The US’ Latest Crocus Claim…

The second and third-order effects of their work could influence America’s deep state and electoral dynamics once their final report is published and inadvertently amplified by the Mainstream Media in a desperate attempt to discredit it.

The Russian Investigative Committee’s probe into Ukrainian and Western involvement in terrorist attacks on their country’s soil is more important than ever after the Washington Post (WaPo) cited unnamed American officials to report that the US informed the FSB in early March that Crocus would be attacked. This claim contradicts what other unnamed American officials told the New York Times (NYT) about how the US withheld specific information about that plot in order to not burn their sources and methods.

Both the NYT and WaPo are regarded as newspapers of record that can be trusted to not make up sources or statements even if the aforesaid ultimately turn out to be factually incorrect. Accordingly, there’s no reason to doubt that both outlets did indeed serve as conduits for unnamed American officials to introduce their respective narratives into the global information ecosystem, though it’s unclear why they contradict each other. The most likely reason is that there are deep internal divisions over this issue.

Each of these two leading outlets reported in mid-November on the letter signed by more than 500 Biden Administration officials across some 40 government agencies expressing principled dissent over American policy towards the latest Israeli-Hamas war. This precedent proves that it’s not a so-called “conspiracy theory” to speculate about deep internal divisions on sensitive issues such as exactly what the US knew ahead of the Crocus attack and how much of that it actually passed along to Russia.

With that in mind, it was arguably the case that the NYT’s sources spilled the beans about the US withholding specific information about this terrorist plot, but then WaPo’s sources carried out reputational damage control after the preceding truth made America look terrible in many people’s eyes. Nevertheless, what the NYT reported has now been “memory-holed” while WaPo’s contradictory claim is fast becoming the official narrative, which contributes to discrediting the Russian security services.

Immediately after the attack, the Mainstream Media (MSM) decontextualized two sentences from President Putin’s meeting with the FSB a few days before the incident in order to dishonestly allege that he downplayed ISIS-K threats in the run-up to what happened, but this analysis here debunks that. Meanwhile, this analysis here cites the MSM’s own reporting over the past year to posit that the US learned about this plot by spying on Kiev, which explains why it’s so obsessed with only blaming ISIS-K.

The insight gleaned from the preceding hyperlinked analyses lends credence to what the NYT’s American sources claimed about the US withholding specific information about the attack, but the evidence and logic contained therein haven’t broken through the “Great Western Firewall” of MSM censorship. Average folks in the West might therefore be inclined to lend false credence to what WaPo’s American sources just claimed, thus manipulating their views about what happened before the Crocus attack.

The most effective way to break through the abovementioned firewall is for the Russian Investigative Committee to complete their ongoing work into Western involvement in terrorist attacks on their country’s soil such as the spree of assassinations, drone strikes, and the several Crimean Bridge attacks. Their final report and associated evidence could then become such a global media sensation that the MSM would be compelled to report on it just like they reported on Russia’s Crocus claims.

This wouldn’t just protect Russia’s integrity amidst the claim from WaPo’s American sources that it inexplicably ignored alleged warnings that Crocus would be targeted but would also give a helping hand to the comparatively more responsible deep state faction represented by the NYT’s American sources. The deep internal divisions over Gaza and now seemingly Crocus as well, have the potential to shift the internal policymaking balance between them and also influence voters’ perceptions ahead of November.

If the comparatively more irresponsible deep state faction represented by WaPo’s sources is able to maintain dominance over the official narrative on this issue, then on-the-fence voters in the upcoming neck-and-neck election might think that Russia was the irresponsible one, not the Biden Administration. Those that learn the truth about the Biden Administration’s involvement in terrorist attacks on Russian soil, however, might then vote for third parties or support Trump in order to avert World War III.

The former president accused the incumbent of spiking that worst-case scenario by miscalculation on the same day as WaPo’s report was published, with this concern becoming a hallmark of his campaign, but it’s not reckless fearmongering like critics might claim. The Russian Investigative Committee’s ongoing work will prove how irresponsible the Biden Administration has been in this respect, though it’s premature to speculate on the exact evidence that they might soon unearth.

At the very least, the US’ financing of Ukraine’s military-intelligence agency (GUR) and secret police (SBU) is enough to indirectly implicate it in their crimes since Washington could have cut the purse strings to protest their terrorist attacks long ago if it truly didn’t endorse them. WaPo’s report last fall that cited unnamed American sources to boast about how the CIA rebuilt the GUR from the ground-up from 2014 onwards is even more damning since it strongly suggests that the GUR has been the CIA’s proxy all along.

These facts and more will probably figure into the investigation’s findings, which will predictably be so scandalous that the MSM will feel compelled to report on them after already reporting on the comparatively less scandalous claim of American involvement in the Crocus terrorist attack in particular. Although those outlets’ intent will be to discredit the investigation’s conclusions just like their reporting about the last-mentioned claim was meant to do the same, it’ll still inadvertently amplify this news.

Refusing to talk about it would be self-discrediting and come off as suspicious, hence why the decision was made to challenge Russia’s claim of American and Ukrainian connections to the Crocus attack. Upon reporting on the Russian Investigative Committee’s final report, however, the MSM would unwittingly give a helping hand to the comparatively more responsible deep state faction represented by the NYT’s sources and inform voters of the terrorist activity that the Biden Administration is involved in.

To be clear, Russia has the right to investigate anyone’s involvement in terrorist attacks on its soil and share what it learned with the world, just like any country has. The second and third-order effects that are foreseen to unfold after the MSM inadvertently amplify this in an attempt to discredit it once the final report becomes a global media sensation aren’t planned but are simply predictable. This is a crucial difference since planning to influence deep state and electoral dynamics would amount to meddling.

The MSM’s dilemma is the same as the one that it faced eight years back after the DNC leaks in that they were compelled to report on them after this news became too big to ignore but doing so ended up influencing deep state and electoral dynamics. Something similar is happening nowadays too, albeit instead of another round of DNC leaks, a comparatively more responsible deep state faction leaked to the NYT that the US withheld specific intelligence that could have prevented the Crocus terrorist attack.

Unlike eight years ago, however, their comparatively more irresponsible rivals have much more power as a result of the Biden Administration’s purge that politically neutralized most deep state forces opposed to their New Cold War against Russia. This dissident faction still exists as evidenced by what they told the NYT, but their rivals are much more powerful as proven by them responding with the latest false narrative pushed by WaPo alleging that the US supposedly did pass along specific information to Russia.

It’s in this larger context that the Russian Investigative Committee is carrying out their ongoing work, whose second and third-order effects could influence America’s deep state and electoral dynamics once their final report is published and inadvertently amplified by the MSM in a desperate attempt to discredit it. For these reasons, their findings could have an outsized impact not only on events within the US itself, but also across the world considering how pivotal that country’s role in global affairs still is.
 

© Andrew Korybko 2024