For a prediction to be accurate, it has to have some degree of accuracy and proof, not speculation.
That's like me saying "watch, there's going to be a drought in california sometime in the next few years and that it's a false flag staged by the round-earth globalists to make it seem like there's climate change"
it's utter nonsense, but I predicted the drought! 
You're in a thread that posts nothing but speculation and hearsay regarding Russian conspiracies but they freak out when speculation and hearsay that actually predicted an event that just happened is posted. Can you not see the vast hypocrisy in that?
Predicted it or got out in front of things they knew were possible to happen in the future knowing what has already happened? Like they did last April?
I mean lets just throw a hypothetical out here, lets assume that Russia is an autocratic nation, that's leader has a history of doing things like bombing his own people to solidify power, funneling out any government dissent in the press(including through murder), and engaging and allowing allies to use incredibly controversial(and often highly illegal) means of solidifying power. Like looking the other way on hundreds of chlorine gas attacks on rebels and citizens threatening their geopolitical ally
What might that hypothetical country continually say publicly under those circumstances? I think they might say something like "These are not coming from the Assad government, they are rebel attacks that show their disdain for the citizenry and perhaps even a false flag. Also, these dangerous rebels and their western supporters will almost certainly do it again." You know, just to make sure they cover all their bases knowing their ally isn't going to stop.
They probably wouldn't offer any substantive evidence to support these assertions, they might also slow walk investigations in the international courts and refuse to pressure their allied government to comply with calls to remove all their chemical weapons supplies as an additional assurance.
