On the 7th and 8th day after Assad regime gassed and killed at least 91 people in Khan Sheikhoun on the 4th of April, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally joined the Russian-Assad regime propaganda campaign to cover up what happened earlier this month and caused the US to carry out an isolated retaliatory strike against an Assad air force base.

In Moscow, Putin gave an interview where he pointed out “two possible versions” of the events. It won’t come as a surprise that both stories discharge Assad and his regime from any responsibility. Putin’s account of what could have possibly happened is nothing but pure lies. 

The first version, Putin said, was the one spread by his military on the day after the attack. The regime hit a Syrian rebel chemical weapons depot in Khan Sheikhoun, causing the agents to spread and kill people. Eight days after the massacre, neither Russia nor Assad brought up ANY evidence that would support such a claim. Both are active with drones and jets in the area – not just during the attack but also since then. If they could point out and prove which “CW storage” was hit and what sort of materials were in there, they should show such evidence. The plain truth is that they haven’t got any evidence that would back their unsubstantial claims.

Putin also repeated the claim that the rebels planned to bring their chemicals to Iraq to use them against the Iraqi Army and International Coalition Forces in the country. He said that not even those two actors would argue this hadn’t happened in the past. Putin is dead wrong.  

Firstly, he mixes up Syrian rebels and ISIS terrorists. Putin has constantly looked at both as one since the start of the Russian aggression in Syria in September 2015. Neither Iraq nor the US ever reported that the rebels would supply ISIS with weapons, not to speak of chemical weapons that would then be used in Iraq. Putin simply lies, claiming both are confirming his accusation. 

Secondly, even IF there would be a cooperation between jihadi rebels in Idlib and ISIS in Hama eastern province, the closest ISIS-controlled point to Khan Sheikhoun is separated from the rebel-held territory by an area occupied by Assad forces, so it would be geographically impossible for the rebels to transport materials to Khan Sheikhoun. Putin ignores this on-the-ground fact. He lies without even trying to make sense. Assad-Putin loyalists will believe what he says anyway.

The second version Putin promoted on Wednesday was a “provocation to discredit the Syrian authorities.” While he did not elaborate on what he meant, this could mean two things: First, a chemical weapons attack from the air by a third party other than Assad regime or Russia is absolutely absurd and was not even suggested by the regime itself or Iran; or, second, he could mean that Assad was right to do what he did and no one in the world had the right to criticize him for that as he remains – as the Kremlin and the Mullahs in Tehran see it – the “legitimate president” of Syria. 

What is dangerous about the “fake attack” (by a third party) version is that Putin also referred to it one day earlier, speaking after a meeting with the Italian President in Moscow. He claimed to have information about future planned attacks like the one in Khan Sheikhoun, throughout the country and especially in the southern suburbs of Damascus. This is only a distraction for Assad’s gas attacks. This could indicate that the pro-Assad coalition indeed plans a repetition of chemical weapons attack like the one we saw on the 4th of April. 

Putin’s non-stop lying about Khan Sheikhoun gas attack proves that the Kremlin sees no need to produce a solid alternative version of what it allows or even initiates to happen in Syria, no matter the scale and impact. His hint at more gas attacks “as provocations” could mean that the Khan Sheikhoun massacre was just the first step to test Trump’s reaction. As his response was relatively weak – though stronger than anyone else in the West over the past six years − Putin could give him another challenge and this time his air defense in Syria could be on the line as he and Assad are not threatened by minimal accountability for their daily war crimes in general and their chemical weapons attacks on women and children in particular.

-------------------------------------------------

Julian Röpcke is a newspaper editor and political commentator, based in the German capital, Berlin. With a degree in Political Geography and Sociology, Mr. Röpcke started analyzing geopolitical conflicts after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He covered the “Arab Spring” as well as the evolving conflicts in Syria and Ukraine from their very beginning. Julian Röpcke works for BILD, the largest newspaper and leading online news portal in Germany (@JulianRoepcke).