Let’s Talk About Motive in The Skripal Case: Let’s Talk About Syria

Today’s world is more interconnected than ever before, and in a manner of ways. On the positive end of the spectrum, one witnesses the fomentation of joint economic and trading ventures like One Belt–One Road and on the negative end of the spectrum, one witnesses the phenomenon of state sponsored collective revenge, wrapped up in a shell of state sponsored collective guilt.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the incident involving the poisoning of the retired British spy of Russian origin, Sergey Skripal. Skripal’s illness came at the same time as the Syrian Arab Army, along with its Russian and Iranian partners in the fight against terrorism, have inflicted substantive blows against Takfiri terrorist groups who for years have occupied the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta.

On the 12th of March, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley threatened missile strikes against Syria due to the general US and European dissatisfaction with the fact that Syria and its allies have been making substantial progress against one of the most densely populated areas of US and Gulfi backed terrorist occupation in all of the Syrian Arab Republic – that of Eastern Ghouta.  The following day, both Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia’s Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov stated that any US strikes against Damascus would be met with a military response that would involve disarming points of origin of such an attack. While Russian officials were careful to state that the reason for such a robust statement was due to the fact that a US strike could put Russian lives in danger, due to the highly concentrated amount of Russian targets in and around Damascus, the statement had the overriding effect of saying any attack on Damascus would be automatically met with a vigorous and thorough Russian response.

While the US and its partners have come very close to igniting a war between superpowers in Syria, they have always just barely stopped short of such a catastrophe. Ever since the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2401 on the 24th of February, 2018, the US and its partners have been in a bind. Resolution 2401 calls for a general ceasefire in Syria and further mandates the organisation of humanitarian corridors for civilians trapped in terrorist occupied regions. Crucially, the resolution allows for the continued neutralisation of terrorist groups throughout the wider ceasefire. The US along with the UK, France, China and Russia voted in favour of Resolution 2401. Yet on the 12th of March, Nikki Haley called for a new resolution which would not exempt fighting against terrorist groups from a ceasefire. Because the US and its partners voted for 2401, it is only natural to describe Haley’s statements from the 12th of March as “voters remorse“.

In respect of 2401, the US backed itself into a corner. After days of calling for a ceasefire, they got one, but due to Russian tabled amendments, it was not one the US was entirely comfortable with as it allowed US, Gulfi and “Israeli” proxy terrorists to be fired up as an exception to the general humanitarian measure. Knowing that Russia would veto any new resolution calling for a ceasefire which did not exempt terrorist groups, might the US and its allies have gone to plan B? The motive is clear enough.

While the poisoning of Sergey Skripal occurred on the 4th of March, it has only been since the 12th of March that Britain has pivoted from vaguely blaming the Russian Federation for his illness, to directly accusing Russia of being responsible for an “act of aggression”, in spite of not having any evidence to tie Russia to the incident.

Because there is no evidence pointing to any culprit in the Skirpal case, as confirmed by UK police, in spite of the UK government’s protestations, all the world has to go on when attempting to assign prospective guilt, is motive. Today, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya spoke before the UN Security Council and clarified that according to the well established scientific method, if the UK were to determine the specific substance which led to Sergey Skripal’s illness, it would need to be in possession of a control sample of the substance in order to test it against that which was found on the person of Sergey Skripal.

Because the poisoning “just happened” to occur next to Britain’s’ largest chemical weapons laboratory, there is every reason to assume that whatever actually happened, combined with the fact that an otherwise localised incident has been turned into a literally international issue, was designed to distract from the fact that the US and its European allies have been checkmated in respect of Eastern Ghouta.

Since it seems that Russia’s steadfast promise to defend its men and women in Damascus has effectively staved off a US attack, the western alliance did the next best thing to attacking Russia in Syria – it decided to frame Russia for something that happened on English soil.

This is of course speculation and it should not be read in any other way. But when it comes to determining a motive, which is all that the wider world can do at such a time, seeing that no evidence regarding the Skripal incident, it would seem that this could be one of the most likely scenarios. A former Russian intelligence head has in fact stated that western agents may well be behind the entire incident, while it is perfectly obvious that they are behind formulating the narrative that was delivered by the US and UK envoys to the United Nations hours ago.

It was Nikki Haley who linked a seemingly unrelated crime in England to allegations of the use of chemical weapons. More importantly these allegations involved Syria, North Korea and Russia. If anyone is so naive to believe that there is no wider geostrategic motive behind the US/UK narrative, one must think again.

Comments are closed.