80

What about the Auvergne? Is Russia engaging in strategic disinfo to avoid being drawn into trap?

Catte

According to an a analysis offered by Joaquin Flores on Fort Russ the recent bizarre events unfolding over Syria may have been an attempt, not simply by Israel, but also by France to draw Russia into a renewed political/diplomatic confrontation with NATO.

Flores says:

What the Russians claim is that Israeli craft using the Il-20 for cover ‘confused’ the SAA system and that the SAA system hit the Russian Il-20. We will explain that while this is possible, it is unlikely, and in fact the least likely of any realistic scenarios given the tremendous preparation and planning that goes into these events.

The original Russian announcement about the alleged firing of missiles by the French frigate Auvergne, was always curious. The fact the two events – the alleged missile firing and the disappearance of the Il-20 – were linked by timing in the Russian announcement is not the kind of wording to be used casually when dealing with a NATO member country. The Russians would need good reason for saying something this potentially inflammatory at such a time. It being a kind of code for “we know France just shot down our plane” is not implausible. Flores again:

It’s highly intelligent on the part of Russia, for many reasons, that they blame Israel for this, if the option is France. Russia refuses to countenance steps leading to any war when other means are clear & available….outright war is no answer whatever emerges ultimately. This was the thought process of Russian authorities, and the basis as well, of their disinfo campaign.

Flores argues that Russia blaming Israel was the last thing the neocons/neolibs expected. They anticipated instead that France would be accused, would be able to vociferously deny, and use indignation over the “false allegations” to create an excuse for further anti-Russian propaganda/theatre in the UN and create further distance and hostility between Russia and a significant NATO member country. He argues Russia had to think quickly in response and find a way of avoiding having to blame France. This indirect blaming of Israel was what they came up with, sidestepping the trap of going head to head with France and not making a direct claim of Israel involvement that could be refuted with physical evidence.

Between blaming France or Israel, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or France, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or Israel, the US expected Israel to be blamed.

They did not expect this hybrid of ‘somewhat’ blaming Israel for doing ‘tricky stuff’ in the air, the motives being hard to prove or qualify.

If Russia was to avoid an MH-17 situation in reverse, they had to think with agility. Russia has the physical evidence, the flight data, and the missile launch data. If they were going to blame France, which was mostly expected, it would have been a UNSC charade, a General Assembly charade, and a media charade with ‘Putin blaming France’ and Russia being accused of having possession of the evidence from which their case is made, and therefore the evidence being dodgy or even manufactured entirely.

The crash remains of the IL-20 are going to absolutely show that it was hit with a missile, any fragments etc. required to establish that, will show that’s an Aster missile, or similar, like the missiles used in the S-200’s. But they aren’t going to show that the impact is consistent with a small missile carried by Israeli planes, or by gun strafing from an attack plane.

This is why Russia could not [directly] blame Israel, yet they knew that Israel was involved in attacking Lattakia, and it appears that Russia is also calculating the blaming of Israel in order to do yet something else unexpected.

We recommend taking the time to read Flores very detailed article in full. While it may turn out not be the truth, or the whole truth, of the matter, it’s well argued and currently plausible.

And, of course, if France did shoot down the Russian plane, or even take part in action likely to cause loss of Russian life, then it’s clear the most insane elements in the pro-war neocon/neolib alliance currently have the initiative, and, as Flores, says, Putin’s caution in responding is well explained.

It’s early days, and no one should leap to conclusions,and – certainly – anyone who thinks Russia should have responded by shooting other planes out of the sky needs to pause and reflect.

The next few weeks will be interesting.

Joaquin Flores’ article can be read in full here.


Filed under: Catte, conflict zones, France, latest, NATO