The Russian government is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Russian government keeps making agreements with Washington, and Washington keeps breaking them. And the NYC blast is used to distract, by CIA, from the bombing event of Syrian forces...
Russia Has No Partners in the West. In Syria, US and ISIS Join Hands against Russia
This latest exercise in what Einstein defined as insanity is the
latest Syrian cease fire agreement. Washington broke the agreement by
sending the US Air Force to bomb Syrian troop positions, killing 62
Syrian soldiers and wounding 100, thus clearing the way for ISIS to
renew the attack.
Russia caught Washington off guard in September 2015 when the Russian
Air Force was sent to bomb ISIS positions in Syria, thus enabling the
Syrian Army to regain the initiative. Russia had the war against ISIS
won, but pulled out unexpectedly before the job was done. This allowed
the US or its agents to resupply ISIS, which renewed the attack.
So Russia had to return to Syria. In the interval Washington had
inserted itself. Now the Russian air attacks on ISIS are more
complicated, as is the sky over Syria. Russia notifies Washington of its
planned attacks on ISIS, and Washington warns ISIS and perhaps Turkey
which shot down a Russian plane. Nevertheless, the Syrian Army gained
ground.
But each time victory was stymied by “peace talks” or a “cease fire,”
during which the US supported forces would regroup. Consequently, a war
that Russia and Syria could have already won continues, and with a new
element. Now Washington has directly attacked the Syrian army.
The US military claims it thought it was striking ISIS. Think about
that a minute. The US claims to be a military superpower. It spies on
the entire world, even on the personal emails and cell phone calls of
its European vassals. Yet, somehow all this spy power failed to
differentiate a known Syrian Army position from ISIS. If we believe
that, we must conclude that the US is militarily incompetent.
This is what has happened: Priot to the current “cease fire,” the
Russians could attack the US-supported jihadists, but the US could not
attack Syrian forces directly, only through its jihadist proxies. The US
has used the “cease fire” to create a precedent for US direct attacks
on the Syrian Army.
The Russians, who almost had the war won, have shifted their focus to
“peace talks” and “cease fires” that the US has used to introduce
Washington’s direct participation into the conflict.
It is a mystery that the Russian government believes Washington and
Moscow have any common interest in the outcome in Syria. Washington’s
interest is to remove Assad and put Syria into the chaos that rules in
Libya and Iraq. Russia’s interest is to stabalize Syria as a bulwark
against the spread of jihadism. It is extraordinary that the Russian
government is so misinformed that it thinks Moscow and Washington have a
common interest in fighting terrorism, when terrorism is Washington’s
weapon for destabilizing the Middle East.
How can the Russian memory be so short. Washington promised Gorbachev
that if he permitted the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move
one inch to the East. But the Clinton regime placed NATO on Russia’s
border.
The George W. Bush regime violated the ABM Treaty by pulling out of
it, and the Obama regime is putting missile bases on Russia’s border.
The neoconservatives deep-sixed no first use of nuclear weapons and
elevated them to pre-emptive first strike in US war doctrine.
The Obama regime overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed a
US puppet government in a former constituent part of Russia. The puppet
government launched a war against the Russian populations in Ukraine,
causing secession movements that Washington has mischaracterized as
“Russian invasion and annexation.”
Yet, the Russian government thinks Washington is a “partner” with whom it has common interests.
Go figure.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall
Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News
Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university
appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
‘Coincidence: ISIS launched offensive straight after US strike on Syrian troops?’
Global Research, September 19, 2016
If Russia bombed Washington allies in Syria just as the US
‘mistakenly’ did, UN envoy Samantha Power would make as much of a stink
as she possibly could, analysts said, adding that in general the US is
uncomfortable in a new relationship with Russia in the context of the
ceasefire.
The US coalition carried out airstrikes on the Syrian Army near the
eastern city of Deir ez-Zor on Saturday. 62 people were killed,
according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.
The air attack was followed by a bitter exchange between the US and Russia at the United Nations Security Council on Saturday night.
“It is highly suspicious that the US chose to conduct this particular air strike at this time,” Russia’s Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, adding that the strike that killed Syrian soldiers did not look like an honest mistake.
“As we’ve heard, the Defense Department is very uneasy with this. And the US has been taking it on both cheeks – not only have they erroneously bombed Deir ez-Zor, killing a lot of Syrian troops, but just yesterday they were kicked out of a Syrian town in Northern Syria,” he said.
Landis referred to an incident when a small group of US Special Forces reportedly fled from the Syrian town of al-Rai near the Turkish border after being threatened by rebel fighters. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is considered to be American allies, kicked the US military out, calling them “infidels” and “crusaders.”
