Listening to Russia and exposing the US fraud on Syrian Chemical Weapons

When Donald Trump launched a massive cruise missile attack on one of Syria’s vital airbases on April 7th, he also blew apart what remained of his credibility, as someone prepared to do honest business with Russia on strategic issues.

The reason for this catastrophic severing of relations, pronounced by the Western press as ‘the lowest point in US-Russian relations since the Cuban missile crisis’ was however not quite as they would have it.

As Western commentators and leaders launched into idiotic diatribes on how ‘Moscow must restrain Assad so that he won’t use Chemical Weapons again’, and made up silly stories to explain why ‘Assad’ had used them ‘on his own people’ days earlier in Khan Shaikoun, the truth of what happened slipped them by.

In fact that truth would be hard for them to understand – it is not contained in their world-view. After six years of training, both by ignorant media repetition and by CIA orchestrated ‘psy-ops’, the idea that a ‘British-trained eye-doctor’ could become a ‘mass murderer’ is uncontroversial. Any attempts by President Assad or his many millions of supporters to ‘deny responsibility’ for alleged massacres will fail – they know he is guilty. And they are so convinced of his guilt that his own denials only confirm him as a true psychopath.

Yet this is nonsense. Bashar al Assad is probably one of the least psychopathic leaders on the planet, and a man who would give his life to save ‘his own people’ – he has already given six years of it.

Highlighting the subtleties of the propaganda against President Assad, and the fact that it is actually against the Syrian government and the Syrian army, is the constant claim that Assad is ‘killing his own people’- one imagines with his own bare and blood-soaked hands. So powerful is this archetypal image, and so useful to the Western powers who have created it, that very few people ever ask ‘why’.


Perhaps this is about to change. Following the release of videos claiming to show victims of a chemical weapons attack on April 4th, and the dirty rush by Western leaders to blame Assad for launching it, not everyone in the Western media echo-chamber seemed convinced. People who had accepted similar lies about the Ghouta attack three years ago were not so ready to believe the ‘baby-killer’ had done it again, not because they had understood the truth about the Syrian leader, but because they simply couldn’t see why he would ‘do it again’. Even mainstream US commentators have expressed this doubt.

Meanwhile across the ‘credibility gulf’, observers and analysts in independent and public media were busy analysing what exactly had happened, beginning from the obvious position that those with most to gain were likely responsible – the terrorist groups in control in Khan Shaikoun, and their foreign support agencies. Thanks to some specialist observers including particularly Theodore Postol and Denis O’Brien, a likely picture can be drawn of the event, that includes several parallel threads.


Firstly, the videos released by ‘opposition activists’ showing half-naked ‘victims’ being sprayed with fire hoses by White Helmets operatives, and whose images of suffering children were spread around the world, were – as Bashar al Assad said – “100% fabricated”. While the mere involvement of the White Helmets – a UK funded propaganda set up with a record of fake rescues and support for Al Qaeda – might have been sufficient evidence, the credibility of claims this was a Sarin attack is torn to shreds by Denis O’Brien, who describes what real Sarin victims look like – not pink and gasping, but blue, and dead.

But confusing the picture, it appears that there was a real Sarin attack on innocent villagers, caused by Al Qaeda militants exploding a Sarin-packed pipe around dawn in a road nearby – which they then claimed was the point where a Syrian Air-force missile landed. The apparently genuine victims from this attack belonged to several families, whose relatives were interviewed in hospital over the border in Turkey.

Additionally it appears that a Syrian airstrike targeted a militant weapons store later that morning, in which some chemicals may have been exploded.


Regardless of the exact circumstances of this undoubted ‘false flag’ attack – and the likely cooperation of US and other agencies seeking a pretext to launch a missile strike against the Assad ‘regime’ – the non-responsibility of the Syrian government or any of its allies is indisputable. The corollary of this of course, is that the US strike, supposedly ‘punitive’ following the Sarin attack, is shown to be a highly provocative and illicit act of aggression, not just by the US that launched it, but by all those US allies – including Australia – who declared it to be justified action. As Bolivia’s UN ambassador observed, voting with Russia against the resolution condemning the Assad government for the Sarin attack, this was just a re-run of the notorious trick played by the US and UK in 2003 over Iraq’s supposed WMDs.

But there is a difference, and it may come down to Russia’s resolve, as well as the quiet determination of her supporters to draw a red line against the US’ staggering record of crimes in the Middle East and its accelerating destabilisation of the strategic balance around the world. We simply cannot accept this dangerous militarism or the pervasive fabric of lies that supports it any more.


It is in this context that the ABC interviewed Russia’s Ambassador to Australia on the PM programme last week, apparently sensing that the issue of responsibility for the Sarin attack remains in question and that the legitimacy of US actions depends on it. As might be expected however, given the ABC’s abysmal record of reporting on the Syrian war, the interviewer showed no interest in Russia’s viewpoint, nor presented it as worthy of our consideration. Far worse than that, interviewer Stephanie Borys dared to accuse Russia of endangering lives by cancelling the ‘de-confliction agreement’; the ultimate hypocrisy when it was the US that had launched the missile attack.

The ABC, like the government whose policies it represents, will not abandon its opposition to the Syrian government, nor its support for the Syrian ‘rebels’, barring some game-changing event.


The prospect of that may seem slim, but could it be that this time the US and its Al Qaeda agents have gone too far? The stream of articles debunking the Khan Shaikoun false flag attack is building into a tidal wave that it may be impossible for the Western media to hold back. Perhaps then they will be listening to what Russia has to say.
The ABC’s ‘interview’ – rather an ‘interrogation’ – with Ambassador Logvinov can be heard and read here:

The significance of Russia’s cancellation of the de-confliction agreement and US cooperation with Al Qaeda in Syria has just been well explained here by Paul Larudee.

David Macilwain