IF I WERE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA…April 17, 2018
As one might imagine, and like most everyone else, I've been watching the developments in Syria, and the "West", with a great deal of mixed feelings and apprehension. I've already blogged about the whole mess, and the decision to bomb Syria came down last Friday night while I and the members here were having our bi-weekly Friday night vidchat. To say that I am disappointed and angry at the behavior of the "West" and its "leaders" would be a bit disingenuous. I'm not disappointed, or surprised, or shocked, that Ms. May of the United Kingdom would be party to the fireworks. She is, after all, the head of a government that has put out a great deal of nonsense about the Skripal case. To this date, there still is no conclusive proof that Mr. Skripal or his daughter were gassed by the Russian government. Porton Down cannot conclusively make that case. Nonetheless, as a crisis of opportunity to demonize Russia, it was perfect. No one seemed to be asking the question "Why would Russia assassinate someone it had already traded to the U.K. in a spy swap?" Answer: they probably wouldn't, and even if they did, they wouldn't do it so amateurishly. If Russia wanted Skripal and his daughter dead, they would be, well, dead. Nor am I shocked or surprised that the vast irrelevancy that is Emanuel Macron would go along with the nonsense. And Trump? No surprise there either: here's a man who conducts geopolitics via Twitter, dismisses Secretaries of States via Twitter, and for all we know may have been pushing buttons on his cellphone Twitter account to launch the missiles.
No, that's not what shocks me. What shocks me is the utterly nonsensical and farcical nature of it. Consider carefully this article from the Washington Post:
Now before we get to what caught my eye in this article, allow me to review what my fundamental difficulty with the Syria narrative is: Mr Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons on his own people. I don't know if he did, or didn't, or if he is capable of doing such a thing, or isn't. I do know that any motivation he might have for doing so is highly debatable: why would Mr. Assad, when his forces are winning the war in Syria, and after Mr. Trump tweeted (!) that the USA would be leaving Syria soon, then resort to an action that would all but guarantee continued American presence there, and all but guarantee the kinds of actions we saw the "West" commit last Friday evening? Answer: he probably wouldn't do so.
Which brings us to these paragraphs in the Washington Post:
Inspectors from the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were expected to make their initial visit to Douma on Saturday. They will collect soil samples and talk to witnesses to try to pin down what occurred.
The United States, France and Britain said they have proof, without identifying it, that chlorine gas caused victims to suffocate.
Another U.S. official, also briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, said Western nations strongly suspect that sarin gas was also used.
Ponder this very carefully: we are given "anonymous sources" who allege the use of sarin gas. Now, if this were an anonymous source briefing reporters "on the condition of anonymity" that the US government had recovered extraterrestrial bodies and that they were on display in a secret basement of the Smithsonian, we would tend to be skeptical. Anonymous sources can and do say anything, if they even exist at all. Otherwise, the three "western" powers assert the claim of proof, but so far refuse to make that proof available.
On this basis, a nation was attacked, in spite of warnings from its major power backer, Russia, not to do so. The "West" now claims that all its strikes were successful, while Russia and Syria state that many missiles were shot down and did not find their targets. Mr. Assad denies the use of chemical weapons. He's offered no proof, of course, but then again, in normal situations, proof usually is offered by the people making the accusation. And, as noted, that's not been forthcoming. Note the parallel: we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to intervene in Iraq, an intervention which placed that country firmly under the thumb of the other Middle Eastern nutcase regime, Iran. Now we are essentially being told nothing, for a further intervention in Syria.
So what does all this add up to? It adds up to a western "'leadership' class" (and I'm using the word "leadership" here in the loosest of senses) that is not tethered to any degree of reality, and that has no sense of responsibility either to the world at large, nor to its own people, to give some semblance of evidence for the political and policy actions they take. Why, after the assassination of JFK, the affairs of Ruby Ridge, Waco, the mess of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the utter nonsense of the 9/11 narrative, would any rational person believe anything they say? They have utterly lost any trust that they may once have had. They command no reason, offer no evidence, state no argument. They merely assert, and let the missiles fly, and arm the jihadists, whom they claim they're fighting in the "war on terror".
What, if anything, will Russia do? For rest assured, Russia will do something; too many Russian defense officials are on record that any action will be met with a response; the Russian UN and USA ambassadors have said the same; Mr. Putin has also indicated the same. A few months ago, The Saker reported on the attitude inside of Russia toward the West, and that many Russians, both in and out of government, had concluded that the West was "not agreement capable," i.e., that the irrationality and corruption had reached such a state that the West was a rogue culture, and no longer tethered to any sort of reality, and as "Exhibit A" in that case, we have these most recent Syria bombings, when no solid proof or evidence is yet forthcoming that Mr. Assad did any of the things he is being accused of, and no explanation has been offered as to why he would take an action guaranteed to pin the West to a presence in his country.
If I were a guest in those late night oil-burning meetings that are doubtlessly taking place in the Kremlin right now, I'd have come to an uncomfortable conclusion: if the leadership class of the West is not halted or checked somehow, then ultimately, they will force Russia into a position where direct confrontation is unavoidable. Doing nothing will not avoid that; over-reacting will also not avoid it. So the question is: how to confront the lawless rogue leadership class of the West? Uppermost in the minds of those Russian mandarins around the conference tables in the Kremlin will be the memory of the post-Soviet rape of Russia, with the knowledge that, if they do nothing, sooner or later that scenario will be forced on Russia again.
So what to do? And herewith my high octane speculation of the day: if the "'leadership' class" of the west - the financiers, the military-industrial-intelligence complex - is overrun with psychopahs no longer tethered even to the notion of providing a modicum of evidence for their accusations and narratives, then the time has come to change that leadership class, to remove the irrational corruption, psychopath by psychopath, one at a time. In other words, I strongly suspect that what will be considered, and perhaps implemented, is a new round of covert operations - wet operations to use the old KGB parlance - and target lists of individuals that need to have "inconvenient accidents." After all, Russia has nothing to lose; the Skripal case demonstrates that the Western leadership will accuse them of of such behavior anyway, on the most threadbare basis. Indeed, it might even be argued that the western expulsion of diplomats in the Skripal affair was precisely a defensive measure, that the Western leadership suspects that this scenario is what is headed their way, so best to roll up as many Russian intelligence networks as possible now, before the real "Mafia wars" begin. As part and parcel of those Mafia wars, it is even conceivable that Russia might disclose classified information on a variety of topics embarrassing to that "'leadership' class."
For years I've been arguing that covert operations is a game that two can play, but so far, Russia appears to have exercised some restraint in this respect. But the recent bombing of Syria, and the pretext under which it was done, offering no real evidence to back up the narrative, means a corner has been turned, and that the intelligence and wet operations wars may just have gone hot. Those operations might, and perhaps will, include a whole new wave of cyber warfare, designed to plant cyber-time bombs through the western system of financial clearing. Russia has, additionally, its own version of "psychic spies" with the whole panoply of "remote viewing and remote influencing" techniques, and under the circumstances, might be willing to employ those capabilities in such "wet operations."
Time will tell, of course, if any of this speculative scenario is true or not, and to what degree.
See you on the flip side...