In the last century we have witnessed how Russian agents have assassinated individuals throughout the world, even their own, from Trotsky to the latest. In recent cases, rebel commanders in Eastern Ukraine are "committing suicide" in numbers.

   Having served their purpose in the barbaric invasion of Eastern Ukraine the various agents and warlords are now being disposed of in a tidying up of any incriminating evidence, including the notorious "Motorola" (Arsen Pavlov)  the Russian soldier accused of war crime atrocities and executing at least "...15 Ukrainian prisoners", by his own count.

   An improvised explosive device had been set off in an elevator, killing "Motorola" and his bodyguard. Another recent favorite of the Kremlin's "assassination bureau” is poison of various kinds. (I wonder who decides?) For Alexander Litvinenko it was radioactive poison. 

   Here's a thought: The recent attempt at poisoning Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, could that have been  Putin's and Russia's most recent assassination target?  I know, sounds like another conspiracy fanatic: Let's blame another thing on Putin, why not?

   However, this may not be beyond the realm of possibility. There may be a reason why Putin might be anxious to get rid of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. He may no longer be of any use to Putin...and perhaps he knows too much to stay alive? My first question would be: from where did this man, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, obtain such training to lead such a conquering army? Perhaps it's no coincidence that ISIS did attain its formidable force only after "Russian"/Chechen Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's leadership took over.

   In a recent article by Judith Miller she writes that, "American Enterprise Institute’s director of Russian studies, recently noted that Russia has contributed more fighters to ISIS than any other European nation....With an estimated 300-500 ISIS recruiters the Russian capital, Moscow has become a key hub and way station to Syria for foreign fighters." (Fox News)

   Putin seems to show no fear of ISIS and "radical Islam", could there be a hidden agenda. As for the reason why Putin would "manufacture" such a strategy, Why not?

   At the time, deflect the West from the battles in Ukraine, MH17, and such; and the more instability anywhere, the greater Russian influence and ultimately control. Did anyone bother to wonder why bombing ISIS in Syria was such a no-no for Russia?All Putin had to do was send a special set of Russian Chechen mercenaries just as he did in Ukraine and use the same tactics only much harsher for the Muslim world, and hope that the results were the same as Ukraine, conquer lands and the spoils of war.

   And if nothing more than it just being a distraction for the West during his Ukrainian takeover, that would have served its purpose. However unlike Ukraine, ISIS was running extremely wild in Iraq, then Syria. Their butchery was horrendous, but I doubt if Putin lost any sleep or concern over the carnage, they're not his enemy.

   If I were Putin I certainly would have entertained such a plan...wouldn't you? And if true, obviously this was a good plan since no one is suspecting it? How inexplicably coincidental that once the Russian Chechens arrived in ISIS that the tone of the fighting had changed. Or did that coincidence also escape everyone?

   Even in Ukraine there was a report of an Ukrainian soldier being hung out, crucifixion  style, by the roadside where he died......Chechens, Russians, whoever is there, the style of warfare is similar......no life is sacred to them.

   Look deeper beyond the obvious and I'm sure you might find some of Putin fingerprints.

   Remember this is a man whose lies and deceit have branded all of Russia as a Nation of Liars, and simply not trusted. Putin denies everything, there is no truth in Russia even if proven.

   And which world leader is shaping the agenda presently? Putin's only unexpected drawback...the price of oil and sanctions. Otherwise: Mission Accomplished for Putin!

Bohdan Yuri -- OVI Magazine

 

   As we are deep into amusing conspiracy theories: here is another bit on Caliph al-Baghdadi: what would happen if the caliph is on the run after both Mosul and Raqqa have been liberated? Would he shave off his beard like so many of his fighters, leaving a conspicuous untanned zone on his face?  

   No, a caliph does not shave. But where would he go? He has made so many enemies for religious and criminal reasons. Doha and Dubai are out of consideration, and in Baluchistan his enemy al-Zawahiri would surely catch him. Gaza would be a place to welcome him and admire his military prowess. But Gaza is so damn small and exposed to Israeli surveillance.  Libya? The Libyans won't like to be bossed around by a defeated caliph.

   Remains only one option: asking for asylum in Turkey. The Islamist government in Ankara has given ample proof of its admiration of and support for Daesh, despite the 254 Turkish victims of Daesh terrorism. Why Ankara is so deeply in love with Daesh (and presumably its caliph) has been detailed by someone who should know: Abdullah Bozkurt, a star writer of the Fethullah Gülen media empire and former Ankara bureau chief of Zaman newspaper. He tells it all but beware: he is a dyed in the wool Gülenist!  

Ihsan al-Tawil

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of this magazine or its editors.