After a solid year of the US-led coalition unsuccessfully fighting ISIS in Syria, nothing has been so unwelcome to the administration than recent media indications that Russia is looking to fight ISIS too, and in the complicated mess of factions that is Syria, two international anti-ISIS movements could quickly find themselves in a proxy war with one another.
Paradoxically, the US is pressuring Russia to “fight ISIS” even as they express outrage at unconfirmed media reports that Russia might be upping their aid to the Assad government in a direct attempt to prevent them being outright overrun by ISIS forces. Russia, for it’s part, says it’s doing nothing new, providing aid to the Syrian government at the same levels as always.
But the “fight” has to be on America’s terms, even if the terms the US has laid out publicly don’t make any sense, with the US nominally trying to destroy ISIS, destroy al-Qaeda, and destroy the Syrian government all at the same time, installing some non-existent pro-US faction in their place.
The reality of US policy is quite different, of course, with retired Gen. David Petraeus urging the US to more overtly start backing al-Qaeda as their preferred regime of choice in the nation, something Russia probably isn’t going to go for. Other members of the US coalition got there first, however, as despite public denials reports have been around for months that Turkey’s military has been aiding al-Qaeda in their gains in northwest Syria.
With that, the US opposition to Russia becomes more apparent, and sets the stage for a proxy battle by “US allies,” predominantly the al-Qaeda-led Islamist bloc, and the Russian-backed Syrian government, for the right to be the official internationally endorsed face of the war against ISIS, with Syria as the prize.
Russia’s suggestion of a unity government fighting ISIS, including both the existing Syrian government and secular rebels, was then a non-starter for the US, since the existing secular rebels are mostly irrelevant, and the al-Qaeda force that’s been doing the heavy lifting in the civil war from the start would be cut out of this deal.
Russia’s position makes sense from their perspective, as Russian interests in Syria are retaining them as a major ally in the Mediterranean, and retaining a naval base at Tartus. The US position seems primarily to exist in opposition to Russia’s position, which is why after years of talking up a largely fictional secular opposition they are edging closer to propping up al-Qaeda as America’s choice, simply because it’s not Russia’s choice.
They might want to bring in the Russia engaging them in what is created by USG, that might be a trap but Russia is nit crazy nor stupid as USG is and was when they started all this by being in bed with European neo mini liberals, the neo fascism and dictators as Saudis, turkish Erdogan regime the puppet of NATO and Wahhabis, and GCC.
Explaining US actions in Syria are like explaining US actions in Iraq, where Wolfowitz explained that it was an assembly of various interests and reasons, who all agreed to follow the common flag of WMD, without real concern about whether that was true.
In Syria there is no unifying WMD, unless it is "Assad is evil" despite the alternatives being our boogeyman al Qaeda itself or an even more extreme ISIS. It does not matter.
What are those varying interests? Justifying a big military budget. Wrecking the region around Israel to make it a villa in a wasteland. US power over oil sources. Recycling petrodollars to the US. Beating up on Russia as a wannabe peer competitor. Likely more. No one of them controls, they all align and go together.
That pretty much covers it.
I would add, that there's some interest in eliminating Arabs, Palestinians, Persians, Muslims, for reasons that need to be explained.
A.W´s very own "Baghdad Bob" of anything and any anti-Assad US-proxie there is, including ISIS, completely misses the point again. But lock yourself up in a cozy place far away from anything even remotely related to a conflict, with lot´s of crisps and western MSM as your only companion and you can´t have see it any other way.
First of all: Syrian "conflict" is (what else is new) about pipelines and the power that comes with it. Before the "conflict" even started Bashar al-Assad & the Syrian government said no to a US & it´s vassal Qatar proposed gas-pipe from Qatar trough Syria to Turkey for the European market. Syria in it´s right to do so and with geo-political considerations in mind, said no as it preferred a deal with it´s ally Iran that would have Iranian gas going roughly the same route (without the extension in Syria to israel as was the case with the US/Qatar pipe). Russia would have no problem with that or by competing with Iran in the European gas market but that would have left the US out and we can´t have that , hence the Color revolution attempt and the war.
Now, since little over a year everybody can spell the previously unknown acronym "ISIS" that terrorize the region and has claimed every uninhabited and infertile sand dune in Syria/Iraq and some cities between them as their "Caliphate". Since it is a US/Saudi creation for the aforementioned purpose, US has done little to live up to it´s stated goal, which is to fight them, rather supporting them except in areas that threatens US/Saudi/Turkey interests. The Syrian Arab Army and it´s allies incl. the Kurds on the other hand, effectively much more so.
What caused Russia´s latest reaction (apart from the US ineffectiveness and unwillingness to "fight" ISIS) is that if the US/Saudi proxies reach Damascus and the US installs a compliant regime (that of course will proclaim Wahhabism as the official religion and oust Russia and Iran), they would then with Saudi money and US blessings and arms, be sent , not to Europe, israel or the US of course, but to Russia via Caucasus, as Putin hinted in his latest speech. That if anything is of course an existential threat.
Now the US is checked in a dead end (again) as it is stuck with having to explain why it wont fight alongside Russia, a invited legitimate partner of Syria with boots on the ground, and their allies, especially since it´s (uninvited & illegal) activities has done absolutely nothing to stop ISIS. Cooperating with Syria wasn´t a problem during the last US attempt to invade it, when it was about chemical weapon´s, why now, and so on.They are all in disarray. What US says it does and how it´s MSM spins it makes no sense at all but it is very clear what they actually has achieved and what their goals are.
Lets see her, if ISIS wins, what is next…………. as ISIS looks at the Golan Heights and Ponders, we are only 60 miles from Jerusalem or 30 miles from Armageddon! Who is to blame, the US for allowing ISIS to come to fruition in the first place!
