Published On: Wed, Mar 7th, 2018

The Ghouta chlorine incidents – and Putin’s timely state of the nation address?

Share This
Tags

Late on Monday 5th March, Twitter started to become active with posters using the hashtagged term “ghouta” to claim that the Syrian Government had struck civilians with chlorine. It looked like it could be the big false flag that had been anticipated ever since the Russian Ministry of Defence announced that it had been tipped off about large amounts of chemical weapon being moved by al-Nusra (see the footnote in the previous FBEL article on this subject – here).

There appeared to be a problem, however. The Anglo-globalist corporate-media had evidently decided that the story didn’t have any legs. As has been discussed before at FBEL, Twitter propaganda campaigns are futile if the corporate-media doesn’t validate them with its own joined up, concertedly lock-step coverage – and they don’t do that when they haven’t got the go ahead from above. Moving into Tuesday, and chlorine gas was getting a small mention in some corporate-media internet material, but it was by no means anywhere near all-pervasive. Indeed, it looked like nothing was going to be made of it after all, otherwise the corporate-media would have seized the opportunity in the first moments to frame the Syrian Government. As things stand – and it repeats what happened with a similar campaign last week – the story has fizzled out. Again, it’s because the Americans are powerless to stop the Syrian advance in Eastern Ghouta.

However, if the dots are joined, then perhaps we can visualise a scenario in which the US Government was convinced that there was something it could do. Moreover, we can envisage a development in this scenario whereby the Russians had cottoned on to the prospect of this something being imminent, and acted to prevent it.

The first clue is the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review of February just gone, which lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Proponents of barking-mad schemes of world domination by the USA, like Brookings, think that American tactical nukes could be used to deter Russia; the example cited in one particular article on this issue involved response to a tactical Russian first strike – but realistically, why would the Americans limit itself to these parameters alone when it finds itself wanting to deter an enemy?

The second clue is the presentation by Putin on new Russian nuclear missile capability which was made as part of a longer address in a state of the nation speech on 1st March. For many analysts in alternative media, the new weapons announced by Putin were a giant leap ahead of current US ability. The reader should search elsewhere for specifics of the advantages that Russia now appears to have. It suffices for this article to say that Russian technological superiority has been observable in the deployment of weapons systems in Syria and elsewhere in moments of encounter between Russian planes and US Navy ships.

Indeed, the brand new British aircraft carrier class was already completely vulnerable to a Russian missile when it was launched. So, collectively, there is plenty of evidence for veering on the side of believing Putin.  Naturally, the Propaganda Regurgitation Corps of the Anglo-globalist military machine – i.e. the corporate-media – has started to mock Putin’s presentation. Even so, Theresa May and Donald Trump “agreed… during a phone call that Vladimir Putin’s claim that Russia had nuclear weapons that could evade U.S. anti-missile defense systems was ‘irresponsible.’”

Would that be as irresponsible as withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is what the Bush administration did? Using the “War on Terror” as a rationale, the US evidently wanted to seal its global hegemony by working to neutralise an enemy nuclear threat with missile shields. Obviously, this is an invitation for those countries capable of it to try and develop missiles that evade defences. 2018, Putin in Moscow. Voila.

And of course Trump and May would call Putin’s presentation “irresponsible”, because it demoralises the US military with news that it is technologically inferior – another drawback on top of being inferior in terms of the quality of individual personnel (thank goodness for evacuation helicopters). While the Russians have been developing invincible nuclear weapons, the Americans have been fostering gender equality in their ranks.

As for the British, this is what the author wrote in a recent FBEL article long before the announcement of these Russian super weapons:

Remember, this escalation of anti-terror capability [into permanent paramilitary] comes at a time when the British military is meant to be broke, demoralised, and worried about being light-years behind the Russians. The British Government’s priorities are not securing an effective national defence. Instead, the British Government is clearly more interested in terrorising the British people to secure control over them – because that is exactly what “anti-terror” is all about.

It used to be gunboat diplomacy, but now when the British Government wants to flex its muscles it announces that it might boycott the soccer world cup when it is hosted by Russia. Be clear, though, when Boris Johnson raised this possibility, he wasn’t talking about keeping the England team out of the competition – how could a British Government withstand the backlash by millions of arrested development grown babies whose binky had been confiscated? The boycott would be by British dignitaries – that is to say MPs; and perhaps it would be a good idea if, by then, evidence had been found in Syria whereby elements of the British Government would be seen to be guilty of war crime. Why would MPs want to be in Russia under those circumstances?

Thirdly, and returning to the development of the main thread of this article, Putin was pretty unambiguous when he said that a nuclear attack on an ally would be viewed as an attack on Russia itself. Under such circumstances, there would be no hesitation by the Russians to respond with the new Russian capability.

What this pledge does is extend the umbrella of protection to places where the US might have utilised their lower threshold for nuclear weapons usage; Syria for instance. And the author wonders whether Putin made the specific declarations that he did because there was foreknowledge in Moscow of a nuclear response to a big chemical weapons false flag: an operation planned to halt the retaking of Ghouta.

It’s speculation, of course, it can’t be anything else. Although, the barking-mad “Strangelove” militarists of the US Government, having learned to love the bomb, might have been desperate enough to go ahead and rain a few down on the rampaging Syrian forces – and in the proximity of the civilians that the US cites a responsibility to protect. There’s desperation, and there’s being beyond barking-mad – and after Putin had finished and had got off the stage, the insanity of the Anglo-globalists could no longer gaurantee a nuclear exchange.

Because the big persuader had to be the missile that can evade missile defence shields and never gives up until it finds a way to its target; Putin takes up the telling:

Russia’s advanced arms are based on the cutting-edge, unique achievements of our scientists, designers and engineers. One of them is a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile – a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defence and counter-air defence systems. I will repeat this several times today.

Apparently, in the demonstration that went on over Putin’s shoulder on a large screen, these missiles ploughed into Florida. Why would they do that? asked the likes of the BBC. The answer was as follows:

[Florida] has high-profile targets including President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort…

There are several nuclear bunkers at President Trump’s Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where he has spent a number of weekends since taking office…

Another military target could be US Central Command, which is headquartered at MacDill Air Base in Tampa.

Known as Centcom, it is responsible for the operational theatre spanning parts of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa.

So, the message was being sent that in the event of a nuclear exchange, the head would become severed from the body. Russia wouldn’t be at war with America per se, it would be at war with the maniacs who previously thought that they could survive a war.

Naturally, the likes of the BBC couldn’t acknowledge any of this:

But analysts say that Florida is unlikely to be a prime target in the event of nuclear armageddon… Russia’s priority would be to blunt US retaliatory capability.

There’s no doubt that Russia might want to blunt US retaliatory capability, but by ensuring the warmongers can’t survive a nuclear war, and making sure that they know they can’t, Russia is clearly as interested in reasserting the concept of mutually assured destruction, and impressing those who especially need to be reminded of it that they are no longer immune.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. TFS says:

    I think a couple of Nukes at Yellowstone would do the job.

    Several more missiles with chemical warfare agents in the water supply would do it with some missiles on capped oil heads both on land and under the sea off the coast of America.

    Of course if Putin want some hints…Washington would do just fine.