On 20 March 2018, I published the following article with Evolve Politics. At some point during the next two years, the article mysteriously disappeared from their website. When I noticed, I got in touch with them. In private messages, they apologised and reported that it was probably lost in a server transfer. My other two articles with them were luckily left unscathed. Curiously, it was the only article of my three with them that questioned the western narrative on Russia, and I know it got them heat. Evolve Politics never re-uploaded the article. I was thus left with several conspiratorial thoughts, but then again, server glitches do happen.

Regardless, I think it’s a useful article for the historical record, so I’ve replicated it below. You can see an archive version here. The article should be read alongside my investigation of other Russian murders said to have taken place on British soil here, as well as my long 2018 review of US-Russian relations becoming increasingly sour.

So far, the only positive evidence put forward by Theresa May in her attempt to prove that Russia were behind the Salisbury attack on March 4th is the supposed use of a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent:

“Mr Speaker, on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia.

Based on this capability, combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations — including against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets — the UK government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act.

And there were only two plausible explanations. Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, has agreed with the structure of May’s argument, though he has called for more specific evidence to be brought forth.

What are Novichoks?

To assess the veracity of these claims, some background knowledge on Novichoks is required. The word literally means ‘newcomers’ or ‘new boy’. They were developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970’s in an effort to develop deadly nerve agents from ordinary, easily accessible, and relatively un-monitored chemical precursors.

The whistle-blower Russian chemist Vil Mizayanov published reports in the Russian press describing its existence and nature in the early 1990’s. He was charged as a traitor by Russia, though his trial later collapsed. He soon relocated to the USA, where he released a 1995 report describing the state of Russian chemical weapons, including a discussion on Novichoks. In 2008, he published a book on his story. This book, State Secrets, published the actual chemical formulae of the Novichok nerve agents to an English-speaking audience.

The Salisbury Attack

Mirzayanov has been interviewed by many outlets recently, giving his thoughts on the Salisbury attack. In an interview with Voice of America, he addressed the suggestion by the British Government that non-state actors could have originally stolen Novichoks from the decaying USSR:

“Mirzayanov: The Soviet Union collapsed 27 years ago, and if somewhere in the republics there was pure Novichok, it has long since decomposed and is not suitable as a weapon.

Any chemical toxic substance decomposes, and there is no compound that retains its properties for a long time. In the first year, 2 percent is lost, in the second 3 (percent), and the resulting products of decomposition accelerate the process of disintegration. That is why the storage and disposal of toxic substances is a big problem, which, moreover, is more expensive than production.”

He then offered an explanation of how the agent in question was probably brought into the country. He said it was probably as a binary agent — two chemical weapon precursors stored separately, then mixed shortly before attack:

“Mirzayanov: … It is because of the difficulties in storage and disposal that no one now produces the so-called “final product.” Components are produced, “component parts” that are relatively harmless separately, which are combined immediately before use…

… [T]he production of so-called “semi-products,” which are components of binary weapons, can be carried out quite officially. At some enterprise, they can carry out a plan for the production of pesticides without even knowing that they are actually producing chemical weapons.

Q: In your view, how easy was it to transport such substances across borders and then use them?

Mirzayanov: It (was) not very difficult. You need two glass vials and any agent for creating a high pressure — for example, light volatile gas. Ampules must be broken before use, and the mixed substances will provide the desired mixture. Then, as an aerosol, it can be sprayed. But this is a very crude version, and I’m sure the FSB could come up with a more sophisticated means.”

Given this, could a non-state actor, like the Russian mafia, have produced the agent used to attack the Skripals? In an interview with the Guardian, Mirzayanov was dismissive of the suggestion:

“It’s very, very tough stuff… I don’t believe it. You need a very high-qualified professional scientist… Because it is dangerous stuff. Extremely dangerous. You can kill yourself. First of all you have to have a very good shield, a very particular container. And after that to weaponize it — weaponize it is impossible without high technical equipment. It’s impossible to imagine.”

According to the OPCW, weaponisation means adding the chemical agent to a munition or delivery device before targeting a victim. Thus, if we assume that the Novichok in question was indeed produced abroad, the picture Mirzayanov gives us is as follows: the chemical precursors could have been smuggled into the country separately. Before they could be used as a chemical weapon to target the Skripals, they would need to be weaponised domestically, that is, added to a delivery device. This requires a high degree of technical expertise, to which a mafia acting domestically simply would not have access.

Where Did the Novichok Agent Come From?

As we have seen, Mirzayanov dismisses the idea that mafias could be responsible for producing the Novichoks. That leaves State actors as the only potential culprits. Mirzayanov is convinced that it was the Kremlin alone who could have done this. Speaking in an interview held on March 14th with the French Press Agency (AFP), he offered two alternative explanations for where the Novichok agents used in the Salisbury attack came from:

“’Only the Russians’ developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. ‘They kept it and are still keeping it in secrecy.’ The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon.”

So either it was the Russians, or it was anyone else. As to the likelihood of the latter scenario, Mirzayanov doubts it:

“Mirzayanov: …This was really a demonstrative reprisal, but in my opinion, Moscow was sure that no one would find traces of the substance. This chemical agent does not officially exist; it is not mentioned in any of the lists of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Practically no one has been engaged in its development for almost 30 years. It is obvious to me that Moscow hoped that no one would catch them.”

The shrewd interviewer probed him on this assertion:

“Q: But you published the formula for Novichok eight years ago.

Mirzayanov: I don’t know if the FSB saw my book. Perhaps it was read in one of the (FSB) departments, but in another (FSB department), which was preparing the attack, they had heard nothing about it (the book).”

Moreover, Mirzayanov admitted, albeit grudgingly, that other countries have probably used his formulae to develop Novichoks for themselves:

“Mirzayanov: The British could easily have synthesized it on the basis of the formulas that I published in my book, published in 2008… Each country takes care of its own security, and as part of the study of possible threats, a model could have been created. So the test samples could be from many countries, but the production was fine-tuned only in the USSR (former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Russia.”

Thus Mirzayanov’s explanation of why he thought the Russians believed they would get away with using Novichoks, was by casting aspersions on their reading habits. It is, of course, highly unlikely that Russian intelligence agencies had no idea that Novichoks were in the public domain, and were being widely studied.

Could it Only Have Been Russia?

Mirzayanov is sure the attack was carried out by Russia. However, he has given us enough information to be skeptical of that conclusion.

Firstly, he himself has admitted that the chemical structures of these weapons have been in the public domain for at least a decade. Indeed, he is the one who made them public.

Secondly, Mirzayanov admits that other countries have probably developed Novichoks for test purposes at least. His confidence that only Russia could have fine-tuned the agents seems misplaced — he has no idea what other countries have been up to for the last decade, or more.

Thus, based on information provided by the man who initially exposed the existence of Novichoks, we can already refute the Theresa May’s line that only Russia could have synthesised Novichoks.

But theory is one thing, and fact another. In fact, there is a long public record of other countries having contact with Novichoks. For instance, in 1999 the BBC reported that the actual original production facilities which were believed to have synthesised Novichoks were dismantled by the US. We can very plausibly infer that US military chemists will have therefore had at least some experience with Novichoks.

Moreover, according to Spectroscopy Now, in 2016, Iran, in full cooperation with the OPCW, synthesised Novichoks and added their formulae to the OPCW database. If Iran can do it under monitored conditions, there is absolutely no reason why better resourced nations couldn’t do the same.

The UK government knows all this. The wording of their own statements betrays their duplicity. Craig Murray, the ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who resigned after being disillusioned by the war on terror reports:

“I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a “novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China.

To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type developed by Russia” is the precise phrase used in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday:

This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.

When the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise.”

The Global State of Chemical Weapons

Boris Johnson claimed on Sunday that he has evidence ‘from within’ the last ten years that Russia has been stockpiling Novichoks. The meaning implied is that this is fresh evidence, though as Craig Murray notes, the wording allows for it to be nine years-old, out-of-date, irrelevant, and subsequently dismissed intelligence. However, if there really is long-standing intelligence regarding Russia and Novichoks, then it is alarming that our intelligence agencies have not informed the OPCW who, as recently as September 2017, issued the following statement:

“The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, made a statement today marking the completion of the full destruction of the 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons possessed by the Russian Federation.

The Director-General stated:

‘The completion of the verified destruction of Russia’s chemical weapons programme is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I commend all of their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication.’ ”

Naturally, Johnson’s statements were not echoed by any other government sources. Moreover, his proven track record of ‘misstatements’ does not go in his favour, and nor does the information provided by Mirzayanov that these weapons decay fast and are extremely expensive to maintain. The OPCW would have presumably noticed a massive part of Russia’s chemical weapons programme continuing. Indeed, the position of an international body designed to track and monitor chemical weapons at this point has surely has more authority than Boris Johnson’s supposed ‘intelligence.’