“This was a very embarrassing scene for the US, because these moderate militias are supposed to be welcoming to the US,” Landis added.
Commenting on Power’s rhetoric at the UNSC, he said, “the US doesn’t want to get on its knees in front of Russia and beg forgiveness.”
“The US has a lot of competitive, and long, history with Russia, whether it is in Ukraine, or it is in Syria. I am sure, however, if the shoe is on the other foot, and these were American allies who’ve been bombed by Russia, that Ambassador Power would make as much of a stink as she possibly could. That is what her job is to do. And Russia would have to find a way to thread that needle. There is a certain amount of grandstanding on all sides here. And the US is clearly guilty of that itself. It is trying to deflect the blame in this situation and place it on Russia for being allied with Assad – an enemy of the US,” Landis told RT.
“Is it a coincidence that the [Islamic State] fighters were immediately ready to launch an offensive once the air strike was made on the Syrian forces?” Copley asked.
“This perhaps indicates that there might well have been a leak of some of the US targeting against the Syrian forces to [Islamic State] forces or other jihadist forces which were to enable them to take advantage of the so-called ‘mistaken’ strike by the US air force.”
“It is certainly likely to allow the US to escalate its position because that is what I think President Obama is seeking to do, to upgrade this conflict against President Assad rather than against Daesh.”
“They have not changed their position of hostility towards the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus,” he told RT.
He also commented on what this incident might mean for the future of the agreement reached between Russia and the US during recent talks in Geneva.
“To the extent that agreement existed, there have been reports coming out of the last two days that suggested there have been hundreds of the violations of the agreement by the armed opposition inside the country. This doesn’t help the entire process of reaching a long-term political settlement in the country,” Azikiwe said.
What’s interesting, the analyst said, is that Jabhat Fateh al-Sham armed opposition group, formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front, rejected this agreement, saying that it gave too much power to the Syrian government.
“This is problematic for the US. If the agreement is effective, then it eliminates their main foreign policy imperative vis-à-vis Syria – that is the removal of the legitimate government inside the country,” he added.
The response to this fact by the Obama regime’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, reveals that Washington will lie to the hilt in order to achieve its agenda of reducing Syria to the same chaos as Washington has reduced Iraq and Libya. Washington, and Washington alone, is responsible for the war in Syria. When the British Parliament and the Russian government blocked Obama’s intended US invasion of Syria, the Obama regime armed and financed jihadist mercenaries to invade Syria, pretending that the jihadists were Syrian rebels fighting for democracy in Syria. Samantha Power turned history upside down and blames the war on Russia’s intervention at the request of the Syrian government against the ISIL jihadists that Washington sent to destabilize Syria. What Samantha means is that if Russia had not come to the aid of Syria, Washington and ISIL would already have destroyed Syria, and there would be no war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45501.htm
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, said that in his 40 years of diplomacy he had never seen such a high-handed and demagogic performance as Samantha’s. Churkin seemed to imply that such an unrealistic and twisted response to known facts as Samantha delivered leaves him without hope of any successful diplomatic outcome.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45502.htm
If the Russian government has finally arrived at the conclusion that Washington is determined to destroy political stability in Syria and to replace it with chaos, it has taken a long time. The Russian government has studiously avoided this conclusion, because once diplomacy is acknowledged as useless, force confronts force. In today’s context that means thermo-nuclear war and the end of life on Earth. This is the reason that the Russian government has replied diplomatically to Washington’s coercive provocations, offering Washington cooperation in place of conflict.
However, Washington wants conflict. The Russians have pretended that Washington has a common interest with Russia in combating terrorism, but terrorism is Washington’s tool for destabilizing Syria, then Iran, and then the Muslim provinces of the Russian Federation and China.
Washington wants hegemeny not cooperation. Now that Samantha Power has made this so clear that the Russian government can no longer pretend otherwise, what will Russia (and China) do?
If Russia and China are not ready for the war that Washington is bringing to them, will they retreat in the face of the aggression, sacrificing Syria, the break-away Russian provinces from Ukraine, and the various disputed island issues in the Pacific Ocean while they gather their strength? Or will they decide to break-up the NATO alliance by making the cost of conflict very clear to Washington’s European vassals? Clearly, Europe has nothing to gain from Washington’s aggression against Russia and China.
Or is Russia unable to do anything now that diplomacy is a proven dead-end?
Perhaps this is the over-riding question. As far as someone who is not a member of the Russian government can tell, Russia is not completely in control of its destiny. Elements in the Russian government known as “Atlanticist Integrationists” believe that it is more important for Russia to be part of the West and to be integrated into the Western system than to be a sovereign country. They argue that if formerly great powers, such as Great Britain, Germany, and France, can profit from being American vassals, so can Russia.
