Featured Image
Joe BidenShutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — Recent reports from Russia and elsewhere raise the specter of a “false flag” chemical attack being staged by the U.S. in Ukraine. Such an event would surely spark outrage in the West, whose support for the war against Russia in Ukraine is waning.  

According to a Russian defense minister, Igor Kirillov, the United States has warned of a chemical attack by Russia, whilst transporting chemical warfare agents to the front line. In a presentation on the subject he presented several images showing some, but not all, of the evidence of his claims. 

Kirillov maintains the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, John Sullivan, remarked in a conference on February 22 that “Russia is preparing to use chemical weapons in the Special Military Operation.”

The Russians claim that they have evidence that the chemical agents required to stage an attack were delivered to Kramatorsk on February 10, 2023. 

In all, there were 16 tightly sealed metal boxes in the rail car. A half of them had the marking of a chemical hazard, the BZ inscription, and also the markings with two red stripes corresponding to the category of chemical agents with a temporary incapacitating effect.

Further to this, the Russians point to a large recent delivery of protective clothing and antidotes. Taken together, these deliveries present a compelling case to Kirillov, who says:

The facts of the simultaneous delivery of toxic chemicals and means of protection against them testify to the attempt to stage large-scale provocations using the BZ combat psychotropic chemical agent in the conflict zone.

Can these reports be trusted? Is the West capable of doing such a thing? If it were, where would the necessary materials come from? 

The first question must be treated with the caveat that this is war, and both sides will make claims which should not be accepted at face value. Are the Russian claims evidenced? Partly – they have not shown it all. They claim to have photographed containers being unloaded at Kramatorsk, some fifty or so kilometers from the current frontline. 

With the Russians encircling Bakhmut, and the Ukrainians withdrawing from this heavily fortified frontline position, Ukraine’s defenses are considerably weakened. Thousands of Ukrainian troops per day have been sacrificed to postpone this retreat, because any news of defeat plays poorly in the media campaign required to prolong the war. 

This war is not about Ukraine. It is undertaken to “liquidate” Russia, as President Vladimir Putin correctly observed last week. There is no realistic chance of defeating the Russian army in the field without direct NATO involvement. A chemical attack would galvanize wavering Western support and provide a perfect casus belli for the direct involvement of NATO forces. 

Of course, such a conflict would be impossible to contain beneath the nuclear threshold, since its aim is the destruction of the Russian Army and the overthrow of its government. This means it would present a second existential threat of an order far greater than the first – the absorption of Ukraine into NATO. Such a threat is the very last resort under which the Russians would use nuclear weapons. 

Whilst battlefield reversals continue, the West has won the propaganda war at home. The Western media has been preparing its populations for a chemical attack by Russia since March 2022, as this BBC report shows:

Some military analysts fear that if the coming Russian assault in the Donbass fails to achieve its objectives then, in desperation, President Putin could authorize the use of chemical weapons on stubborn defenders.

If Russia were to use weapons like poison gas in this war, it would be seen as crossing a major red line, most probably prompting calls for the West to take action.

Following this narrative, created as an easily weaponized explanation in waiting, the Russians are going to lose and resort to chemical and biological warfare. 

The fact the Russians are not losing has yet to really break through into the screen-based sense of reality which occupies the minds of many. The media has told us all for a year that Putin is mad, dying, his armies deserting and his artillery running out of ammunition. The Russians now occupy the fifth of Ukraine containing most of its industry, agriculture and Russian population.  

The economies of Europe, and not that of Russia, are suffering the worst conditions since World War Two, with even the U.S. facing stagflation. The United States has blown up Germany’s biggest gas pipeline, and it continues to flood a corrupt black hole with weapons and cash having learned nothing from the debacle of Afghanistan. 

Does this look like “winning”?

There is simply no reason for the Russians to gas their fellow Russian speakers. Secondly, the Black Sea Steppe – the southeastern portion of Ukraine – sees winds which would likely carry much of the toxic cloud back into Russia.  

Initial points of 5-day backward trajectories of air masses particles for periods with dry winds at the meteorological stations located in the Black Sea Steppe province.

The president of the United States remarked last March on the “red line” of the BBC, warning of a “severe price” to pay if Russia resorts to chemical warfare. 

Is the West capable of doing this? According to this report, from the late Robert Fisk, it has done so already in Syria. Seymour Hersh, recently not in the news for detailing the U.S. operation to blow up Germany’s pipelines, has also claimed gas attacks were staged in Syria to drum up support for war, indicating U.S. ally and NATO member Turkey was heavily involved in one such attempt. Human Rights International has repeatedly alleged false flag attacks in Syria, which it documents here. 

Of course, this could be a masterful trick in itself. The Russians could indeed use chemical weapons in a war they are winning, which would blow back on their own populations, and then blame it on the USA. This would have the ingenious result of inviting a full military response from NATO.  

It is a strategy which is credible if you believe the only reason for this war is that Putin is mad. Or Hitler. Or both 

For the reality based community, the troubling question of U.S. bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine remains. The Chinese have called for an investigation of these facilities, whose existence is denied by the mainstream media but is proven in the testimony of Victoria Nuland who said to congress that the U.S. has “biological research facilities” in Ukraine, and that “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops… may be seeking to gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”

The Chinese have approached the United Nations Security Council over the matter, claiming the Ukrainian labs are only a fraction of the 336 such facilities the US operates worldwide. 

Time will tell whether this particular nightmare is the means by which the world is consumed by war. It is likely that there will be some stratagem deployed to encourage the West to lose its mind and rush to war, as so many did with Iraq and with Afghanistan. I marched against the first as it was an act of madness clearly based on a lie. To oppose that lie – that Saddam had chemical weapons of mass destruction – was to be a dangerous traitor and a lover of despots. 

Our leaders have form. They deceived us into applauding atrocities in the Middle East, terrified us into our homes under lockdown and made us hated by our friends and relatives over a disease which has vanished with the outbreak of this war. These people are the enemy and as long as they remain in power nothing they tell us can be trusted. Pray for peace, help your friends and find a means to explain yourself to the people with whom you disagree. Escalation by outrage may well prevent the Russians from winning. It will produce, in its stead, a war that no one can win.

Contact your elected representatives today to express your opposition to the policy of forever more war. Negotiations, not annihilation.