Returning to the OPCW, their statement confirms that any initial weaponised forms of Novichoks the USSR made have been dismantled. In fact, we could have said this with some confidence in 1999 when the US dismantled the main Novichok production site in Uzbekistan. However, the OPCW can give us certainty that any residual stocks are now depleted.

This does not entirely rule out Russia as a source of Novichoks, however. As Mirzayanov noted, Novichoks can be weaponised from unmonitored, relatively benign chemical precursors. However, to do so would require substantial chemical facilities in the UK — which we can assume the Russian state does not have. Thus, what we can therefore assume is that Novichoks in their weaponised forms could not have come from Russia, and it is also implausible to suggest the Russians weaponised them here. Assuming we trust the OPCW’s assessment — and we have no reason not to — the Russian state seems to be low on the list of potential suspects.

But what about other state actors? Could someone else have smuggled weaponised Novichoks into Britain? Who still has active stocks of chemical weapons?

The USA is one country that has not yet destroyed its chemical weapon stockpile. This is of particular note given that their contact with Novichok-producing facilities. The US’ failure to rid itself of chemical weapons has not missed the notice of Putin, who used the OPCW declaration last year to lambast the USA for thrice delaying its target. Currently, the USA says it will take until 2023 for it to rid itself of its chemical weapons. To their credit at least, the USA has reduced its stock by 90%, and is publicly making steps towards destroying the rest.

While Porton Down may well have test samples of Novichoks, the UK stopped its chemical weapons programme in the 1950’s, and has since destroyed its own stockpile. This was something Margaret Thatcher bemoaned, proposing to her ministers in 1984 that the UK should restart their development. In the end, due to ‘political difficulties’, her proposals were stalled. The compromise was for the UK to secretly encourage the USA to update its stockpiles. A special relationship indeed.

Israel is another country of interest. Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2013 that it has major stocks of chemical weapons. However it has never joined the OPCW and declared its stock, and like North Korea, it has never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. It therefore has an active stock of chemical weapons, with no public intention to reduce them.

Egypt, while probably having far fewer weapons than the better-resourced Israel, is in a similar position, claiming it is only reciprocating Israel’s stance.

There is also a long list of other countries with known or suspected Chemical Weapon stockpiles, including China, Japan, and various Eastern European nations.

Conclusions

From the above analysis we can infer that the use of Novichoks in no way exclusively points to the Russian State, or non-Russian mafias, for the following reasons:

1. The chemical structure of these agents have been in the public domain for at least a decade.
2. Other countries have already developed these agents publicly, and it is likely many have done so secretly at least as test samples.
3. The USA and Israel, among others, have active stocks of chemical weapons.
4. Russia’s stockpile of chemical weapons has been publicly dismantled, as confirmed by the OPCW in 2017.
5. If Russian non-State actors stole Novichoks after the dissolution of the USSR, their stock would have decayed by now.
6. Non-state Russian actors are unlikely to have the technical know-how or wherewithal to store or weaponise Novichoks safely.

It is clear then that Theresa May’s argument that the use of Novichoks immediately indicts the Kremlin is patently false. While Russia could well have been behind the Salisbury attack, there is a significant burden of proof on the government to demonstrate this with evidence. We would need to be convinced that Russia would use a chemical agent the OPCW says it doesn’t have, which has clear echoes of the Soviet label they are trying to shake off, to kill a spy it gave up in 2010, in the context of international pressure over Eastern Ghouta, Putin’s elections, and the World Cup. It would also need to demonstrate that Russian involvement in killing the Skripals is more likely than other countries with active stocks of chemical weapons, who have an interest in demonising Russia due to their support of the Assad-Regime in Syria.

Twenty three diplomats may well have already been expelled, but so far, concrete evidence for culpability has not been forthcoming.

Euthanasia is not assisted dying, it is legalised murder. We all know that many patients suffer enormously. But any suicidal impulses should be treated, not facilitated. Through good pain control, psychological support, and social prescribing we can do a huge amount to reduce suicidal urges. To allow a patient to kill themselves, nay, to actively give them the means to do so, is an abandonment of the principles of medicine — to do good, and to do no harm. If even one patient euthanised would have eventually preferred to have lived — and there will be thousands, not one — then we will have facilitated the greatest step backwards in the history of medicine.

There is of course, a slippery slope too. We may think that it will be used solely for the ‘worst’ of diseases, like ALS, but that will change. Over the next generation of euthanasia, certain conditions will become automatic death sentences, or more aptly, suicide sentences. Then our tolerance will be reduced. Perhaps in the next generation, Parkinson’s Disease will be seen as intolerable? Give it a hundred years and who knows how many patients with what diseases will be written off, with consultations nudging towards euthanasia as an option. Recently in Canada, a depressed man called Alan Nichols was euthanised.

It has not even been 4 years since Canada legalised euthanasia.

You may think that this is too pessimistic. That another 100 years of medical innovation will mean that debilitating chronic diseases will almost vanish, and that the need for euthanasia will dwindle. This is sorely mistaken. Pharmaceutical companies will not waste their funding efforts on diseases for which people will kill themselves. They will pivot even more quickly to less debilitating cash-cow conditions. What little funding is currently available will diminish.

Thus in every aspect, euthanasia represents the death of medicine. The BMA must not by party to it.

Dr. Umar Nasser
Core Trainee in Psychiatry

At 10pm on the 12th of December, the hopes and dreams of millions of Brits were crushed.

There was something darkly hilarious about it.

Four years of fierce activism and advocacy, weeks of campaigning and online sharing, all crushed in a single moment. The TV graphics fells, and an overweight, shaggy haired Etonian loomed forward on the screen. It was the stuff of nightmares. The Prime Minister for the next five years at least, Boris Johnson stepped forward.

Goliath had won.

How did we get here? How did it all go so wrong for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party? What follows is an analysis of three important factors, each more significant than the last. Be warned — this not a message of hope. It is an epitaph for the best Prime Minister we never had, for a manifesto we sorely needed. Lessons can be learned, but only if the students are paying attention. Those students are the MPs of the Labour Party, the now demotivated left-wing activists, and those few journalists left who harbour socialist tendencies. Without understanding the factors that led to this loss — both within and without — the left is doomed to permanent opposition.

1. Jeremy Corbyn’s Leadership Ethos Was Too Soft

Make no mistake: Jeremy Corbyn is an exceptional man. He had exceptional vision, exceptional integrity, exceptional knowledge, and exceptional compassion. But as a leader, he was only good. In the face of exceptional opposition, being just good was not good enough. He, and by extension his team, needed to be far more skillful and more ruthless operators right from the start.

The problem was this — Corbyn was a threat to every type of established power going. First, he was a threat to the financial world. He planned to introduce innovative financial taxes to increase the tax take. He planned to give 10% of larger corporation shares to workers. He and his team despised tax havens — literally the beating heart of the modern British financial empire.

Next, he was a threat to the military-industrial complex. He was an opponent to the wars in Iraq, Libya, and mindless intervention in Syria. Corbyn and his close ally, Seamus Milne, believed in détente with other military superpowers like Russia. All of this was a cacophony to the ears of the pro-war lobby. Diplomacy is bad for their bottom line.

Last, he was a threat to Israel. One of the most Pro-Palestinian MPs out there, Corbyn knew and understand the crimes of Israel and the suffering of the Palestinian people. He would not be manipulated and he would not be bought. He believed what he said and said what he believed. As we shall see, this could not be tolerated.

So what happened? The entire world turned against him. First was the Parliamentary Labour Party, with numerous MPs brought in during the Blair years opposing him. These MPs hated the stigma of ‘socialism.’ They styled themselves as centrists, which was code for ‘nice Tories’. These centrists were as ‘sensible’ as the Tories economically, but not quite as nasty. Corbyn was a living refutation of their political views — a pro-peace, economically left-wing, uncorrupted individual who had massive support from the Labour membership. They were pro-war, economically conservative, Tory-lite types who had just been given a hiding by the membership in the Leadership elections.

This could not be allowed to stand.

Almost immediately, they plotted against him. An endless torrent of abuse started coming Corbyn’s way. In 2016, they staged a coup. They failed, and Corbyn’s support solidified. Another year passed, and in 2017 Corbyn managed to yet again refute their line that he’s ‘unelectable’ by increasing Labour’s vote share by 10% — the largest increase since WWII.

