but that it is public at Moscow’s request.
  2. He then went on to observe that the United Kingdom is violating the international law by treating this subject at the Security Council while keeping the OPCW out of its enquiry.
  3. Furthermore, he noted that if London had been able to identify the « Novotchik », it’s because it has the formula and can therefore make its own. Uncompromising logic, isn’t it ?
  4. Furthermore, he noted Russia’s desire to collaborate with the OPCW in the respect for international procedures.


On March the 15th, the United Kingdom published a joint declaration which was cosigned the night before by France and Germany, as well as by the still then U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. The document is a momunent of disgrace which reiterated British suspicions while condemning the utilization of a “neurotoxic agent of military-grade, a type of which had been developed by Russia”. In addition, it asserted a “highly probability” that Russia is responsible for the attack”.

Amazon’s CEO, John Bezos-owned Washington Post (WAPO) published a vitriolic op-ed piece by Boris Johnson grounded on the most deplorable espionnage-novel kind of literature, while the US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, established new sanctions against Russia. Actually, this new round of sanction does not directly refer to the current affair, but to allegations of “interference in U.S. public life”. The decree however make a clear reference to the Salisbury’s attack as solid evidence of the underhand methods of Russia.

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the British Secretary for Defense, the untalented Gavin Williamson soon afterwards declared that as soon as the expulsion of her diplomats is fully completed, Russia should “shut up and go away”. This intolerable, unprofessional and meaningless diplomacy says a lot about why the British citizens have come to believe that their whole Democratic system should be burned down to ashes  and rebuilt through direct referendum. This is the very first time since the end of the Second World War that a representative of a permanent member-state of the United Nations  Security Council has employed such disrespectful and aggressive terms in the face of another member of the Council. With the cleverness, the natural élégance and the unreproductible warm voice that signal his presence, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergueï Lavrov had the magnanimity to bother commenting :

«He’s a charming young man. He must want to ensure his place in History by making shocking declarations […] Perhaps, he lacks education”.

Conclusion thoughts

Within a period of four little days, the United Kingdom has ruined over a millennium based on apparences. Over the past four centuries, the British Empire had ‘divided and ruled’ with an iron fist in a velvet glove. At the dawn of the third Milennium, History shall remind that the effective epitome of Anglozionism and its abiding allies failed to precipitate the old continent into a new Cold war built on untalented Machavellian machinations. It does not have the look anymore. It doesn’t have the style anymore. It doesn’t feel the pulse of the people anymore. Whether young or grey-haired, it is ugly. Brains? No more ! It has disfugured the first modern Parliamentary Democracy. It has corrupted all other European democracies. It has betrayed, tortured, bleeded to death millions of civilians around the globe for a Nazi hegemonic domination. At least, the 45th President of the United States dares to voice out loud what the other faction wanted to perpetuate by silent ruse.

However, the resistence is only growing stronger. Whether within Europe or in the United States or in Syria, people stand up. Syria proved it was not Iraq and the United Nations, even weak, even defunded, even bullied is resisting and standing by the People of the many nations it represents. It needs deep reforms, but it is not the G8 from which Russia was excluded for its most vibrant support to the inalienable right of the people to their national sovereignty and wealth. Russia has successfully stood by Crimea and by Syria. The United States are not going to destroy Damascus, and Russia shall not be excluded from the U.N. Security Council. Had she be, then the United nations would have been taken its inner heart ; the fight for the freedom of the human soul.

After having walked away from the European Union and having refused to sign the Chinese declaration welcoming China’s OBOR networks of connectivity that shall relieve hundreds of millions of souls from misery around the world,  the United Kingdom sought to improve “Make Great Britain great again” in dividing Europe even deeper while pushing away the possiblity for the world biggest Heartland to finally unite. “Global Britain” ? As promised by a Prime Minister who doesn’t even deserve the “Madam” title that precedes a Lady’s name. No ever more !

©Mylene Doublet O’Kane, March 23, 2018.

MD O’Kane is an Israeli French teacher, a postgraduate in Philosophy, in History of ideas and an independent analyst in geopolitics.


Republishing of this article is welcomed with reference to TCO. The views of the author do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board.