(…)

„WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service,“ Pompeo told an audience at a Washington think tank, adding that Russia‘s GRU intelligence service had used the anti-secrecy group to distribute hacked material during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

(…)

(…)

(…)

William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) was a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later a critic of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, becoming „the loudest and most credible skeptic of the Bush administration’s contention that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.“[1] He received harsh criticism from the political establishment but became a popular antiwar figure and occasional talk show commentator as a result of his stance, later proven to be correct.

Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in 2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened).

„Ich habe mit Geheimdiensten in der Vergangenheit zusammengearbeitet und habe schwere Bedenken über die Politisierung der Geheimdienste, die in letzter Zeit zuzunehmen scheint. Aber ich weiß, dass sich in den Reihen der Geheimdienste überaus fähige Analysten befinden. Und wenn diese sorgfältig und korrekt zu den Behauptungen im Papier des Weißen Hauses befragt worden wären, dann hätten sie nicht zugestimmt, dass dieser Bericht nach draußen geht. Ich stehe zur Verfügung, um meine Anmerkungen dazu substantiell zu erweitern. Ich hatte nur ein paar Stunden, um den Geheimdienstbericht aus dem Weißen Haus zu begutachten. Aber schon eine schnelle Prüfung ohne viel Analyse zeigt, dass dieser Bericht nicht korrekt sein kann und es scheint auch ganz so, als ob die Geheimdienste dieses Papier nicht ordentlich geprüft haben. Das ist eine ernsthafte Sache.“

To hell with evidence, The New York Times is happy with social media tweets and FB status updates to come to a final judgement. It‘s called journalism in a millennial age…

(13.4.2017) U.S. officials have told Reuters that an oil embargo is among tougher sanctions Washington could pursue to counter North Korea‘s nuclear and missile programs

(12.4.2017) Four quick observations about this:

1. Trump thought China could fix North Korea until the Chinese president politely informed him that North Korea is in fact complicated.
2. Trump seems to have required the leader of China to explain basic facts to him that he could have Googled, or at least asked one of the many US government North Korea experts about.
3. Trump came to a profound realization about one of the most dangerous conflicts on earth after a 10-minute conversation.
4. Trump is getting his information about East Asian affairs from the leader of America’s largest rival in the region.

Donald Trump has described how he boasted about ordering a missile strike in Syria to the Chinese president while eating „the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake“.

The US president told a TV interviewer how he gave the order for a retaliatory strike while having dinner with President Xi Jinping at his luxury Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last week.

(12.4.2017) The memorandum of October 2015 contains a number of rules and restrictions, which aim at preventing dangerous encounters between the Russian and US warplanes. He added that Russia and the US are determined to continue their relentless war on international terrorism.

(12.4.2017) Zuvor verurteilte Putin den US-Angriff auf einen syrischen Luftstützpunkt als „Aggression gegen einen souveränen Staat“. Die russische Regierung setzte das Memorandum mit dem US-Militär zur Vermeidung von Zwischenfällen in Syrien aus.

Noch immer herrscht Rätselraten nicht nur darüber, wie präzise die 1,6 Millionen US-Dollar teuren Präzisionsraketen Tomahawk den syrischen Luftwaffenstützpunkt getroffen haben, sondern auch, was mit dem russischen Raketenabwehrsystem S-400 war. Stationiert wurde das System im November 2015 auf der russischen Luftwaffenbasis Khmeimim zu dessen Schutz, nachdem eine russische Maschine von einem türkischen Kampfflugzeug abgeschossen worden war.