Atlanticist Integrationists claim that Russia’s strategic nuclear capability and land mass means that Russia can maintain some sovereignty and only partially submit as a vassal. One problem with this position is that it assumes the neo-conservatives are content with less than complete hegemony and would not capitalize on Russia’s weakened position to achieve full hegemony.
The Russian government probably still has hopes that at least some European governments will recognize their responsibility to avoid war and exit NATO, thus removing political cover for Washington’s aggression. Possibly there is some such hope, but the main European political figures are bought-and-paid-for by Washington. As a high US government official told me as long ago as the 1970s, “we own them; they belong to us.”
Not much hope can be found in the European media. Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a book in which he said that every significant European journalist was on the CIA’s payroll.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
With politicians and media bought off, where can European leadership come from? Europeans have become accustomed to their role as hired vassals. As no European politician or newspaper editor can assume that an act of rebellion would succeed, they are more likely to enjoy their life enriched by American gratuities than to take a risk for humanity.
The wider question is whether the extant socio-politico-economic systems can act in behalf of humanity. It is not clear that capitalist civilizations are capable of being humane, because worth is based on money, which makes greed and power the overpowering factors. It is possible that human evil and incompetence have destroyed not only the planet’s environment but also humane social systems. Globalism is not a scheme for cooperation. It is Washington’s scheme for American domination.
The air attack was followed by a bitter exchange between the US and Russia at the United Nations Security Council on Saturday night.
“It is highly suspicious that the US chose to conduct this particular air strike at this time,” Russia’s Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, adding that the strike that killed Syrian soldiers did not look like an honest mistake.
US envoy Samantha Power expressed “regret” over the strike and then went on to slam Russia’s “uniquely hypocritical and cynical” attempt to make Washington explain itself at an urgent UNSC meeting.
According to Joshua Landis of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oklahoma, the US “is very uncomfortable in this new relationship with Russia and the ceasefire.” “As we’ve heard, the Defense Department is very uneasy with this. And the US has been taking it on both cheeks – not only have they erroneously bombed Deir ez-Zor, killing a lot of Syrian troops, but just yesterday they were kicked out of a Syrian town in Northern Syria,” he said.
Landis referred to an incident when a small group of US Special Forces reportedly fled from the Syrian town of al-Rai near the Turkish border after being threatened by rebel fighters. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is considered to be American allies, kicked the US military out, calling them “infidels” and “crusaders.”
“This was a very embarrassing scene for the US, because these moderate militias are supposed to be welcoming to the US,” Landis added.
Commenting on Power’s rhetoric at the UNSC, he said, “the US doesn’t want to get on its knees in front of Russia and beg forgiveness.”
“The US has a lot of competitive, and long, history with Russia, whether it is in Ukraine, or it is in Syria. I am sure, however, if the shoe is on the other foot, and these were American allies who’ve been bombed by Russia, that Ambassador Power would make as much of a stink as she possibly could. That is what her job is to do. And Russia would have to find a way to thread that needle. There is a certain amount of grandstanding on all sides here. And the US is clearly guilty of that itself. It is trying to deflect the blame in this situation and place it on Russia for being allied with Assad – an enemy of the US,” Landis told RT.
‘Info leak to terrorists ahead of strike can’t be ruled out’
It is likely that information about the US air strikes against Syrian Army positions was leaked to terrorists ahead of the raid, so they could start their offensive against government forces, Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs, told RT.“Is it a coincidence that the [Islamic State] fighters were immediately ready to launch an offensive once the air strike was made on the Syrian forces?” Copley asked.
“This perhaps indicates that there might well have been a leak of some of the US targeting against the Syrian forces to [Islamic State] forces or other jihadist forces which were to enable them to take advantage of the so-called ‘mistaken’ strike by the US air force.”
“It is certainly likely to allow the US to escalate its position because that is what I think President Obama is seeking to do, to upgrade this conflict against President Assad rather than against Daesh.”
US hostility towards Assad unchanged
The US might say that the strike was “unintentional,” but at the same time they have a political position in Syria that is at variance with the Syrian government, as well as with Russia, noted Abayomi Azikiwe, editor at Pan-African News Wire.“They have not changed their position of hostility towards the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus,” he told RT.
He also commented on what this incident might mean for the future of the agreement reached between Russia and the US during recent talks in Geneva.
“To the extent that agreement existed, there have been reports coming out of the last two days that suggested there have been hundreds of the violations of the agreement by the armed opposition inside the country. This doesn’t help the entire process of reaching a long-term political settlement in the country,” Azikiwe said.