But Corbyn and his team made a mistake. He thought that he could keep these same plotters close to him without being left exposed. But what followed were years of endless undermining of his leadership. They fed into the anti-semitism smears of Corbyn, causing unbelievable damage to his reputation. They ensured that key allies like Chris Williamson and innocent bystanders like Jackie Walker were smeared and removed from the Labour Party. With Tom Watson as the obvious ringleader, Corbyn seemed to spend most of his time fire-fighting against many of his own MPs.

This was absurd. Right from the beginning, Corbyn needed to realise that the centrists had been roundly rejected by both the public in the 2015 election, and the membership in the 2015/2016 leadership elections. They had an astounding track record of being wrong on the major issues of war and austerity. They were clearly disloyal to him and his faction. They plainly worked against him. Especially after his 2017 performance, he should have taken strong measures against them, made an example out of anyone who betrayed him, and enforced strong cabinet discipline from early on. Probably the best tool for this was to explicitly support Mandatory Reselection. If passed, the threat of reselection would have made even the most anti-Corbyn MP bite their tongue. Had Corbyn been stronger against his insurgent PLP, the membership would have been on their side. It would have cost him nothing, and given him everything. One cannot sleep at night worrying that the guards outside your tent are assassins.

But he did not do this, and Corbyn and his team were surrounded and besieged by centrists. These centrists fought a war of attrition, using his tepid support for the EU as a bludgeon against him. They blasted him for not paying fealty to their EU gods, for seeking to activate Article 50 immediately, for being suspicious of a massive bureaucracy that imposed austerity across Europe. Inevitably, he was convinced to abandon his instincts to support a Soft Brexit, and agreed to support a 2nd referendum. The logic was that 50% of the country was still pro-Remain, and the Lib Dems could eat into the Labour vote. These were valid concerns, but missed the point that the Lib Dems were a minor threat compared to the Tories, and that 50% of the population was not evenly distributed around 50% of the country. It was concentrated in major English cities, which were already Labour strongholds.

We can now see the result of this policy decision. The Labour party has had a major setback. Had Corbyn been given the head-space to stick to his guns, had centrists not been able to besiege him for years, he may have realised that staying pro-Soft Brexit may have given him enough seats for at least a coalition government, if not a majority.

But he let them in too close. He compromised with the centrists, and it cost him his entire agenda.

The lesson is this: centrism is a cancer within the Labour Party. And you do not compromise with cancer.

You cut it out.

2. British Culture Prioritises National Identity Over Economic Progress

Labour’s key message was one of economic inequality. Pointing the widening gaps between the rich and the poor, to the devastating effects of austerity, and the great swindle that is the City of London, Corbyn and his team sought to leverage economic angst and produce political momentum. It partially worked. It was the key to giving Corbyn a boost in the 2017 election result, and what created a massive surge of support for Corbyn across the youth all over this country.

But alas, it is not just the youth that vote. The middle-aged and older generations have generally higher turn-out, and inhabit a different milieu to that of the younger generation. The political consciousness of those now in their middle-age or older age was shaped during a different world. Their parents had only recently defeated the Germans in the great battle for civilisation. The British Empire, having improved the developing world no end, was now doing them another favour by granting them independence. The West was in an ongoing intelligence war against the Soviets, and British spies were the best. Even people who emigrated here from previous colonies were dazzled by Britishness. They bought into being part of the colonising culture, often becoming whiter than white. This was in reality a compensation for their sense of cultural inferiority. They remain blissfully unaware of this fact.

The youth of this nation have not had the same experience. Yes, we have still absorbed a sense of cultural supremacy, but its effect is attenuated. We have grown up in the age of the internet, seeing and talking to people all over the world. We mix in universities based in major cities, and meet people of every religion, culture and class. Most of us have no great pride in the British Empire. We are suspicious of western imperialism. We have no great love for the term capitalism — 2008 didn’t work out so well, after all. And yet, we still value our Britishness. We still have a sense that Britain has been a great innovator, a great helper of other nations, and a leader of the world in many respects. We are not as gung-ho as our grandparents, but there is still a sense that being British is something special.

These are of course generalisations, but generalisations are useful if generally true. The majority of the British voting public still clings on to a sense of exceptionalism as part of their culture. This is accentuated the older you become. In our secular age, our national identity is the most important identity we have.

The Labour Party, and the left generally, has long since failed to recognise this. In the early 20th Century, socialists of different stripes had great hopes for international socialism. This is the idea that the working class of different nations should unite and overthrow their capitalist exploiters in unison. That is, the left has long championed the idea that our identity should be based on our class and not our nationality. The British working class and the German working class should see themselves as one, seeking to overthrow the elite of both countries. The idea was all the rage in the early 20th century.

Then in 1914, working class soldiers of every European nation went to go kill each other in the fields of France and Belgium.

National identity was used in both world wars as a rallying cry to pit one working class against another working class. It worked. Herein lies an important lesson: though in reality our material circumstances may be determined by our class rather than what country we live in, most of us do not consider our economic circumstances to constitute our identity. Rather, we identify as a Brit, as a Spaniard, as a German, etc… This is not surprising. No matter if we are from the aristocracy or from the working class, all British people interact with the same land, the same people, deal with the same traumas and celebrate the same victories. Our national identity is bound up in shared experiences that transcend class. We thus identify more with a Brit of a different class than with a foreign citizen of the same class. National identity is not a bond that will be broken anytime soon.

This is significant, because if national identity trumps economic identity, then when the two clash, national identity prevails.

The right-wing knows this. The left do not.

This is why Brexit was so important. The Brexit campaign’s motto was ‘Take Back Control.’ Latent in this phrase is the idea that control has been wrongfully wrested from the British and given to our ‘European inferiors.’ The cultural supremacy that lingers in our national identity was kindled. The EU was said to be a threat to our national identity. The centre and left responded by pointing out the economic benefits of staying in the EU. In the end, more chose to ‘Take Back Control’ than ‘Don’t Hurt Your Wallet.’

The same has happened to Corbyn’s Labour Party. In 2017, Corbyn was able to make a massive gain by respecting the referendum, and focusing on economic class struggle. The Tories had no advantage over Labour regarding national identity — they both wanted to respect the referendum. But their economic policies were inferior. Labour, fighting a right-wing press, was still able to get a Hung Parliament.

In 2019, Corbyn lost his advantage. By not respecting the referendum, and adopting a policy that the press was able to characterise as violating national pride, the national identity of many a Briton was said to be threatened. Corbyn thought his economic policies were enough to bridge the gap of his 2nd referendum compromise, but they were not. Johnson and co. were able to capitalise on this by saying they need to ‘Get Brexit Done.’ Brexit voters who weren’t that engaged in politics were annoyed that their vote wasn’t being seen through, and that the UK was looking like a fool on the world’s stage. This sentiment gained strength with age. For most of the youth it was no deal-breaker. But the older you became, the more important it seemed. Few loved Johnson, but Brexit was a matter of national integrity — it could not fall through.

This is not something limited to the UK. In the US, Hillary Clinton made her campaign about Hillary Clinton, her campaign slogan literally being ‘I’m With Her.’ This was identity politics at its most stupid. Meanwhile, Trump made his campaign about national identity — ‘Make America Great Again.’

Guess who won?

The 2016 elections of Trump and Brexit give us another insight — that our sense of national identity is particularly vulnerable to exploitation at times of economic hardship. When we struggle, we look around at people to blame. When those in charge point to minorities instead of themselves, our anger is redirected at the vulnerable. Both Trump and Farage played on this during their respective 2016 elections. It is no coincidence there has been a surge of nationalism since the 2008 crisis, and the pro-rich, anti-poor response that followed. Inequality breeds nationalism.

Thus the left needs to learn that in times of hardship, cultural continuity at large, and national identity in particular, is the greatest motivating force in politics. Since the poor generally ascribe their poverty to their particular circumstances, rather than macro-economic decisions by people hundreds of miles away, economic promises will not motivate people like issues of national identity and integrity.

It is ironic that for all their trivial identity politics, the left doesn’t understand identity.

3. The UK Media Can Only be Fought, Not Appeased

The last factor is the most important, and the most pernicious. The reality is that with a fair media, Corbyn could have gotten away with his Brexit compromise. Though many Corbyn-supporters had been rightly sceptical of the idea, a 2nd referendum was not inherently preposterous. Its main drawback was that it allowed a hostile media to mischaracterise it as being ‘against the will of the people’. Again, implementing Brexit without a 2nd Referendum became a matter of national pride, rather than an idea to be considered on its merits.

