syria-russia

Russian military intervention in Syria has troubled many commentators and analysts in the West.

Russia coming to the aid of the beleaguered Syrian government alters the situation, certainly. But to what end, ultimately? And can ‘Syria’ still be ‘saved’…?

Predictable Washington condemnation of Russian military activity in Syria must surely be falling on deaf ears at this point (and basically amounts to “no, don’t attack those terrorists, attack these terrorists only!”).

After almost five years of US insanity in Syria, the US State Department has lost all credibility (and has of course long since lost any semblance of a moral high ground). So while Russia steps in to try to bring an end to an externally-orchestrated crisis that has killed a quarter-of-a-million Syrians and created millions of refugees, prepare to hear a whole lot of hypocritical condemnation and propaganda from the US State Department and various other anti-Assad parties (such as Saudi officials), most of whom have been aiding the armed warfare from the start.

Assad isn’t an angel, and Putin is no hero; but neither Assad nor Putin were the initiators of the War in Syria. The United States and its regional allies have had four years to try to help resolve the crisis and the US approach has never consisted of anything other than either airstrikes or the supply of weapons to jihadists. Remember that Russian diplomacy attempted to bring about peace talks over two years ago, while others were still sending in weapons to rebels and trying to bring about their desired regime-change. This (presently limited) Russian intervention may mark the decisive moment when the planned regime-change operation in Syria fails. If the disastrous regime-changes carried out in Iraq and Libya are anything to go by, this failure to fully overthrow Syria’s government might be considered a blessing. Unless of course the conflict leads to World War III, which is what some are suggesting we’re seeing take shape.

As for accusations that Russia is targeting ‘moderate’ rebels instead of ISIL/Daesh targets? What ‘moderate’ rebels? It has been openly admitted that there are no moderate rebels left in Syria, and that’s assuming there even were any moderates to begin with – a notion that was refuted by many analysts even in the early days. Most of the ‘moderates’ who were initially involved in the uprising defected back to the government’s side once they realised the extent to which the rebellion was a foreign-backed operation. By ‘moderate’ rebels, the US State Department simply means that Russian airstrikes have been hitting the CIA’s small bands of ‘vetted’ fighters.

 

syria_A-toy-is-seen-at-a-damaged-street-in-Homs

 

And yet even after the spectacular failures, the US State Department continues to talk about the enlistment of these fictional ‘moderates’. In a recent post, I mocked the new strategy to create a ‘New Syrian Force’ of so-called ‘moderates’ to fight both ISIL *and* the Syrian regime and was incredulous at the report that this ‘force’ consisted of only 60 fighters; ‘More than that, these 60 jihadists are to receive full, absolute military support from the US, Britain, Turkey and all, and once they are established in their ‘safe zones’, if the Syrian government tries to attack these ‘rebels’, they risk full retaliation from the US-led foreign invasion force! 60 jihadists is all America needs now as an excuse for all out war against Assad and Syria!’

What I hadn’t realised then was that it’s actually even more ludicrous than that, as anyone who saw the recent Senate Armed Services Committee comedy show will have discovered. When asked about the success of the $500m US effort to train ‘moderate’ Syrian forces to fight against ISIL fighters, the answer given as to how many of these ‘moderate’ rebels there are will make you fall off your chair. “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, answered. ‘Four or five’?

The Pentagon’s goal was supposedly to train some 5,000 of these ‘moderate’ rebels. ‘Four or five’ is beyond a joke.

But of course it’s more ridiculous even than that; because most of the fighters the United States was supporting originally, including all of the Saudi and Qatari funded jihadists, were either extremist or Al-Qaeda in the first place or subsequently joined the ‘Islamic State’. Those earlier fighters were all sold to us as ‘moderates’ too, but in actual fact some of the most brutal crimes carried out by rebels in the early months of the war (including attacks on Christian towns and locations) were carried about by members of the Free Syrian Army – the so-called ‘moderates’. So the idea that only ‘moderate’ fighters were being supported was always a lie; but now it’s gone beyond a lie and into a pantomime in which a supposed ‘5,000’ or so ‘moderate rebels’ has in fact been revealed as ‘four or five’. The Washington-led policy until now has basically been playing perfectly into the hands of ISIL/Daesh, which only even *exists* because of Washington’s actions in the first place; and the only subsequent strategy has been to try the same thing all over again, only this time with even fewer so-called ‘moderate’ rebels.