What’s interesting, the analyst said, is that Jabhat Fateh al-Sham armed opposition group, formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front, rejected this agreement, saying that it gave too much power to the Syrian government.
“This is problematic for the US. If the agreement is effective, then it eliminates their main foreign policy imperative vis-à-vis Syria – that is the removal of the legitimate government inside the country,” he added.
Will Russia Surrender?
The Russian government’s sincere and diligent effort to prevent chaos in Syria and additional massive refugee flow into Europe, all the while avoiding conflict with Washington and its vassals, has been brought to an end by Washington’s intentional attack on a known Syrian army position, thus wrecking the cease fire agreement that Russia sacrificed so much to achieve.The response to this fact by the Obama regime’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, reveals that Washington will lie to the hilt in order to achieve its agenda of reducing Syria to the same chaos as Washington has reduced Iraq and Libya. Washington, and Washington alone, is responsible for the war in Syria. When the British Parliament and the Russian government blocked Obama’s intended US invasion of Syria, the Obama regime armed and financed jihadist mercenaries to invade Syria, pretending that the jihadists were Syrian rebels fighting for democracy in Syria. Samantha Power turned history upside down and blames the war on Russia’s intervention at the request of the Syrian government against the ISIL jihadists that Washington sent to destabilize Syria. What Samantha means is that if Russia had not come to the aid of Syria, Washington and ISIL would already have destroyed Syria, and there would be no war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45501.htm
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, said that in his 40 years of diplomacy he had never seen such a high-handed and demagogic performance as Samantha’s. Churkin seemed to imply that such an unrealistic and twisted response to known facts as Samantha delivered leaves him without hope of any successful diplomatic outcome.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45502.htm
If the Russian government has finally arrived at the conclusion that Washington is determined to destroy political stability in Syria and to replace it with chaos, it has taken a long time. The Russian government has studiously avoided this conclusion, because once diplomacy is acknowledged as useless, force confronts force. In today’s context that means thermo-nuclear war and the end of life on Earth. This is the reason that the Russian government has replied diplomatically to Washington’s coercive provocations, offering Washington cooperation in place of conflict.
However, Washington wants conflict. The Russians have pretended that Washington has a common interest with Russia in combating terrorism, but terrorism is Washington’s tool for destabilizing Syria, then Iran, and then the Muslim provinces of the Russian Federation and China.
Washington wants hegemeny not cooperation. Now that Samantha Power has made this so clear that the Russian government can no longer pretend otherwise, what will Russia (and China) do?
If Russia and China are not ready for the war that Washington is bringing to them, will they retreat in the face of the aggression, sacrificing Syria, the break-away Russian provinces from Ukraine, and the various disputed island issues in the Pacific Ocean while they gather their strength? Or will they decide to break-up the NATO alliance by making the cost of conflict very clear to Washington’s European vassals? Clearly, Europe has nothing to gain from Washington’s aggression against Russia and China.
Or is Russia unable to do anything now that diplomacy is a proven dead-end?
Perhaps this is the over-riding question. As far as someone who is not a member of the Russian government can tell, Russia is not completely in control of its destiny. Elements in the Russian government known as “Atlanticist Integrationists” believe that it is more important for Russia to be part of the West and to be integrated into the Western system than to be a sovereign country. They argue that if formerly great powers, such as Great Britain, Germany, and France, can profit from being American vassals, so can Russia.
Atlanticist Integrationists claim that Russia’s strategic nuclear capability and land mass means that Russia can maintain some sovereignty and only partially submit as a vassal. One problem with this position is that it assumes the neo-conservatives are content with less than complete hegemony and would not capitalize on Russia’s weakened position to achieve full hegemony.
The Russian government probably still has hopes that at least some European governments will recognize their responsibility to avoid war and exit NATO, thus removing political cover for Washington’s aggression. Possibly there is some such hope, but the main European political figures are bought-and-paid-for by Washington. As a high US government official told me as long ago as the 1970s, “we own them; they belong to us.”
Not much hope can be found in the European media. Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a book in which he said that every significant European journalist was on the CIA’s payroll.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
With politicians and media bought off, where can European leadership come from? Europeans have become accustomed to their role as hired vassals. As no European politician or newspaper editor can assume that an act of rebellion would succeed, they are more likely to enjoy their life enriched by American gratuities than to take a risk for humanity.
The wider question is whether the extant socio-politico-economic systems can act in behalf of humanity. It is not clear that capitalist civilizations are capable of being humane, because worth is based on money, which makes greed and power the overpowering factors. It is possible that human evil and incompetence have destroyed not only the planet’s environment but also humane social systems. Globalism is not a scheme for cooperation. It is Washington’s scheme for American domination.
No comments:
Post a Comment