This is only the case because every major media outlet is anti-Corbyn. Probably Corbyn’s worst enemy was the Guardian. Supposedly a centre-left paper, the broadsheet became an enemy of this centre-left candidate from Day 1. It had the same reaction to him as most of the Parliamentary Labour Party — you do not belong here, this is our turf. It spent endless column space attacking him, smearing him, and undermining him. It gave his critics priority over any response. Being an enormously influential vehicle on the left, it managed to divide his natural base right from the get-go. Corbyn was characterised as being a relic of the past, as being a racist Anti-Semite who was stuck in the 1970’s. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. He was genuinely anti-racist, genuinely pro-peace, and had better policies than any other Labour candidate in any leadership election. Had the Guardian gotten behind him, and realised that he was the man to implement their stated goals, Corbyn could be Prime Minister right now. By consolidating his base and giving his sympathisers a platform to work from, Corbyn’s position would have been much more secure. His energies could have been spent fighting the Tories rather than defending himself.

But they did not do this. Instead, the Guardian joined in with the rest of the mainstream media in lampooning and berating him. Chief among these was the ‘anti-semitism crisis.’ This was a smear campaign that will soon be studied as a case study in propaganda. For over 2 years, Corbyn and his closest allies were embroiled in the baseless narrative that Corbyn is anti-semitic and enables anti-semitism. When a Survation study of 1009 people asked respondents to estimate how many Labour members had been accused of anti-semitism, the average response was 34%.

The reality was less than 0.1%.

Regardless of the facts, the anti-semitism smear campaign was propagated throughout both the ‘left-wing’ and right-wing media. After years of propaganda, people that had barely ever heard Corbyn speak, knew one thing about him — he was racist. Undoubtedly, this campaign was strengthened directly by Israel. As the ground-breaking Al Jazeera documentary series ‘The Lobby’ exposed, the Israeli Embassy was directly involved in undermining Corbyn through secret links with the Labour MP Joan Ryan, and through front groups such as the ‘Jewish Labour Movement.’ The idea was to delegitimise Corbyn as a person, and to specifically delegitimise Corbyn’s views of Palestine. It worked. Joan Ryan was one of the primary MPs to constantly vilify Corbyn as an anti-semite. Many others joined her.

There is no doubt that Corbyn handled this campaign badly. From the beginning, he should have called it out as a smear campaign. But being a good man, he took the early criticisms in good faith. He set up endless committees and processes to deal with complaints. But the more he conceded the more he got shafted. The crisis was used to discredit key supporters like Chris Williamson. At this point, Corbyn was too far down the road — he no longer felt able to call the smear campaign out, and was unwilling to weather the inevitable storm if he did. This is not surprising — Corbyn is after all human, and was already fighting enemies on every front. But had he come out early and turned the narrative around, he could have nipped it in the bud. By going on the offensive and called out the media for cheapening anti-semitism for political purposes, he could have stopped it escalating. Had the Guardian and the PLP been on his side, it would have made all the difference. But none of these things transpired. Corbyn did not counter-attack, and even if he had, he would have had almost no allies.

Meanwhile, the right-wing press presented lie after lie about Corbyn. One day he is a Hamas sympathiser, the next a Czech spy, and the next an insurgent against the royalty itself. The smears were farcical, but utterly damaging. They had one key message — Corbyn is a threat to your national identity, to your national pride. He is a Trojan Horse for the Muslims. Beware of this man. Four years of this, every day, every week, cannot help but get into the head of every voter in Britain.

It is almost impossible to fight this. It is no coincidence that the only Labour leader to be elected in 40 years was Tony Blair, a man who made a pact with Murdoch before his 1997 election and got Murdoch’s newspapers on his side. But Blair made a habit of selling his soul. He sold his soul to the banks and helped massive deregulation; he sold his soul to George Bush and took the lives of over a million Iraqis. He legitimised neoliberal economics and began the internal privatisation of the NHS. He laid the groundwork for Labour’s current problems by promoting financial communities over manufacturing communities. Eventually the public realised that New Labour was Tory-lite, and opted for the real McCoy. Meanwhile Scotland was lost to Labour forever, and we have had ten years of Conservative rule and counting.

With friends like these, Labour doesn’t need enemies.

For whatever good it did, Blair’s centrism was ultimately fatal for the left. It did the right-wing’s work for it. It is not the right model, and cannot be returned to. His media strategy — ‘sell out to the media’ — is no strategy either. The media must for now be accepted as fundamentally hostile to anyone worth fighting for.

Will this ever change? Many see promise in social media. By using such platforms as Facebook and Twitter, Corbyn and his supporters hoped that they could bypass the mainstream media and get the message to their supporters directly. This happened in both 2017 and 2019. But there is a problem — that content is seen far more by the youth than by the middle-aged and elderly. Moreover, the promise of social media is in serious jeopardy. Year by year, their willingness to support independent creators in a free and fair manner has been waning. Take YouTube. In recent years, it has switched its algorithm to favour corporate news outlets over independent creators. So while previously there was a level playing field between the Indy news provider in his home studio and CNN, now YouTube fills a search result with ‘established’ platforms. It then started demonetizing any videos which have a ‘controversial’ character. This meant that innumerable videos that had ‘Syria’ in the title were generally demonetized. So all the channels providing a counter-narrative to the western story in Syria began losing money if they talked about it. There were similar cases with a variety of different ‘controversial’ topics. So while YouTube remains an enormously powerful platform, it is slowly being corporatised.

Then take Facebook. It is now advised by the Atlantic Council — a group of uber-rich lobbyists and extreme neo-conservatives such as Henry Kissinger. Facebook in recent years has been purging all kinds of online content under the name of fighting ‘disinformation’. It started in a high-profile ban of Alex Jones. The left cheered. Then Facebook cracked down on dozens of anti-establishment left-wing pages. These were pages that documented the crimes of American cops, the Israeli state, and bankers worldwide. Many pages had over a million followers. Naturally, the mainstream media barely bat an eyelid.

While Twitter seems to have done better than other platforms, it has also been embroiled in controversies over ‘shadow-banning’ anti-establishment figures, and removing accounts because they are ‘bots.’ Meanwhile, actual bots are out in full force spreading actual disinformation, as we saw from the latest Conservative campaign.

So while social media is a powerful force, as time goes on its promise will likely diminish. Under the disguise of ‘anti-hate’ they will censor and push back against the promise of the internet. It is difficult to imagine that its enormous potential will ever be completely stifled. But it is easy to imagine that its potential will be stalled, and misused by ever more sophisticated propaganda campaigns.

As for the print and broadcast media, as time goes on its power will wane. This will be a slow process for which the left cannot wait.

Where Next for Labour

It is difficult to be optimistic about Labour right now. Corbyn was a once-in-a-generation man. Hundreds of thousands joined Labour for him alone. Most will be tempted to leave when he’s gone. The love for him ran deep — it still does. It was his bad luck that he operated at the time of Brexit, leaving him exposed to the Conservatives if he was too pro-remain and to the Lib Dems if he was too pro-leave. Part of the problem is that the right is unified under the Tories, whereas the left are split into multiple factions. This is difficult to solve without consolidation, something to which Labour and the Lib Dems will be resistant.

Labour’s first priority will rightly be to choose a new leader. Before discussing what qualities we should look for in that leader, we should examine what qualities we shouldn’t look for. Those qualities are these: any particular sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other ‘demographic’ identity. Identity politics is the most self-indulgent of all political trends. If another old white man happens to be best for the job, then that old white man should be leader. Anyone who says that we should vote for a certain candidate because they’re from a particular demographic should be immediately dismissed as a cultural ideologue who does not belong in real-world politics. Leadership should be based on merit, and nothing else.

With that said, the new leader will have to have certain qualities that do count. Apart from being a person of integrity, and being able to speak well onstage, they will need to be passionate for Corbyn’s agenda in order to have a chance of keeping his loyal supporters in the party. That means they will have to be as radical as Corbyn was, and be willing to face the opposition that came against him. They will also need to be vocally pro-leave in order to break from the centrist pro-remain position. Preferably, they should have been pro-leave right from the beginning.

When the next leader is elected, they will need to assess their situation carefully. If they are a divisive figure like Corbyn, supported by the base but rejected by the PLP, they will need to be ruthless in their approach and be unwilling to compromise. They will need to surround themselves with people loyal to them, and be willing to punish those who betray them. They will need to support and get passed Mandatory Reselection in order to keep the PLP accountable to a Corbynite membership. They will need to be utterly unapologetic and appropriately aggressive with the Press. They cannot fall into the same trap as did Corbyn with the anti-semitism smear campaign. While not being unreasonable, they cannot be naive and assume the good faith of their detractors. The public loves someone who speaks their mind — it is a signal of courage that symbolises leadership. This is why Trump and Boris seem more like leaders. Everyone knows they’re liars, but in their brazen lying they signal their strength. That devil-may-care attitude is subconsciously appealing to the ordinary voter riddled with insecurities and inhibitions. The next leader must play the same game but on the opposite side of the spectrum. They must be forthright not with their lies but with their honesty.