It is all beyond a sick joke by now. And the idea that Russian airstrikes are ‘making things worse’ can only be nonsense – things couldn’t *be* any worse than they already are in Syria.

Moreover, while Russia is now being accused of attacking the wrong terrorists, we might do well to remember that the US and its regional allies have already been accused of bombing anti-ISIS fighters in Iraq, with Turkey openly bombing Kurdish anti-ISIS fighters, and even accusations that US airstrikes have been targeting Syrian infrastructure under the guise of attacking ‘ISIS’. Aside from the fact that US drones – if the Pentagon had wished to – could’ve easily taken out the ISIL convoy of American vehicles crossing from Syria into Iraq a year ago, it seems highly unlikely that the United States has been genuinely trying to remove the ISIL/Daesh threat from the region at all, but rather allowing it to play out the purposes it was built for. This is old news by now, which has been covered here before. For example, there were Iraqi accusations of ISIL fighters being directly *aided* by the very parties that claimed to be trying to destroy them, with accusations of British planes carrying weapons for ISIL fighters in Al-Anbar province and US-led coalition planes allegedly air-dropping weapons and supplies *for* ISIL in terrorist-held areas.

Those might just be accusations – they might not be true; but the fact is that Syria has simply become a playground for the various powers to attack whoever they want and pursue their own agendas – and along with Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Britain and France, I also include Assad, Iran and Russia on that list. The only difference is that Russia, aside from serving its own interests, is committed to preserving the existence of a government in Syria and ultimately averting the Libya or Iraq style instability that will occur if the government falls; whereas the US/Saudi-led strategy simply seeks the downfall of the government, no matter the cost and regardless of whether the ‘Islamic State’ is able to further expand and prosper. To say that Bashar Assad is the ‘lesser of two evils’ is an understatement; even between Assad and the United States’ insane Middle-East policy, Assad would still be the lesser of two evils.

One has to wonder if anyone other than the Syrian Army and Hezbollah actually been trying to fight ISIS/Daesh in any meaningful way. ISIL – armed and funded by the United States and the Saudi-led Gulf States in the first instance – has actually expanded its territory since US-led airstrikes began a year ago. ISIL, along with the Al-Qaeda affiliates and other groups, were simply a geo-political ground-army in the operation to force a regime-change in Syria; just as Al-Qaeda was the ground-army in the operation to topple the government of Libya in 2011. It was a policy based on the 2010 Unconventional Warfare Manual of the US Military, and furthering the interests of the Zionist ‘Greater Israel’ plan for the Middle East and the Saudi-based Wahhabist/Salafist sectarian proxy war against the spread of Iranian/Shia influence.

In fact, leaked documents exist to prove that the Western powers, the Gulf States and Turkey were *trying* to create an extremist (Salafist) ‘Islamic State’ in the region all along – for the very purposes of toppling the Syrian government.

In which case the so-called ‘Islamic State’ we now have in Syria and Iraq might not have been an unforeseen by-product at all, but the desired outcome. The same may have been planned for Northern Africa via the importing of Al-Qaeda and ISIS into Libya; and bringing to mind Gaddafi’s complaints to Washington in 2011, when he expressed utter bafflement that Washington, London and Paris were attacking him when he was trying to fight off an Al-Qaeda-led takeover of Libyan cities (see more here).

 

yemen_iraqsyria

 

In regard to the Zionist ‘Yinon Plan’, the goal was always to carve-up the Middle East into smaller states, re-drawing the borders and maps; which is precisely what the US plan for a post-Assad Syria is, and this is also precisely the agenda that the so-called ‘Islamic State’ has been aiding so well in its spread across Syria and Iraq.

___________________

The real objection to Russia’s intervention is that it is threatening to blow away the established strategy for the US ‘End Game’ in Syria. Aside from the ‘Yinon Plan’, that end-game is also based on the policy paper recently put together by the rather infamous US foreign-policy think-tank, the ‘Brookings Institution’ (which was crucially involved in drawing up the Neo-Con plans for the Iraq invasion). The paper is titled ‘Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country’ and is covered in more detail in this older post.

