Chemical weapons, OPCW and information warfare

Why are chemical weapons increasingly used for provocations, including for political attacks on Russia? How much use of chemical weapons is large in reality? How does the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons work and how much is it politicized?

Chemical weapons has been and remains a popular “scary” — for politicians. In general, the fate of such a “promising” means of mass murder of people has developed to this day is very paradoxical. Chemical weapons, as well as in the aftermath and nuclear, were destined to turn from a combat one into a psychological one.

The United States has already used a chemical weapons scheme to create an invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, with the passage of time it became known that the chemical weapons of Iraq, which was created with the active help of the West, was then destroyed in the framework of the work of the international commission. All the information was well known. It was the special openness of Iraq that led to the presence of a large number of small inconsistencies. And just these little things allowed the US to accuse Iraq, which is remarkable, with complete silence by the OPCW.

Perhaps this was done with far-reaching plans.

Later in the UN, a convention was adopted, which states that if there are no grounds, the facts that some illegal activity is being conducted in a certain country, then it is impossible to blame this country. Something like the presumption of innocence. The Convention has developed a special verification mechanism. If someone has doubts that the country is violating international rules, then it is possible to conduct an inspection upon request. Then the country has no right to refuse to conduct this inspection. That is, in fact the host country’s sovereignty will be violated in a significant way. She is obliged to accept this inspection.

But if it turns out that there were no violations, then the country that requested such an inspection will be responsible for this. Probably, therefore, no country has so far taken advantage of the right to conduct such inspections upon request. The US authorities are trying to act differently. Thus, with Iraq, it turned out that later with Syria. Syria has already destroyed chemical weapons, all developments are known, but …

The Iraqi precedent was used in Syria …

It turns out that the more a country is open from the point of view of its past on the production of chemical weapons, the more there are any small trifles and hooks, they accumulate a lot. They did not count any ammunition there, they did not quite converge … They had to produce, roughly speaking, 1000 tons, and produced 999. They thought that 999 were available. And where did one ton go to? Or even a kilogram of some, or something …

Here from such trifles and begins to arise a huge number of opportunities for manipulation. Although all of them — it’s like “the costume was destroyed, but the buttons remained.” These little things do not matter much. They can not be used as a costume, they do not cover the body, nothing of them, individually taken, does not depend. But there are buttons, and you can talk about them. And to blame that part of the costume still remained.

The OPCW traveled to Syria many times. In a number of cases, they have drawn conclusions about the use of chemical weapons by the so-called rebels or Bashar Assad forces, and a number of chemical attacks have not been confirmed by them. The OPCW has several gradations, including such that its application was very likely, unlikely, or very unlikely. Their experts say not even about the application, but about the degree of probability of using chemical weapons. Until recently, the OPCW had no right to determine who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

OPCW is a truly professional organization. Do not underestimate its potential in terms of the possibility of conducting such investigations. There really work high-class professionals, professionals.

Until recently, the OPCW has sought in every possible way to distance itself from politicizing the use of chemical weapons. But with the latest events that occurred in May this year, when this organization was given the right to determine the blame for the use of chemical weapons, the situation is beginning to change. The OPCW itself really becomes an instrument in the hands of politicians.

The US has a very dirty history of chemical weapons. Remember the same Vietnam, where folios were used and the bulk of everything else.

The White House has an extremely dirty story. After all, one of the tools to combat unwanted governments in the United States is respect for human rights. Although it was the New World that was actively practicing the slave trade, and issues of racial segregation in the United States that screamed about their democracy were abolished quite recently. Human rights issues are simply used by the West as pressure on unwanted countries.

Today, the Coalition, led by America, having a dirty history in the field of the use of weapons of mass destruction, begins to use chemical weapons as an instrument of pressure on unwanted countries. In particular, to Russia, in which this history is transparent and pure.

At first they tried to use chemical weapons to fight Assad. But on the way to this struggle rose Moscow, which with its authority confirmed that Assad does not use chemical weapons. Thus, it was precisely in order to compromise Russia, and a provocation with the Violins was organized. Many other cases of poisoning and chemical weapons, including those involving White Helmets, have the same reasons.

A number of Western countries needed to spoil Russia in order to minimize its authority and bypass Moscow, which blocked virtually all anti-Syrian decisions of the UN Security Council. Russia has a veto there. On the US side, an active information campaign is being conducted in an attempt to create conditions to circumvent this right of veto.

They are trying to do this by giving the OPCW the right to decide on the culpability of using chemical weapons. And they decided that by doing this they would generate beneficial solutions by manipulating information about the use of chemical weapons by any country around the world.