The next leader must be astute to the cultural sensitivities of a nation under economic hardship. They must not divide rich and poor too sharply, as Britain’s highly stratified class structure makes the working and middle classes deferential to the upper classes. The rule of the public school elite is so ingrained it seems natural. The endless parade of posh boys in Parliament is testament to that. So instead of focusing exclusively on class warfare, the next leader must figure out how to wed Corbyn’s economic agenda to a sense of national identity. A combination of personal prosperity and national progress is a sure-fire vote winner.

How to do this? Rather than advocating for some kind of long-refuted international socialism, they must use Britain’s cultural pride to their advantage. But instead of demonising others, as the right-wing have done, they must create a positive patriotism. National progress must not be at the expense of others, but in the service of all. This is easier said than done. One possible approach would be to embrace Brexit but subvert its latent nationalism. Instead of using it to sell out to the elites of the USA, Labour can use it to pursue a radically progressive domestic and international agenda.

On the domestic front they can highlight the UK’s public services as being integral to our national heritage. Labour already does this, though unwittingly, with its ‘Save the NHS’ campaigns. When voters rally for the NHS, they do not rally for the economic efficiency of a single-payer health system. They are rallying for a key slice of modern British identity. Championing public services as part of British heritage is a way to tug at the heartstrings of voters. Placing renewed emphasis on future frontiers of progress such as the National Education Service, and the Green Industrial Revolution, would also be wise.

On the foreign agenda, Labour must say that they will restore Britain’s waning diplomatic clout, to reinvigorate that sleek combination of courtesy and potency. But unlike past governments, Labour should use our diplomatic proficiency to pursue peace rather than profit.

In whatever ways it is done, protecting national identity and cultural continuity must be a priority if Labour are ever to recover.

However, even if this is all done perfectly, Labour will always face an incredibly hostile press. This will be extraordinarily difficult to overcome. For a Labour leader who is worthy of the name to get into power, they will need a confluence of natural talent, exquisite management, and good fortune. They will need to get everything right internally. They will need to refine their messaging carefully.

But more than anything, they will need to wait for the Tories to screw things up.

Brexit will be messy, and could be utterly calamitous for the economy. There is also every chance that there will be another global recession in the next few years, with many expecting it much sooner than later. Without such a calamity Labour will have great difficulty overcoming a hostile media and getting back in. But in the wake of such a disaster, the raw anger and betrayal felt by the British public can be capitalised on to great effect. It could be that things have to get worse before they get better.

In the meantime, we will be left with bittersweet memories. Jeremy Corbyn was the best of British society. He inspired millions to think of a better world. He was not without his faults in leadership, but his virtues make these pale in comparison. In a fair world, and an earlier time, he would be Prime Minister. His failure was only in his inability to fully resist the overtures of the centrists in his party. His problem in the end was that he was not quite radical enough. Even if he had been, there was no guarantee of success. No Labour leader has ever faced the opposition he has had to face. It is a testament to his character that he was able to come out of it with his integrity intact. It is Britain’s great loss that they chose Boris Johnson over him. All the structural issues aside, the willingness of many Brits to shrug off the overt lies and racism of Johnson, to spread and believe in anti-Corbyn propaganda, to succumb to nationalistic fears in Brexit, to vote for a government so clearly damaging to its weakest citizens, all highlights a grave deficit in our society. This deficit is not fiscal, but moral.

And that, alas, is not something any politician can fix.

This long piece became two other, previously published articles. The former was with Evolve Politics (What the Government Isn’t Telling You About Novichoks), and the latter was published here on Medium (Why a US-Russia War in Syria is becoming increasingly likely).

I now publish the leftovers of that work in light of the UK govt’s new accusations against the Russian State. The first half of the article is a timeline of events, and the second is an analysis of previous Russian-linked assassinations. The piece draws the conclusion that the Salisbury attack would be highly uncharacteristic of the Kremlin.

I hope the undeveloped work presented here is of some interest to the casual reader, and some use to the researcher.

What Happened on March 4th?

On the afternoon of Sunday March 4th, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found slumped over each other on a park bench in Salisbury. In the minutes and hours preceding this, they were seen by a local witness to be exhibiting strange behaviour on that park bench — Yulia was collapsed, and Sergei was picking at the air and completely ‘out of it’. The lady concluded that they had done some hard drugs, and didn’t think she was in a place to get involved.

A local doctor, who has remained anonymous, seems to have encountered the couple slightly later when both were unconscious. She and her friends started resuscitation on the couple. The time of this incident is not clear, but we do know that a call to the emergency services was made at 4.15pm on Sunday regarding the couple. It seems both the police and the emergency services soon came, with the police arriving first.

The officer on the scene was Detective Sargeant Nick Bailey, who also became critically unwell after the incident, though not immediately. The doctor and her friends did not become unwell after the scene. The apparent discrepancy has been explained by reference to the fact that the DS Bailey had also inspected the Red BMW of the Skripals, and then visited their house. The nerve agent is assumed to have been in much higher concentrations in at least one of those two locations.

Skripal had received his daughter, who had flown to the UK from Russia, about 24 hours prior. On the day, Reuters has compiled the timeline as the following:

At about 1:40 p.m. (1340 GMT) on March 4, the Skripals arrived at the car park of the Sainsbury’s supermarket store at The Maltings shopping centre.

Some time afterwards, they went to the Bishop’s Mill pub before going to Zizzi, an Italian restaurant, at about 2:20 p.m. (1420 GMT). They remained there until about 3:35 p.m. (1535 GMT). A member of the public alerted the emergency services at about 4:15 p.m. (1615 GMT), when they were found to be extremely ill.

Witnesses say that Sergei was acting aggressively and inappropriately during the meal at Zizzi’s.

The Skripals then went to Intensive Care, and eventually survived.

Who are the Skripals?

Sergei Skripal is a 66 year old retired Russian military general who sold secrets of Russian intelligence to the MI6 in the 1990’s and 2000’s. He was discovered in 2004 and convicted of high treason. He was sentenced to thirteen years in prison. Then in 2010, he was released in a spy swap deal with the US, after the explosive discoveries of Russian sleeper agents living double lives in American suburbia.

After his release, he came to the UK to settle in Salisbury, recommended by friends as being a safe and sleepy part of the UK. His driver reported that Mr. Skripal was still active on ‘business trips’. Valery Morozov, an exile to the UK and enemy of the Kremlin, reported that Skripal was working with Russian groups on cyber-security, and visited the Russian embassy monthly.

In the last few years, the Skripals have started to die with some frequency. In 2012 his wife passed away, and in 2017 his son Lyudmila passed away. According to sources as reputable as the MailOnline and the Sun, at least one neighbour believes they both died in car crashes, but this is contradicted by other sources close to the family who report that his wife died from metastatic endometrial cancer, and his son from liver failure. Indeed, it has been widely reported that Alexander was rushed to hospital while on holiday in St. Petersburg at the age of 43, with many in the family and outside of it viewing the death as suspicious.

From Russia With Blood

In the days that followed the March 4th events, cabinet ministers on both sides of the aisle made pointed reference to a series of deaths in the UK linked to Russian assassins. The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, and other members of the House of Commons made pointed reference to Buzzfeed News’ six-part investigation into the deaths of 14 individuals on UK soil, whom they suspect as being assassinated by the Russian govt., Russian mafias, or a combination of the two. Said Thornberry,

As the Secretary of State says, the incident has disturbing echoes of the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko 12 years ago, and it comes after the exposure last June by BuzzFeed News of the fact that, since 2012, 14 individuals considered hostile to the Putin regime have died in mysterious circumstances on British soil.

Indeed, the backdrop of these deaths for many makes the Kremlin’s guilt a foregone conclusion. The series reads like a spy thriller, with titles such as The Man Who Knew too Much, and From Russia with Blood, describing in detail the mysterious circumstances surrounding many deaths of Russian exiles who were thought to be on the wrong side of the Kremlin. A pattern generally emerged — the targets were usually uber-wealthy Russian financiers who had made hoards of ill-gotten wealth in the immediate dissolution of the Soviet Union, had travelled to the UK to use it without Kremlin supervision or oversight. Failing that, they were close associates of such exiles, or people involved in investigations linked to them. Litvinenko was one of them, whose assassination was supposed to be clean, were it not for the advanced chemical forensics that traced the assassins as having left the country for Moscow.

