The latest reports from the Amesbury alleged “Novichok poisoning” have taken a turn for the weirder. According to several reports, UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace has said that the Amesbury “poisonings” were neither targetted, nor linked to the Skripals. He said that instead, he believes it is a “contamination by Novichok”.
So far, the optics seemed like it could be an obvious Skripal 2.0 scenario, which was honestly ridiculous that they would bother to invent the same baseless and insane accusations against Russia twice. Yet instead, the latest reports seem to indicate a totally different spin is being taken. For example, the BBC has reported:
The victims of the nerve agent emergency in Wiltshire were not directly targeted, the security minister has said.
[UK Minister of State for Security] Ben Wallace disclosed that the “working assumption” is that the pair were exposed to Novichok either as a result of the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Hulia in Salisbury earlier this year, or “something else”.
It must be clear however, this does not mean the U.K. isn’t pointing the finger at Russia, as the report continues:
Mr Wallace told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think what we said at the time was that this was a brazen and reckless attack in the heart of a very peaceful part of the United Kingdom, and that is part of the anger I feel about the Russian state is that they chose to use clearly a very, very toxic, highly dangerous weapon.”
In another report, the BBC, writes that:
[UK] Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire. “It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison,” he told MPs.
The oddest aspect about the latest round of accusations, and what is potentially very dangerous, is how the U.K. is implying Russia allegedly accidentally poisoned their citizens with military grade nerve agent. Sputnik quotes UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace as saying:
“These people weren’t linked to the Skripals… It wasn’t an attack, it was, I think, a contamination by a Novichok,” Wallace said on Monday.
This is what is particularly bizarre, that the language the UK is using implies they are currently alleging an unintentional Novichok poisoning. We must remember, however, that these are still preliminary reports. There will be plenty of time for the UK to change their story, and of course, they are still blaming Russia, now it just seems they are saying Russia unintentionally poisoned their citizens.
This brings me to the heart of what makes these accusations so bizarre. If we apply basic common sense, how many people do you know, who were accidentally poisoned with military-grade nerve agent? Is nerve agent a common cause of death among common suburban folk? We remind our readers that neither the Skripals nor this Amesbury couple has yet died.
This contradicts basic logic, what we know about Novichok, as well as the narrative about the seemingly dangerous Russian bear, the way the West makes Russia out to be.
Novichok has been acknowledged by many reports, as being the world’s most deadly known nerve agent, with Gary Stephens, a pharmacology expert at the University of Reading, saying that Novichok “is a more dangerous and sophisticated agent than sarin or VX and is harder to identify”. A Financial Times report says that:
It has been reported that Novichok agents are five to eight times more lethal than VX, which was previously thought to be the world’s deadliest nerve agent.
Novichoks can be eight times as deadly as VX, the V-series agent that was used to kill North Korean exile Kim Jong-nam last year. Just 10 milligrams of VX on the skin can be lethal.
Still, despite the well-known lethality of Novichok, the UK is claiming Russia contaminated Sergei and Yulia Skripal with this incredibly lethal poisoning, which can kill in tiny droplets, and yet they survived?
They are claiming Russia, a nuclear superpower which builds the rockets American astronauts use to travel to space, and which put the first man in space, does not possess the capability to assassinate a target with a more lethal nerve agent, then one used by the weaker state of North Korea? North Korea is indescribably weaker than Russia in basically every way that matters, yet a known to be weaker nerve agent allegedly kills a man when Russia allegedly fails with an agent eight times more deadly?
Of course, Russia did not kill anyone, neither the Skripals, nor this couple, yet the accusations are now becoming even more absurd. Skripal was an ex-spy, and a traitor to Russia and the Russian people, and while Russia did not kill him, there is no evidence, Russia has always been known to defend her people and her interests. It is not illogical, to imagine that a spy who betrays any superpower, such as the US, Russia, China, etc. could theoretically face dangerous repercussions.
The idea of a spy being killed by a nerve agent is not a stretch, but Skripal was no threat to Russia, and he was not killed, even after the most deadly substance in the world was allegedly administered.
This couple, however, were not even spies. By all accounts, they are completely random people, unconnected to the Skripals, in the words of UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace. How they did they get contaminated by Novichok? Are we to believe military-grade nerve agent was just casually misplaced in a UK neighborhood? Military-grade nerve agent which kills instantly for all intents and purposes. Does the UK wish to imply Russia is not a great power, with the ability to attack its enemies, but one which is incapable of assassinations, and haplessly misplaces their nerve agents in little shires throughout Merry Olde England.
It seems like the UK wants to have their cake and eat it too.
In the article, I said:
The split personality complex in the west has given rise to the two heads of the western establishment: The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals. Together they form the Diarchy (rule of two) present in western governments, though perhaps the Latin synonym Duumvirate better describes it.