But the basic plan was to create those long-desired ‘buffer zones’ for the protection of US-backed ‘moderate’ rebels (all five of them, I guess) and then to occupy areas of Syria with US special forces and to justify a nationwide “no-fly-zone” if and when Syrian government forces attempted to retake these ‘safe zones’. And of course any Syrian government attempt to violate that no-fly zone or the ‘buffer zones’ would justify full retaliation against the Assad government and inevitable regime-change. Russian intervention, however, may now thwart that plan.

It might be too little too late in humanitarian terms, and may even be too little too late in strategic terms; it is unlikely that Syria can now be ‘put back together’, so to speak, given that it has already been carved up into different zones of influence. The country and the society as it once was has been destroyed, probably beyond repair, just as is the case with Iraq.

But Russia’s move may at least thwart the bloody rush to the finish line for the original conspirators and their proxy terrorists. A month or so ago it certainly seemed as if the remnants of the Assad regime was on its last legs and the inevitable regime-change was on the horizon; things might be different now. The Assad regime and the Syrian state might survive. But even if it does, it might only survive as a shadow of what it might’ve been had Syria been left alone; it’s difficult to see a subsequent Assad-led government being much more than a Russian or Iranian client state in the region, rather than the strong, independent government/state it once was. It is also difficult to imagine any kind of Syrian national unity anymore.

But if it has come to this, it is because the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the other governments that orchestrated the flow of terrorism into Syria were unwilling to negotiate or compromise with the Syrian government when they had the chance and were instead utterly, unwaveringly committed to supporting the armed warfare and were unwilling to accept anything less than absolute regime-change. That had been the strategy in Libya too, where Gaddafi had made six separate offers to negotiate an agreement and had even offered to leave the country, only for NATO and the Western governments to refuse him time and time again (see more here), until eventually he was murdered and Libya spiraled into chaos. Assad simply cannot leave; no leader can depart in those kinds of circumstances and with that level of chaos and terrorism going on all over the country and with no alternative arrangement for government in place.

Russian intervention in Syria may be the only thing that prevents Syria becoming a second Libya; because it is shockingly clear that the United States and its allies have no concept of what is supposed to happen after Assad is gone and an enormous power vacuum is left to exist in the rubble and ruin of the once proud, stable nation.

As a result, American, British, French and other leaders, along with Saudi and Turkish officials, are left standing around like a bewildered comedy act that has just died a death on stage and has realised that no one in the crowd is laughing anymore.

 

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. sand49 says:

    Reblogged this on sand49.

    Like

  2. hos1911 says:

    Time will tell of course, but I incline more to the view that the Russians + Iran are getting involved because they see strength in the Assad govt. You seem to think they are on their last legs, and perhaps you know much more than I do. However Syria is unlike Iraq in being UNIFIED w/r to the government, not divided into Shia/Sunni, and it is unlike Libya in that it has a well developed modern state structure which rose out of opposition to the French, Iraq, Egypt, the UK and the US control and/or interference. This structure/army/courts/education system/health system/public service is INTACT AND WORKING as best it can under the circumstances. Syria has proved itself to be a tough nut, and in September 2013 the Russians and Chinese just told the US and France to BACK OFF in the war that didn’t happen. (see here: http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/9615.html – Can Russia Block Regime Change In Syria Again?) They are doing the same thing now. To me there are only three outcomes in Syria:1. Game Over for US/NATO plans for Syria and related pipelines, or 2. World War III if the lunatics in the US cannot accept defeat, or 3. they are overthrown in a coup by their own military, who might value their own lives and their families more than the incompetent bullies who make the decisions now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I do think, however, that they pretty much thought Syria would collapse as quickly as Libya did. The plan wasn’t for this to drag on for four-plus years. The difference is, as you say, the Syrian state and infrastructure is much stronger than what Gaddafi had built in Libya; but also it’s because Assad and Syria have had much more help and more willing allies, whereas Gaddafi was pretty much on his own.
      As for whether Syria will lead in to a Third World War, obviously we should hope not. I think it’s doubtful the US and NATO could *win* a war against Russia and China, so it would basically be suicide. I watched Obama reacting to the Russian airstrikes the other day and for the first time in his Presidency he actually looked shaken – I mean his eyes were bloodshot and he looked unsettled.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. hos1911 says:

    Russia is going to do more than save Syria in Syria. Their goal is to work with China and others to END US TERROR POLITICS in the world.