Buzzfeed revealed in gruesome and intimate details how many of these individuals, often middle-aged men, were found dead after announcing to friends and family that they had targets on the back from the Kremlin +/- the mafia. Often the deaths looked like suicides. Usually, they were convincing enough for the police to call it suicide without further investigation. They would often be on anti-depressants, and will have been threatened or intimidated by Russian assassins who told them it would be easier and quicker if they killed themselves. Other deaths that looked like suicides were thought to have been recognised as murders. In one, for instance, the rare plant toxin Gelsemium was found in the circulation of the deceased. Gelsemium, known as ‘heartbreak glass’, is known to be able to trigger cardiac arrests, and is deemed an advanced assassination weapon. It was only found after a thorough investigation by a botanist working for Kew Gardens. Other deaths included helicopter accidents, and an apparent suicide out of a high-rise building window onto stakes below.

Typically, the evidence put forward by Buzzfeed was a careful description of their circumstances, the self-reports of the victims, coupled with exclusive information from anonymous intelligence officials within MI6 and US intelligence, reporting that all these deaths were felt to be suspicious. The US officials were generally convincing and restrained in their reports — they did not accuse the Kremlin in every case, but admitted difficulty in delineating a Kremlin hit, from a Mafia hit, from a suicide on account of mental torture:

Berezovsky and many of his dead associates were so deeply connected to organised crime in Russia that intelligence sources said it was difficult to tell whether orders to kill them may have come from the government, the mafia, or both. Mark Galeotti, an expert in the international activities of the Russian mafia, said the country’s security services frequently cooperate with organised crime groups. “How it works is an order comes down from the top saying this person needs to die,” he said, and the security services have to work out “What is the most efficient way of doing this?” That might be to send state agents to conduct a sophisticated and undetectable killing, he said, or it may be simpler to enlist some “hoodlums” to carry out a crude hit. At the same time, Galeotti said, “technically challenging organised crime killings” are often carried out by “state agents basically moonlighting”.

It seems difficult to believe that all these deaths, 14 in total, had no connection with the Kremlin. It is likely they were behind, in some way, many of them.

Three things emerge from Buzzfeed’s analysis:

1. The targets were generally people who were actively working against the Kremlin’s interests, who had persisted in doing so despite threats to the contrary, and who knew they were targets.
2. The assassinations were highly sophisticated and generally untraceable. The killers would use a combination of psychological intimidation and physical threats to scare a target out of their wits. They would then appear to have committed suicide, though a careful analysis would suggest murder. Other events, like the helicopter crashes, were plausible accidents — were it not for the context.
3. The UK govt. was well aware of all these facts, but turned a blind eye. They were repeatedly criticised for having done little to stop these murders, and critics generally cited two reasons a) it would repel Russian money from entering the City of London, and b) there was no political appetite for damaging relations with Russia, especially in the aftermath of the Litvinenko assassination that had caused so much political fallout.

The murder of the Skripals is out of line with this pattern.

1. There is no evidence that the ex-General was an active threat to the Kremlin. The Kremlin had itself let him go, and is said to have been meeting him on occasion. This fact itself deserves further attention — why were the Russians meeting a double agent who betrayed them?
2. The assassination of the Skripals used an incredibly reckless method that used a classic Soviet-era weapon. Given the international context, there was zero chance that Russia would not be accused of the murder. This is in stark contrast to the methods of assassination used above.
3. It should be obvious that given Russian resistance against British forces in Syria, it is now advantageous for the UK govt. to demonise the Russian state, and therefore help justify action against them.

Prudence behoves us to bear these facts in mind when analysing the UK Govt.’s new claims about the attempted assassinations of the Skripals.

Read more of my work on this issue with these two pieces:

Evolve Politics: What the Government Isn’t Telling You About Novichoks

Medium: Why a US-Russia War in Syria is becoming increasingly likely.

Last weekend we heard the tragic news that there may well have been another chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta, Syria. The Washington Post reported that at least 40 people have been killed in an area of Ghouta currently under control by the terrorist group Jaysh-ul-Islam. The veracity of the reports is still controversial, with both sides making predictable claims. The US State Department had this to say:

“Reports from a number of contacts and medical personnel on the ground indicate a potentially high number of casualties, including among families hiding in shelters. These reports, if confirmed, are horrifying and demand an immediate response by the international community.

The United States continues to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable. The regime’s history of using chemical weapons against its own people is not in dispute, and in fact nearly one year ago on April 4, 2017, Assad’s forces conducted a sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun, which killed approximately 100 Syrians.”

As we will see, these claims are very much in dispute, even from the US’ own Defence Secretary. Meanwhile, the Assad govt. has claimed the allegations are fabrications, commenting that the Syrian army,

“ … does not need to use any chemical materials as claimed by terrorists’ media affiliates.”

Soon after, a missile strike on an Assad airbase took place in the early hours of Monday. Mostly Iranians were killed, with Israel being blamed for the attack. Meanwhile, Russia and the US debate over the terms of an investigation into the attack. The US and its key allies are generally claiming that this was an Assad chemical weapons attack, with US claiming the need for military rebuke. Meanwhile, Russia and the Syrian Govt. are claiming that these reports are either fabricated, or committed by the rebel group in the area Jaysh-ul-Islam, who have admitted to a renegade commander using chemical weapons in the past. Russian and anti-US media are also pointing to reports by Russian generals in March warning of an impending false-flag chemical weapons against them for weeks (Reuters), to be used as a pretext for further western intervention against Assad. Trump’s rallying to European allies for further military strikes at least bear out the inference, if not the fact.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!

Who should we trust when facts are in short supply, subject to endless media manipulation on both sides? I contend that context is the only arbiter here, with motive being the key evidentiary piece of the puzzle. On that basis, I cannot see any reason why the Assad Govt. would use chemical weapons against its people, in the context of a war which they are demonstrably winning with conventional weapons, and with the threat of western intervention looming over their heads. Moreover, I believe there is every reason to suspect that the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their rebel allies on the ground are willing to stage false-flag attacks against the Syria/Russia coalition. I also believe that this has serious potential to lead to a hot war between the US and Russia, one which could have dire consequences for the region, and for humanity as a whole. Moreover, I believe that the continuing demonization of Russia by Western Media is inextricably linked to the Syrian situation, and their desire to topple the Assad govt.

None of this means that the Assad Govt. are ‘good people’, and that they and their Russian supporters have not murdered untold numbers of innocent civilians in their fight against the rebels. However, we should remember that guilt on one count does not necessitate guilt on every count. Were that the rule, the US and the UK would have no occasion to show their face.

The perspective that anti-Assad forces are willing to use chemical weapons to lure in western intervention is one that needs to be substantiated. That this will lead to a wider US-Russia conflict that could spiral into an all-out war between two nuclear superpowers even more so. But the evidence is there. It requires a historical perspective that does not look at events in isolation, but traces US-Russian relations in recent years, tracks a loose history of the Syrian conflict, and review the claims and counter-claims regarding chemical weapons. Though such an endeavour cannot be brief, being informed on these issues is essential for us to be informed citizens, especially when our elites have repeatedly taken us into wars in Iraq and Libya on false pretences.

Of course Syria is a different case to Iraq and Libya. In Syria, the opposition is not just another Middle Eastern leader — it is a nuclear superpower that is feeling increasingly cornered.

The Ukraine Crisis

Ten years ago, the Cold War was truly dead. In 2007, George W. Bush literally went fishing with Putin:

“When Putin arrived on July 1, 2007, Dad met his plane at the airport in New Hampshire and accompanied him on the helicopter ride to Walker’s Point. Then he took both of us for a speedboat ride. Although initially startled by the idea of a eighty-three-year-old former President driving the boat at top speed, Putin loved the ride. (His interpreter looked like he was about to fly out the back of the boat.) The next morning, we had a long conversation about missile defense, in which we found some common ground. We then went fishing. Fittingly, Putin was the only one who caught anything.”

In 2009, the US and Russia announced a ‘reset’ in relations. There were smiles all round. It was not to live long.

Since then, a flurry of world events have pitted Russia and the West squarely opposed to each other. Crimea was one such flash-point. Russia’s annexation of Eastern Ukraine outraged powers worldwide. It was perceived as a throwback to the imperialism of the Soviet Union, with Putin as the new Stalin. The revolution of course followed poor economic performance by Ukraine, who were then offered an association agreement with the EU. The incumbent Russia-friendly Prime Minister initially planned to accept it, before opting for a deal with Russia with fewer strings attached. Riots hit the streets, and the government was overthrown.

To Russia, the whole affair was nothing short of a far-right coup with explicit western support. Their perspective was difficult to ignore. In early February 2014, an embarrassing phone-call between the State Deparment’s Victoria Nulland and Ukraine’s Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt emerged. As demonstrated by the BBC’s transcript of the call, the US officials discussed explicitly how the US was arranging and manipulating who was coming into power in Ukraine. They were, yet again, installing a puppet government that was friendly to the US and hostile to Russia.