This split personality influences how they view reality.
Take for example their portrayal of Russia. There are two primary ways in which Russia is misrepresented in the west:
- As a toothless bear, a weak, anemic regional power nostalgic for old glory, incapable of letting go. A nation overall not unlike a destitute widow after the death of a great and powerful man, as Gogol described the Cossack lands of what we call Ukraine in Taras Bulba.
This is simply not reality.
- The dangerous bear, an Empire terrible and strong, ready to subject the world beneath the boot of an Imperialist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Communist, Soviet, Russian Orthodox Czar. If the West does not “do something” [the most terrifying words any third world country can hear] there will not be a free power in the world that will not kneel to the Czar of Moscow.
That statement is contradictory, primarily with the first image, but also with itself. You can not be a Communist or a Fascist, nor an Orthodox Tsarist for that matter all at once.
While the above examples are mutable to a degree, those are the prevailing stereotypes about Russia. They each serve two primary purposes:
- The portrayal of Russia as a declining power reduces panic when undesirable, for example when the Deep State feels comfortable with their position in society, and wish to promote their leadership as strong and stabilizing. It also reinforces overall pride and morale in the west. This is the favored personality of the Neo-Liberals.
- The portrayal of Russia as a resurgent, terrifying eastern horde on the verge of world dominance provides for the Military Industrial Complex, allows for increased military spending, and justifies both sabre rattling and adventurism, satisfying the warmongers. The portrayal of the Neo-Cons.
That split view of Russia is what we are seeing here again.
- First, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, Russia is this great dangerous threat to the world, which poisoned the Skripals with her dangerous omnipotent power. This extends to other things they claim about Russia. For example, Russia is so powerful, she rigged the US Election, masterfully manipulating the simple minded Americans, proving Russia is so powerful, that she can determine the result of the US election. This is what they imply, when they talk about the Russian threat – the Great Russian Bear.
- Secondly, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, that Russia is so weak, so incompetent, so incapable of executing her goals, that not only did she fail to assassinate the Skripals, but she misplaced some of her deadly dangerous nerve agent which is now hopelessly infecting innocent UK civilians. They claim Russia is so weak, and she is a declining power, and her leadership feels threatened, and so they lashed out at enemies, but because of weakness, she was not able to assassinate people with a more deadly nerve agent than the North Koreans used. The Mighty Czardom of Russia which stretches from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean failed where the puny hermit Kingdom succeeded?
Which one, you can’t have both
These are both ridiculous ideas. The first idea, that of Russia is this dangerous all-powerful superpower, is a reflection of the inferiority complex of the impotent West, the UK in particular.
After Brexit, the UK elite feels particularly insecure, and lacking allies, and so they wish to increase support or sympathy for themselves, by using the Russian Bear as a dangerous threat. This existed in racist Russophobic propaganda in the UK since the Crimean War in the mid 19th century. Since then, many UK publications portray Russia in a racist way.
Despite the SJW world the West lives in, in a tragic and disgusting way, racism against Russians is accepted by the West to this day. Russians are among the only groups Westerners are allowed to slander. This was touched on brilliantly by the Duran’s Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris.
Likewise, the idea that Russia somehow accidentally infected people with nerve agent (really, how do you do that) reflects the arrogance of the West. They want to portray Russia as this big dangerous country, yet their arrogance does not allow it to go so far.
Therefore, they produce an inconsistent narrative where Russia at one time, is the destroyer of worlds, and at another time, accidentally misplaces nerve agent because she is a toothless bear.
The reality is, Russia is truly a mighty bear, but she only protects her young, and she will not stray too far from her Taiga.
If Russia is threatened, she will defend herself, but she never meant any harm to the world. It should be blatantly obvious Rusia had nothing to do with this, but facts don’t matter in the West. Russia can be blamed for anything by propagandists. What did Russia ever do to the West, aside from save them from Nazism, and putting the first human in space?
And the idea of military grade nerve agent accidentally poisoning a suburban couple is just ridiculous. Some reports have went as far as to say:
One of the victims is believed to be a registered heroin user and local media speculated that the poison came from a contaminated syringe.
It must be said, at this moment, that is not confirmed. Victim blaming in any case, is also not appropriate, however, neither is Russia blaming, which is all the West does. There is no proof of any Russia involvement, and it is dangerous to provoke and accuse a Nuclear Superpower constantly.
In all, it must be remembered, that Russia is neither a toothless bear, nor a scary bear. By long-standing tradition, the Bears of Russian folk legend live in their taiga. They are not dangerous beasts, nor do they attack the homes of other animals, but if you attack the Taiga, retribution is inevitable.
The baisc rule of thumb, don’t threaten the Russian people with a campaign of dominance and extermination, and likewise, Russia will not be forced to defend herself and her young.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.