In the 13th century, “Europe’s first alchemist,” Roger Bacon, brought to Europe expertise obtained from the Arabs — the heirs of antiquity. Seven centuries later, Great Britain pioneered the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East when General Allenby used cylinders containing asphyxiating gas in a battle against the Turks in 1917. The second incident was the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in March 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja. Who was the third culprit, in the recent chemical attack near Damascus?

In Russia, people do not believe it was Bashar al-Assad — and certainly not because they think he’s a nice guy. First, the use of chemical weapons is senseless from a military point of view: You can kill a lot more people with aircraft and tanks; moreover, in the two historical examples given, chemical weapons did not lead to victory for those who used them. Second, they would be like suicide to a regime waging a fierce war for survival. Russia’s official version, expressed by Vladimir Putin: The chemical attack was a provocation by extremists — the same people who recently committed the brutal massacre of Christians in the Christian holy city of Maaloula, one of only two places in the world where the locals speak the language of Christ, Aramaic. They may have been assisted by regional players who want to bring to power in Syria radicals from Jabhat al-Nusra and others like them. Incidentally, the example of the adherents of Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, who used sarin and VX gases, showed us that it is not hard to prepare homemade chemical weapons.

Alas, that’s the current version. Will the report by the UN inspectors, the conclusion of whose work Russia, at a minimum, proposes waiting for, help to resolve the dispute between Putin and that portion of the international community that supports him, on the one hand, and, on the other, the leaders of a number of Western countries, including several regional powers, who have been certain from the outset that the use of chemical weapons was the work of the Syrian president and that he therefore needs to be dealt a retaliatory strike? Many analysts believe that the inspectors will be able to establish that poison gas was used and even to determine how it was made, but that they are unlikely to be able to prove precisely who used them. Incidentally, Russia is convinced that the West has no persuasive evidence that Assad is guilty, and references to secrecy only reinforce such doubts.

There is no need to repeat Moscow’s official position that even in the presence of such evidence, military power may be used only with the approval of the UN Security Council. This position is shared by the overwhelming majority of people in the West, who are speaking out against any intervention in the Syrian conflict, which needs to be resolved, not stirred up. And indeed, what is the purpose of the strike? Russian analysts believe that the use of chemical weapons by the regime, whether imaginary or not, is only a pretext for the physical removal of Assad through surgical rocket attacks. Will that improve the situation in the country and in the region?