Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 8 – Now that most
experts have concluded that Flight A321 was brought down as the result of a
bomb explosion, Andrey Illarionov says, it is time to ask two more difficult
questions: who destroyed the plane? And what did those who did so hope to
achieve?
There are
essentially two answers that have been offered in response to these questions:
It was ISIS or it was someone else, although there is the additional
possibility that ISIS and non-ISIS in this case are “to a large extent, one and
the same organization,” the Moscow analyst says (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=563EE1ECBDE7B).
The
arguments on behalf of the conclusion that ISIS is to blame have been
frequently pointed out, but the arguments that someone else was behind the
terrorist act have not been equally broadly considered, Illarionov says. But there are four that should be considered
seriously:
·
First, prior to
this time, “ISIS had not been involved in this type of terrorist action.”
·
Second, ISIS did
not react to the bombing of its locations by the international coalition headed
by the US. Why should it have reacted in this way only to Russian actions?
·
Third, the ISIS
declaration taking responsibility “looks extraordinarily doubtful.” Indeed, the
video clip in which it was contained appears to be “an obvious fake.”
·
And fourth,
Russian planes had in not bombed ISIS positions but rather those of its
opponents.
There is another
factor that needs to be considered as well, Illarionov says, and that is the
appearance of statements that are so obviously disinformation that their
discrediting has the effect of discrediting those who have disseminated them,
including Al Jazeera’s report about a bomb loaded on the plane in St.
Petersburg, and a report about a supported MI-6 operation.
After such
reports are discredited, the Moscow analyst continues, “it will become much
more difficult to speak about responsibility” lying with any non-ISIS group
even though these reports may contain within themselves “important elements of
real history of what took place in fact.”
Illarionov
points out that another clue about the case is provided by “the radical change
of the Kremlin’s position regarding the terrorist act between November 2 and
November 6.” Clearly, the Russian leadership was caught off guard by the
ability of the US and UK to investigate the tragedy from a distance.
After the
reports by British investigators, Vladimir Putin called the British prime
minister and what he heard clearly “did not please” the Kremlin leader. Putin
then convened a special meeting of the Russian Security Council and “radically”
changed Moscow’s approach by stopping flights to and from Egypt and beginning the
evacuation of Russian tourists.
It appears,
Illarionov continues, that the British leader made the Russian leader “a
proposal which turned out to be difficult to reject. At least in words.” And
there is another point that should not be neglected: none of the Western
government reports about the shooting down of the plane identified ISIS as
being to blame.
No comments:
Post a Comment