At the moment, Assange is serving a 50-week sentence in London for skipping bail and taking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, which cast him out in April.
Washington, however, continues to seek Assange's extradition, a move a UK court must first approve. If extradited, the online publisher faces up to 175 years in jail for espionage.
Gordon Dimmack, an independent media reporter, suggests that the Swedish-led investigation was ended because it had "served its purpose".
"There were never any charges of rape filed against Julian Assange by Sweden, despite the many dozens of headlines and media articles that state the opposite, nor were there ever likely to be any charges filed. Sweden broke their own laws protecting suspects during preliminary rape investigations by exposing Assange to a relentless smear campaign in the media and the chief prosecutor cancelled the investigation concluding, 'there is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever'". Dimmack says.
The pundit notes that the "investigation" was reopened twice, in 2017 and 2019, confusing leaders with incorrect keywords with the alleged purpose of leading attention away from the real reason for Assange's prosecution.
"The "investigation" was reopened twice, in 2017 and 2019, leading to many more headlines being written in the media including the words "rape and "Assange", poisoning the minds of those reading to think the treatment of Assange was to do with something other than his role as the publisher of WikiLeaks, which published factual documents including the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs which proved lying war criminals were lying war criminals. The threat of extradition was never from Sweden, ultimately, America was always the destination", Dimmack points out.
The media reporter also suggests that Washington is seeking to make an example of Assange for other potential whistleblowers, while the whole bustle around his current legal battle and stance is at this stage futile, because Assange's extradition to the US "has already been approved".
"If his treatment by the UK courts and prison service so far is anything to go by, I doubt it. UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Meltzer, remarked in July that the US administration "intends to make an example of him (Assange)" and stated recently that the UK had not opened an investigation into breaches of Assange's Human Rights, as the UN have instructed them to do. The authorities seem to be doing the bare minimum to afford Julian any sort of chance to defend himself at all, and the media are certainly doing their level best to only report this story when they absolutely have to, and even then only from a pro-establishment side. Strange thing for them to be eerily silent on or get so wrong, considering future implications for media outlets who publish classified documents in the public interest. i.e.- themselves", Dimmack says.
Dimmack hints, however, that there are some options that could help the embattled whistleblower.
"John Pilger called the latest appearance at Westminster court a "show trial." For these reasons I am of the opinion Julian's extradition to the US has already been approved, and only people power can help him. Fortunately for Julian, I can see support on the ground is multiplying faster than the authorities would like", Dimmack says.
Dimmack also assumes that after main allegations against the Wikileaks founder were dropped by Sweden, it would not be a "surprise" that new details of his "wrongdoing" will be "leaked" to the media from somewhere else as his "trial draws nearer".
"US authorities are now in custody of all of Julian Assange's possessions from the Ecuadorian embassy. It would not surprise me one bit if allegations of wrongdoing from elsewhere was leaked to the media as Assange's trial draws nearer. It would make sense to attempt to muddy the waters some more now the focus cannot be drawn towards any Swedish "allegations" or non - existent "charges" in future discussions", Dimmack said.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.