Following Donald Trump’s April 6th military strike against a Syrian airbase, supposedly in retaliation for a sarin gas attack on civilians ordered by Syrian president Assad, Russia’s Vladimir Putin was one of the first to denounce what was apparently a stage-managed production from start to finish.
At a press conference held shortly thereafter, Putin denounced the alleged Sarin gas attack as a “provocation.”
Note that the Russian word “provokatsiya” as used by Putin, carries the connotation of an act done subversively to frame somebody else or provoke conflict – what we call in English a “false flag.”
In an interview with Russian TV last week, Putin was even more clear that the story being sold by the United States, Europe and the western media makes absolutely no sense.
Speaking to the issue of evidence for the attack (or lack thereof), Putin said:
If the Syrian government had used chemical weapons…then the residue would remain in the area. There cannot not be a sign of it. Modern technology would most certainly pick it up. So what could be simpler than just going to the airbase that was bombed, from where the aircraft with chemical weapons allegedly departed, and just check it?
Russia’s leader then doubled down on his earlier public statements, that the so-called chemical attack was not at all what it was said to be:
I said [it was a] provocation…but by whom it was organized, I didn’t say.
Two [theories] I consider to be most likely. The first is that the Syrian air force hit an underground chemical weapons manufacture facility – and this is possible, because militants had used such weapons in the past.
The second theory is that it was staged. A provocation. It is intended to create noise, in order to justify extra pressure on the Syrian government.
With the intelligence Putin has at his disposal, I very much doubt he doesn’t know which of the two is the real explanation for events, and combined with his earlier statement that more provocations were in the works, the second theory would appear to carry more credence.
Putin also took a swipe at NATO, pointing out that unlike Russia’s allies, with whom Moscow treats on the level of equals, NATO’s members behave disgracefully as mere yes-men, ready to blindly assent to any policy demanded by Washington – even to Europe’s own detriment:
Again, they step on the rake twice. This is how NATO functions. This is how they work.
Donald Trump would be wise to stick to his proposals for entente with Russia. Because Putin is definitely sticking to his policy or resistance to globalism – even if Trump doesn’t.