    Further to my comment above. I post here a recent comment by Alexander Zhilin, a Colonel in the military of the Russian Federation. It explains quite clearly why they are in Syria and what they are doing. They realize that (1) ISIS is a CIA tool, (2) one aim of ISIS is to eliminate the Syrian state, but (3) the CIA has plans also to move ISIS into the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Tatarstan. Therefore to protect themselves and Syria they are helping Syria destroy ISIS before they can be moved to other areas and threaten Russia more directly. He continues:

    “We must do what we can to ensure ISIS is destroyed in Syria. On this day, the situation is that major powers, such as China, and other strategic states, have come to the conclusion that it is imperative to create an anti-ISIS coalition. In turn, what has occurred is the realisation of a COALITION CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE TERROR-POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES. This kind of coalition has the potential to PUT THE THREAT OF THE UNITED STATES AT BAY.”
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54c_1444163287

    I don’t know about you, but I do not see the statements of Russians like Colonel Zhilin through the eyes of the 1950s Cold War mentality. I believe people like Zhilin and Putin are much more inclined to be telling the truth than ANY of our leaders. So what he is saying is that the Russian intervention in Syria is part of a broad-based strategy BACKED BY CHINA to stop the US breaking international laws as they have for the last 15 years, and stop them forcing their will on the rest of the world through military force and blatant terrorism. This means GAME OVER FOR THE US EMPIRE.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I hope you’re right about the end of US terror politics, hos1911. If Russia and its allies do manage to end the US threat of illegal wars and terrorism, it’s hard to imagine the US simply standing aside – particularly if either Hilary or a Neo-Con Republican government gets in next year.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I very much want to believe in this whole line of thinking (that Russia, or at least some of the leadership in Russia, is actively opposing the Amerikan New World Order…) but honestly, I am least keeping myself open to the possibility that even what we are seeing now, with the Ukraine, Syria, the “anti-ISIS coalition” etc., is all a part of a sort of “Cold War 2.0”.

      I know a lot of people have a hard time conceiving of it, but I do think it is quite reasonable to suspect that Russia and China are actually just as much manipulated and controlled by the same “powers that be” as the “West” is.

      Because this almost like “rule number one” for all examples of enacting totalitarian control over the past century(ies). You always provide more than one side to “root for”. You always have an “enemy” who we are supposed to be against, and that enemy can be on either side of the artificial fence. The mainstream folks can buy into the Amerikan propaganda and hate the “terrorists” and the “Russkies”, or the “Truthers” can see the NWO in the Pentagon/Israel etc., and then automatically assume that Putin and the others are truly “opposing” them, even if they aren’t “good guys” per se. But then, you’re gonna have the same thing going on over on the other side at the same time. At least, during the “first” Cold War, I’m sure plenty of Russians suffering under Communism (which the Wall Street Bankers financed and put into play of course) looked over at the West as their hoped-for “Saviors”, while they spent decades hungering for black-market blue jeans and Michael Jackson records….

      Liked by 1 person

      • I know you well (ish) enough to know that’s your view on it; I’m on the fence as to whether I agree with you or not, however. If both ‘sides’ of the conflict are playing out a programme together – and both sides are ‘in’ on it – they’re certainly expending a lot of money and resources in the process. And also, would you categorise the other players – Syrians, Iran, the Lebanese, the Iraqis, etc – the same way; as all being part of the programme? Or are they the ones not ‘in’ on it and just basically being used as pawns?
        I’m not saying you’re wrong though; it’s just very difficult to tell. But then when I heard Saudi officials saying there should be a holy war against Russia, I guess that sort of plays into what you’re suggesting, as it’s a stupid, insane thing to say otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, those are all totally good questions, and I should don’t have it all figured out, but I’m just, suspicious I guess. As far as the “individual countries” go, like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, etc.? I definitely believe that these countries/leaders are those which are perceived by the NWO as those which need to be “taken out of the way”. Any kind of true national sovereignty, particularly in the Middle East, is like completely intolerable to them and their long-term plans. The Saudis seem like they’ve been the West’s little bee-otch for ages now, and even more less ‘conspiratorial’ pundits would probably agree on that one.

