If you do a simple google search regarding the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’s (OPCW) investigation into the claims of chemical attacks in Douma, Syria, you are going to come up with a whole slew of conflicting information, many of which are coming from various news entities. Even in this day and age, this is a bit unusual as the arguments tend to circle around the interpretation of the facts presented, not the existence of the facts themselves. For example, people rarely argue what President Trump did or didn’t say, they usually argue over what he meant or how it was said, or something along those lines. Now we have the very existence of facts being disputed.
At approximately 2 p.m. on April 26, if you googled “OPCW,” two of the top news results are major Russian networks. Sputnik is a state-owned news agency, and their title reads “OPCW Finds No Chemical Weapons at Syrian Facilities Bombed by US – Russian MoD” (note that this title is worded in a way that sounds like fact that will be backed up in the article, but is actually a quote). TASS, also owned by the Russian government, contained a little less of a brazen title: “Russia, Syria to bring 17 eyewitnesses of events in Douma to OPCW.” However, to their credit, both articles mostly just repeat what was announced by Russian officials, like Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy. While the Sputnik article outlines the differences in rhetoric coming out of the pentagon as opposed to what’s coming out of Russia regarding the ensuing missile attacks, there is no mention of the difficulties the OPCW has had in their investigation. At the end of the day, they all point toward the same message: the U.S.’s claims of a chemical attack is some kind of conspiracy.
On Thursday, Britain and France both called Russia’s allegations an “obscene masquerade” used to hide the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
When it comes to the OPCW, the truth is a little less dramatic than anyone seems to be offering to the public, and no definitive answer has been given. This is an investigation for empirical data — it’s a scientific investigation, not a message or a political statement (but regardless of the results, it will be used as such).