As far as we can tell, they got exactly what they wanted. At the time Vitaly Klitschko was the front-runner for the upcoming election. But Nulland had other thoughts:

Nulland: I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Soon after the leak, Klitschko resigned from the election race opting to stay as the Mayor of Kiev instead. Arseniy Yatsenyuk became the Prime Minister, exactly as Nulland wanted:

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside…

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good…

To Russia, the US having such a direct hand in the affairs of Ukraine, with whom Russia shares deep ethnic, historical, and economic ties, was unacceptable. In a sense, as the local superpower, they reserved the right to meddle. But the meddling by the US was particularly egregious given that Ukraine’s southern peninsula, Crimea, is a crucial military base of Russia. Crimea borders the Black Sea, where the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet lives, with its headquarters in Crimea’s Sevastopol. As of 2014 had 15,000 military personnel stationed there. It would be the equivalent of Russia overthrowing the Mexican govt., installing a puppet government, and expecting the US to be fine with it. Naturally, the Kremlin wasn’t fine with it. Crimeans were already more friendly with Russia than their Northern neighbours. A referendum was held, the veracity of which was hotly disputed, with the result indicating that Crimeans wanted to secede to Russia. Russia, apparently, obliged. A lightning quick annexation took place, shocking NATO countries and the world as a whole. It looked like the Russian bear had awoken.

The Kremlin’s actions in Crimea were not without consequence. A harsh regime of sanctions from the US and the EU. These sanctions are credited with helping to push the Russian economy into a recession in 2015–2016, while the reciprocal sanctions have had a damaging effect on the economies of smaller Eastern European EU nations. But perhaps even more significant was the psychological effect of the whole affair. To Russia, it was a sign that their military investments were coming to fruition, and that their self-confidence was not matched by NATO. To western journalists, as usual anaesthetised to their countries’ own involvement in the Ukraine Crisis, this was a sign that Russia was reasserting itself militarily.

Putin’s fishing days had come to an end.

The Critical Importance of the Middle East

Another area of immense tension has been the Syrian Crisis. Before we explore the timeline of the conflict, it is essential to review why the world’s superpowers take such an active role in the wider area, and why it has been a hotbed of political intrigue and war for decades.

In sum, both the US and Russia know that whoever controls the Middle East, controls the world. The Arab countries are tied together by religion, and largely by language. Not only this, they sit upon the world’s largest supplies of oil and natural gas. Were these Muslim-majority countries to unite, they would be an unstoppable force in world politics. However, they are too riven by internal differences and political ignorance to do so. The extant superpowers are all to aware of this, and all too willing to exploit their differences. For most of the last century, the US has supported the Wahabi Saudi Arabian royal family against its own people with unending military cover and financial support.

For the US, the need for more acute action became more pressing during the early Cold War. They noted sympathy for Communism amongst Muslim-majority nations exasperated with their own poor economic progress, and dazzled by Soviet Russia’s development. The US felt that the only way to fight this inclination was to support the installation of extremist dictatorships in the Middle East. As Mirza Tahir Ahmad, 4th Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community put it, governments that cannot even tolerate other factions of Islam becoming ascendant would never cede political rule to Communists, a foreign philosophy with no Islamic support. Thus in Iran, the democratically elected secularist Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953, and the Shah installed. Saudi was kept Salafi. Saddam Hussein was supported. Syria faced a failed coup by the CIA, which soured relations for decades. The Russian Federation later capitalised on bungled US relationships by strengthening relations with Syria and Iran. As time went on, the enemy of US became the friend of Russia. In this way, both superpowers held a foot in the door of the Middle East, each knowing that this was the elixir of power on the world stage.

The Syrian Crisis

Syria was for many years a stable country, with purportedly democratic elections, good tourism, and relatively free minority religious and ethnic groups. However, the Syrian people lived in fear of their government, who were notorious for political paranoia, kidnapping and torturing citizens they deemed suspicious, and having a tight grip on all local and national affairs. In 2011, energised by the Arab Spring protests against the Assad Govt. spread. Predictably, there was a harsh backlash against these, and over months dissidents became organised and militarily adept.

These rebels were not without external help. From at least 2012, there is mainstream news coverage of CIA involvement in helping the rebel cause, helping to distribute weapons reported to be coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. From at least 2013, the CIA was arming and funding ‘moderate rebels’, with a (public) budget in the region of of $1 billion per year, meaning $1 in every $15 the CIA spent was on this cause. Other allied forces also poured money and resources into the offensive against Assad, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Western powers such as the UK and other European allies generally played a role in intelligence assistance, and air firepower.

The Assad Govt. itself was supported militarily and financially by Iran, Lebanon (with their Hezbollah force), and Russia. Russia’s support was largely diplomatic in the first few years of the conflict. However, the nuclear superpower took a more decisive role in the conflict in 2015, a year after the so-called ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) terrorist group had risen to prominence. Russia’s actions were met with surprise and trepidation in the West. Within two years, it was clear that their intervention was game-changing. ISIS now stands largely obliterated, and the rebels have lost the majority of their strongholds. The fraught civil war, with catastrophic numbers of civilian deaths from both sides, is coming to an end — with the Assad regime and their Russian allies looking like the victors.

Western powers and their Middle-Eastern allies have not taken this lying down. Reports have swirled for years of how a civil war waged within the upper echelons of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community. Obama and a few key allies sought to limit involvement in the Syrian uprising, while neo-conservative hawks like Hillary Clinton sought to rapidly escalate firepower against Assad. David Cameron in the UK sought parliament’s consent to initiate airstrikes in 2013, held back by a parliament haunted by the memories of Iraq and Libya.

Why such fervour to get rid of Assad? Is it, as western governments claim, simply a matter of humanitarianism? The willingness of the US and its western allies to be partners with brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel suggests otherwise. Indeed, the actions of the West itself in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, confirm that only the most naive of observers would believe that humanitarianism dictates foreign policy. Humanitarianism is no concern. Maintaining and expanding geopolitical power is.

Perhaps the most insightful confession of why the west has focused so strongly on toppling Assad comes from a document drafted by Hillary Clinton circa 2012, and later leaked to Wikileaks. The document, entitled ‘NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC’ spells out that toppling Assad is necessary to fulfil Israel’s desire of weakening the Iran-Syria-Lebanon axis, and procuring another ally in the Middle East for Washington.

Wrote Clinton:

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad…

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today…

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance…

Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).”

Clinton’s plans were seen through eventually. In 2012, Obama signed a covert directive to arm and fund ‘moderate rebels’. When it became clear in 2015 that the plans were a dismal failure, they were cut back, before being killed off by Trump last year.

Clinton’s admission is troubling in many ways, especially given the current context of Assad winning the civil war. Two key questions linger:

1. If the US, Israel, and their Middle Eastern allies have a key interest in seeing Assad go, what will be their response to Russian intervention that increasingly ensures Assad stays? Will they let their massive political and financial investment in strengthening the Syrian opposition go wasted?
2. What pretexts would they be willing to engineer to step up more aggressive action against the Assad Regime and its Russian allies?

Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Crisis

The use of chemical weapons has been a chilling feature of the Syrian Civil War. In August 2013, Sarin gas was used indiscriminantly in Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus. The death toll was huge, in the many hundreds, with thousands affected by neurotoxicity. A report by the UN did not assign responsibility, but confirmed their widespread use. Western nations unequivocally attributed blame to the Assad government. However, in a critique of the White House account, celebrated journalist Seymour Hersh put forward evidence that the attack was perpetrated by the Al-Nusra front, an extremist, Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group with probable access to Sarin via Turkey. His critique remains contentious.

What is uncontroversial is that chemical weapons use is seen as a ‘red line’ that makes military escalation all the more probable. After the Ghouta attack, Obama sanctioned strikes against the Syrian government. However, his response was constrained by a fateful slip-up from John Kelly, when he glibly agreed that if Assad handed over all his chemical weapons to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), more severe action would be forestalled. Russia jumped on the proposal, and an agreement was reached. A press release from October 2014 confirmed that the OPCW-UN mission had been completed, reading:

“The OPCW-UN Joint Mission on the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons has completed its mandate and its operations drew to a close on 30 September 2014. From there on, the OPCW mission in Syria will continue to deal with the destruction of chemical weapon production facilities and clarification of certain aspects of the Syrian initial declaration.”

Critics of the Assad govt. claimed that Assad could still have some chemical weapons, as he could have under-declared his labs. No specific evidence supporting this was put forth. However, between 2014 and 2017, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigation Mission (JIM) claimed that the Syrian govt. was responsible for a multitude of smaller chlorine attacks. Chlorine of course is something that all governments have access to legitimately, as it has wide-ranging uses outside of weaponisation. For both ease of access and ease of deployment, it is often used as a chemical weapon when others are proscribed or unavailable.

