Skripal, Syria & UNSC: Mass Psychosis Swept the World This Week
The world is going crazy in the run-up to this Sunday’s election in Russia, with both the Mainstream Media and a large segment of Alt-Media losing their minds over the week’s latest developments, but an unemotional appraisal of recent events might deliver a much needed dose of sanity to the masses.
So many things happened this week, and they were each reported on and interpreted very differently by the players involved. The most headline-grabbing event is the UK trying to pin the blame on Russia for a chemical weapons false flag attack against a former anti-Kremlin traitor. The media circus surrounding this situation has seen the British elite embarrass themselves on the global stage in order to virtue signal to the Trump Administration that they support the neoconservative faction which they believe to be making progress in America’s “deep state” “civil war” (especially since Tillerson was replaced with Pompeo).
As has been remarked endlessly by countless pundits already, Russia has no sane motive to carry out such a brazen attack on the eve of what appears to be President Putin’s imminent electoral victory and just a few months before the celebrated World Cup begins. The “qui bono” principle points to this being a staged provocation in order to discredit the Russian President, create a pretext for boycotting the football tournament, and invent a “publicly plausible” “justification” for Western governments to sell to their people in convincing them of the “need” to intensify multilateral anti-Russian “containment” measures.
Relatedly, the fake news narrative that President Putin would order the use of chemical weapons in the UK preconditions the Western public to believe that President Assad would surely do the same against his “own people” (who in this context are the terrorists fighting in eastern Ghouta, some of whom are from abroad), even though the Syrian leader also has no rational reason for doing so. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is making tremendous progress in liberating this strategic Damascus suburb, so it makes no sense why it would resort to such desperate measures and end up playing into the weaponized Mainstream Media (MSM) narrative against it.
Pertaining to that, the US and its allies have been building the narrative once again that a SAA-launched chemical weapons attack could happen any day now, clearly intending to repeat the false flag scenario from last April that saw the US strike Syria with impunity. This time around, Russia said that it would respond, but with the crucial conditional being if —and only if — its servicemen were threatened. There’s actually nothing new about this statement at all since it should have been assumed that Russia and the US would respond against the other if their rival endangered their troops, but it was blown wildly out of proportion by most of the Alt-Media and framed as if a nuclear apocalypse was right around the corner.
The reality is much less dramatic since the US would probably inform Russia of its intended targets in advance through the so-called “deconfliction mechanism” just like it supposedly did last year, and Moscow for its part would ensure that its soldiers were safely out of harm’s way. Then, if the US strikes Syria once again just like it did back then, Russia wouldn’t militarily retaliate because, as First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee on International Affairs Vladimir Jabarov said at the time, “Russia has no intentions to use its Aerospace Forces against US missiles if Washington decides to carry out new strikes in Syria as it could lead to a large-scale war.”
What this means in real-life terms is that the World War III scenario being hyped up by the MSM and most of Alt-Media simply won’t happen and is nothing more than an emotionally exploitative narrative being utilized by each side in order to advance their various objectives. The UK’s Skripal scheme and the US’ possible strike against Syria might meet asymmetrical responses from Russia but won’t ever approach anything close to a hot war between nuclear powers.
Speaking of nuclear-armed states, some of the permanent members of the UNSC are openly deliberating whether or not Russia’s treasured veto should be taken away or diluted, but regardless of how morally and legally wrong this suggestion is, it really doesn’t change anything in practice no matter what happens. The US’ track record of unilateral military action in Iraq against the UNSC’s wishes and its taking advantage of Resolution 1973 to wage all-out war on Libya shows that the Security Council is physically unable to restrain America.
The only purpose that the UNSC has is to provide moral justification for a military campaign, issue general statements pertaining to conflicts where one of the five permanent members isn’t directly involved, and approve of peacekeeping missions to “Global South” countries. Other than that, none of its members have ever been deterred from defending or advancing their own interests as their elite define them (whether morally/legally right or wrong, or representative or unrepresentative of their people’s will), so all of this Russophobic talk of thuggishly taking away Moscow’s veto has more of an insulting soft power value than a substantial hard power one.
The fact of the matter is that nothing that happened this week was all that surprising since everything has proceeded from the same anti-Russian script, albeit modified for particular situations (the Skripal & Syria chemical weapons false flags and the UNSC veto-stripping threats) but nonetheless pursuing the same narrative objective of trying to “discredit” Russia in general and “defame” President Putin personally. The purpose behind these coordinated provocations is to build the basis for rallying a multilateral & multidimensional “containment coalition” against Moscow.
In the process of these fast-moving plans finally being activated in the immediate run-up to Russia’s forthcoming elections this Sunday, the MSM and many of its Alt-Media competitors have been whipped up into an hysterical frenzy that’s led to a mass psychosis, one so bad that a lot of regular folks have fallen for the fear mongering and are now convinced that the end of the world is near.
Rather, an unemotional reading of the international situation reveals that this conclusion is hyperbole, and that all previous indicators suggested that events would expectedly move in this direction. Instead of being “out of control”, everything is actually “under control” — the US and its allies are only doing what Russia had already predicted they would, and it’s difficult to imagine that anyone in the Kremlin is surprised by the latest twists and turns in the New Cold War.
The only ones being misled aren’t the decision makers on either side who actually matter in determining the course of future events, but the masses whose views influence very little despite what they’ve been led to believe. Paradoxically, the moment that they step out of the media “matrix” and actually realize their true powerlessness might be the point when they’re more empowered than ever and actually make progress in enacting tangible change.