        Russia is definitely a puzzling one though, not just in this century, but throughout it’s history. I go back and forth all the time on that one. There is of course a huge internal desire within me to see somebody like Putin earnestly stand up and give a big fat middle finger to the Western PtB, but… I dunno. Have you listened to any of James Corbett’s material on all of this? I think it was when the whole Snowden story was breaking a couple years ago, and he finally fled to Russia and was granted “Asylum”, etc., and the demonization of Russia really began in earnest here in the States, that I started to think that indeed this was all a part of a “meme” being re-kindled. The whole Russia = good or bad guy thing. Either way, it’s designed to pull people back into a nationalistic mindset…

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, I should probably catch up more with Corbett’s material. You’re right, I think, about the nationalistic mindset as well – it’s definitely on the rise in a big way, especially in Europe.

        Like

      • And that is very interesting to me, because for most of my life, Europe was always perceived as being so less nationalistic overall when compared to America (who for generations has basically considered itself “the Greatest Country on Earth”…) Europe, especially modern Europe, always seemed so much more open-minded, cross-culturally educated, etc. But it seems like the last few decades of constant migration from the Middle East and elsewhere have really been chipping away at that. It certainly feels like there is an intended agenda with all of that, on both continents, involving the ever-increasing strain being put on the budgets/governments of first world countries. But of course, that always sounds so racist to even mention, because of course anyone with half a brain knows that people are just people, and we all come from “immigrants” at some point in our family ancestry (unless you’re from some Persian family in Iran going back thousands of years or something I guess…)

        But hopefully you get my rambling point. True national sovereignty is obviously a major obstacle in creating a one-world government, so, by increasing tensions between people groups, races, governments, etc., they’re actually seeking to ultimately use that tension as an excuse to eventually remove those boundaries, dissolve sovereignty altogether. (the whole Hegelian thing, once again…)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Much of Europe unfortunately is becoming more nationalistic again; which is troubling, given how badly that’s gone in the past.
        I hate to say this – and I know this is alt. media/truth-seeker blasphemy – but there are days I think a one-world government and a move away from nation states might be the best thing in the long run. As a principle or idea, there’s nothing wrong with it in my mind; the problem is in *who* is controlling the process or transition; if it’s under the control of essentially corrupt, sinister people or agencies, then of course it’s going to be like Palpatine and the Empire. But a one-world transition under the control of well-meaning parties with popular support could be another matter entirely.

        Like

  4. migarium says:

    Yesterday morning when the Russian Caspian Fleet launched cruise missiles, or even just before, 53 Sunni spirit leader in Saudi Arabia declared jihad on Russia. It’s been told they do not have relations of S. Arabia management, but the management attitude of Saudi Arabia is already obvious. Russia’s airstrikes will achieve to hit targets, I said this all the time. Russia is a country which has been working on aviation since Stalin. That mean is at least 90 years. In this case those who are opposite of Russia what they will they so? 1- Land defense, 2- to improve domestic disturbance, 3- to compress Russia in economic sense.

    Land defense, we hear that the ISIS militants and anti-Assad dissidents as US-Turkey training and failed, have begun to leave Syria. What remains backward? If it is considered Iran has announced that it would support to land defense, the success of these groups in the defense will be difficult.

    Meanwhile, ISIS and the other militants from fleeing Syria are going to Lebanon, Turkey and possibly will go to Russia. We know that a lot of Chechens participation is in its, eventually. These could be troubled for Russian people. Russians have worried and they are right. It may increase the new terrorism. If we take into account the Saudis Sunni spirit leaders jihad calls, the Russia-Assad togetherness, can give distress in Russia in security means.

    Economically, it’s hard to compress to Russia. Even if the domestic policy of Putin isn’t supported too much, his froeign policy is supported with rate close to 70% from Russians. If we look at the event from Soviet Union collapsed, and perhaps a lot earlier, it is difficult to break down the material sense of the Russian people.

    I think ultimately the most complicated issues here, the second-2- substance, my Earthling freind. This will make it difficult for relief of Syria in short-term.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Neo-Pelagius says:

    All I can say is Господи помилуй … Κύριε ἐλέησον … or however you say Lord have mercy in your part of the world …

    Liked by 2 people

  6. migarium says:

    It is continuing,
    There are two news from today, both of them are about those who making call jihad
    “El Kaide’s Syria arm Nusra leader made a call to jihadists at Caucasia: Attack to Russian civilian”
    and
    “ISIS called all Muslims around the world to start jihad against Russian and USA citizens.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. D MacDonald says:

    It cannot be saved read isaiah ch 17 “The burden of Damascus”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s