Then, in April 2017, a chemical weapons attack involving Sarin was committed in the town of Khan Shaykhun, killing between 74–100 people, and maiming many more. The attack was perpetrated in the rebel-held area of Idlib. The OPCW-UN JIM report held the Syrian govt. responsible, though Moscow and Damascus vociferously denied the legitimacy of their analysis. Their contentions seemed to have been strengthened by a confusing statement from US Defence Secretary James Mattis, who reported in February 2018 that the US did not have evidence of the Syrian government using Sarin gas. This admission came almost a year after Trump ordered missile attacks as a result of the attack.

More recently, the Russian-Syrian alliance has come under fierce criticism for the loss of civilian life in the bombing of Eastern Ghouta. It has been reported that over 500 hundred civilians have died in the intense bombing, with many thousands of buildings decimated. The area is a current stronghold of forces opposing the Syrian govt., which claims that the neighbourhoods are being used to fire rockets into Damascus. Russian press have disputed the number of civilian casualties, have claimed that civilians are being used as ‘human shields’ by opposing forces, and that the rebels have stymied humanitarian pauses and stolen envoys of food and resources.

In this context, on March 12th, US’ Nikki Haley threatened military action against the Assad govt. should any chemical weapons be used in Eastern Ghouta.

Department of State on Twitter

@USUN Amb Haley: For sake of the people of #Syria & integrity of #UNSC, we must respond & take action. The ceasefire has failed. The situation of civilians in #EasternGhouta is dire & the US is acting. We have drafted a new ceasefire resolution that provides no room for evasion.

The Russian-Syrian alliance again denied possession of any chemical weapons. On the 13th of March, Russia warned that they will strike US missile delivery vehicles if US missile strikes are ordered on Syrian govt. sites. On the 16th of March, Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia’s General Staff, also warned that Russia have intelligence of an upcoming chemical weapons attack being planned by anti-govt. forces, to be pinned on the Assad-Russian alliance.

More recently, the Salisbury attack of the Skripals has been pinned on the Russians. However, as I have written about at length elsewhere, the inference that this could ‘only have been the Russians’ is entirely without evidence. What evidence we have supports the contrary — that it probably wasn’t the Russians. Regardless of what really happened, the affair has strengthened the association between ‘Russia’ and ‘Chemical Weapons’ in the public perception. Diplomats have been expelled on both sides, meaning that all too significant channels of communication have gone. This is when mistakes can have unforeseen consequences.

Given all this, the Russia-Assad alliance have no obvious reason to use chemical weapons. They are already winning the civil war using conventional weapons. As the former British ambassador to Syria recently acknowledged, the only group that would benefit from the use of chemical weapons would be the rebel opposition groups. The use of chemical weapons could prove catastrophic for all involved.

Where We Stand Now

In light of the above, the terrible murder and maiming of innocent Syrian citizens may be of the utmost political significance. To understand why, we need to recap the key points of the above analysis.

1. The US has invested many billions of dollars into overthrowing Assad with western-friendly forces. It wants to do this in deference to Israeli interests of weakening Iran, to increase its own clout in the Middle East and possibly facilitate the sale of allied natural resources through Syria.
2. Russia has stymied this aim with bold and unexpected military action in support of Assad. The civil war is coming to a close with him as a victor.
3. The primary justification for western military intervention in Syria has historically been the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad govt. This remains the ‘red line’, threatened with retaliation against Damascus by the US as recently as March 12th 2018.
4. Russia reported on March 18th that terrorist groups in Eastern Ghouta were planning to stage a chemical weapons attack, and blame it on Assad. This would then be used as a pretext to bomb Damascus.
5. Russia have warned that any US military strikes against Damascus will be met with retaliatory attacks against US missile delivery sites. Should this happen, this will bring Russia and the US in open war against each other.

We are left then in an incredibly precarious position. The US is looking to salvage its botched Syrian operation. Russia is feeling increasingly isolated and cornered by belligerent US and NATO forces. It will not continue to tolerate US aggression against established allies, and the pattern of events warned by both sides will lead US and Russia into open warfare in Syria. The cutting of diplomatic ties over the Salisbury attacks means that lines of communications are weakened, and psyches on both sides have become primed in hostility.

It is difficult to imagine that the US actually wants war with Russia. However, like any empire in its twilight, it has become bloated with past success. It seems to think that it has an automatic right to control the fate of other nations, a manifest destiny of world domination, and a belligerence towards any other powers that dare defy it. With an imbecile at its helm, anything is possible. Probably US hawks don’t believe that Russia will ever really step up against them. But they have misjudged the Russian character. The slow-burn demonisation of their country has hardened the mindset of its public and leadership. The Kremlin’s success in Crimea, and their defiant opposition in Syria have strengthened their self-confidence. Their nuclear weapons systems are progressively updated, and the growing alliance with China will bolster their willingness to look the US in the eye and see who blinks first.

If the US takes the fight to Russia, even unwittingly, Russia will not back down. It has every reason not to. Putin knows that if he capitulates now, he capitulates for a generation. Russia will lose their pride, a key ally in the Middle East, and will embolden the US to do whatever they please against Russia. This is a deciding moment in their history. If Putin doesn’t stand firm, Russia will lose everything. If they do stand firm, the US will draw the world into war.

But the US should be warned. When Bush invited Putin to go fishing, they did not enter as equals. One was the leader of the mightiest empire history had ever seen, the other as the inheritor of a broken nation. But when all was said and done, the lumbering neo-con came out empty-handed. The shrewd Russian emerged with prey in hand.

Here’s the basic idea: The Force is the soul of the universe that flows through everything. It has a dark side, and a light side. Those who wield it, must choose between the two. Do they join the light side Jedi and protect the innocent, work against evil, and be hailed as heroes throughout the galaxy, or do they join the ‘dark side’ Sith, become explicitly evil, destroy everything and everyone, and be universally hated. Hmm… tough decision!

I’m sorry, but this is the most childish understanding of good and evil you can think of. If this was how the dark side marketed itself, it would be that stall at a Careers Fair that has one miserable dude trying to stay cool while everyone walks around him. Because guess what? Bad people don’t tell everyone that they’re the bad guys! In fact, they don’t even think of themselves as the bad guys. To them, they’re the good guys! No-one explicitly joins a ‘dark’ or ‘evil’ side. That is completely against human nature. It’s like opting for a deodorant called ‘Sewage’. Ain’t gonna happen.

That’s not to say bad people don’t exist. Yes, people do terrible things, but they try to justify their actions according to their own inhuman philosophy. Like every good argument, the Nazis are a case in point. They killed millions, but to them murdering ‘lesser humans’ was not immoral, as it paved the way for the ‘better humans’ to reign supreme. Stalin is another example. He imprisoned and killed untold millions, but to him they were getting in the way of the greater Communist cause. Neither Hitler, Stalin, or any of the villains of history would have self-identified as villains. If asked, are you ‘light side’ or ‘dark side’, each one of them would have undoubtedly chosen the former, and classed their enemies as those darn Sith that keep messing everything up.

Star Wars isn’t the only fantasy guilty of this. Harry Potter was exactly the same with its penchant for dark magic, and its lead villain Voldemort choosing a name that literally means flight of death. (Villains these days are connoisseurs of French). Even Tolkien’s Sauron, everyone’s favourite lidless eye of fire, seems to have insisted upon being referred to as the Dark Lord. The look-a-me I’m evil! tropes never seem to end.

This matters. Not in terms of Star Wars, it being — alas— fictional. It matters because our cultural understanding of good and evil informs our social decision making, and impacts our own moral character.

On that social level, we need to be on the look-out for the bad guys. They won’t come at us carrying red lightsabers (that have other tiny red lightsabers in them), shouting about how they’ll turn us to the dark side. They’re much more likely to come at us in shiny suits and received pronunciation, speaking the language of defence and freedom while their actions fuel the engine of despair and poverty.

And on the personal level, we need to make sure that we don’t end up being one of the bad guys. (After all, they have to start somewhere). The key is to realise that we all have a dark side, and it doesn’t present itself as being dark. That little voice in our mind says it’s light side, it’s one with the Force, and just presents a different perspective on things.

‘You know, if you did this you could earn a lot more, and help your family.’

‘You know, this may sound bad, but it’s for a good cause, and everyone does it anyway.’

‘You know, if you say this about her, you’ll be in the clear plus she’s horrible anyway.’

If we hold our heads high as long as we stay away from ‘the dark side’, we might find ourselves stumbling into a path that is certainly not Jedi. As the wise words of my ancient religion warn me:

“Is he, then, to whom the evil of his deed is made to appear pleasing, so that he looks upon it as good, like him who believes and does virtuous deeds?”

Holy Qur’an, 35:9