Russia has abandoned Tartus. Maybe Tartus matters to the russians as a potential naval base then , in the long run. Or maybe they don't car much about Tartus.
For decades, all actions done by the US appear to have increased tension and conflict as main result. Some US politicians kid themselves over that outcome but others never did and even advocate it. Even when an attempt is made to "make peace through diplomacy" like with Iran, this is certainly not intended that way because a better road would obviously be to normalize relations and integrate the nuclear subject in any regional common and shared policy. Clearly that didn't happen and therefore any understanding is waiting to be undone by unfolding events. The hidden motive here is to "kill by kindness" which in this case means to put extra stress on the Iranian government and society by this very nuclear agreement and lifting of sanctions (of course the main goal remains putting stress on the Conservatives and Israel lobby at home: policy always first targets the immediate political challenges at home after all, that's a given). But this stress induced further away will appear the moment another conflict arises for example the developing situation in Syria or Palestine. The US bets on Iran not being able to keep on doing the acrobatic moves and that internal divisions will become exposed. It's really a one trick pony.
And this is how they always have operated. Regime change with as goal a more like minded ruler class (eg just like them ideologically). The concept of "soft power" might sound diplomatic, in a way it's even more sick and potentially destructive than outward hawkish and militant stances because of how whole bodies of meaning are destroyed and not only lives. Examples here are the various Clinton wars and initiated sanction regimes and secret operations, just check the resulting body count! It's all competing for destructive qualities with G.W. Bush's suicidal campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But at the roots, this is all connected in one single ideology, which is then hardly ever discussed since that's the way this functions better: when it's never on the table to begin with.
The US has been allied with salafist extremists for at least the last half century. That is, after all, what Saudi Arabia is. At first, this alliance was relatively passive, focused mainly on supporting KSA on the Arabian Peninsula.
The policy of actively stirring up chaos started in 1979. Originally conceived by Bernard Lewis as a traditional British plan to "divide and rule," the plan was to take advantage of the lack of cohesion and internal divisions within countries whose boundaries had been drawn by imperial powers with little regard for ethnic and religious differences. This "arc of crisis" stretched from Nigeria to Pakistan, a region of the world long a focus of British imperialism. Zbigniew Brzezinski adapted the concept as a means to weaken the USSR. The plan was to back Islamist forces in Afghanistan and other countries in the Middle East, hoping that the influence of such Islamist/salafist extremists would spread to the Muslim SSRs and Chechnya. The US foreign policy establishment refers to the target area as the "arc of instability." The goal was not necessarily to control, but to create forces there that would attack and weaken the USSR. Implementation began in the 1979, with covert support for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. This is now acknowledged to have occurred 6 months before the Soviet effort to stabilize the situation by invading.
While Brzezinski's plan does not seem to have been very effective in splitting Central Asia from Russia and China, it did help to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and probably contributed to the civil war in Chechnya. However, another important effect was the outbreak of war between Iran and Iraq (encouraged by Sunni elites in the Gulf fearful of their Shia underclass), and the opportunity to sell arms to both sides. With the collapse of the entire Warsaw Pact in 1989-90 and widespread talk of a "peace dividend" threatening the livelihood of the entire MIC, I recall much talk about an "arc of instability" stretching from Pakistan through northern Africa that might require continued or even increased military expenditures.
However, before the US could deal overtly with this "arc of instability," it needed to deal with the "Vietnam syndrome." Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait — to solve what April Glaspie had told him was an internal Arab problem in which the US government had little interest — gave Bush 41 the opportunity the MIC needed to dispel that syndrome by destroying Iraq's Army. The US has been on a decidedly interventionist path ever since in Somalia, Sudan and the Balkans, culminating in Bush 43's dumb war and Obama's "smart" interventions in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Ukraine.
These interventions of the last 35 years have never achieved America's "exceptional" goals to quell instability, protect human rights or establish democracies, nor have they even achieved less widely published but avowed goals to protect the "international community's" access to resources or establish US hegemony. Oil exports always fall during war, and nobody has control in places like Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan, Libya, Syria or Ukraine. On the contrary, our interventions and those of our allies have created failed states or civil war in all these countries. However, sane people do not repeat the same actions over and over expecting different results. Then why are these policies continued? We do have a resurgent Russia today, but this did not seem to be a problem for most of the last 25 years, and it remains to be seen whether Putin will repeat Brezhnev's mistake. It's aslo consistent with the policy Richard Perle recommended to Netanyahu in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, to sow division within the Arab world. However, I think weakening Russia and helping Israel are incidental given US activity in countries far removed from either Israel or Russia.
US policies have done wonders to justify the institutional imperatives of the MIC: 1) profits for arms manufacturers and other military contractors, 2) career enhancement for military brass, civilian employees of the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and militarist thinktanks, 3) blockbuster movies and sensational headlines to sell media (and also contribute to the necessary fear and jingoism), 4) pork for politicians and 5) attendant high paying jobs guaranteed by ITAR (International Traffick in Arms Regulations) for "US persons" that keep those employees loyal to the system. Thus, we see that these policies are wildly successful and will be continued until the US is totally isolated and the sheeple rebel.
Setting a trap for Putin would make sense. He's already bogged down in Ukraine and getting him bogged in Syria as well would be very helpful to Ukraine. The war in Afghanistan and and arms race with the US brought down the Soviet Union and Putin has so far fallen into every trap set for him. Already, whatever Putin does in Syria, it's lose-lose for him. If he backs off now, in the face of public US opposition, he will appear to capitulate to the US in the eyes of his elderly supporters and that, combined with the stalemate in Ukraine, could be enough to bring him down. If he carries on, he will dig himself deeper into the Syrian quagmire, he'll probably face significant desertions from his military forces (as happened in Afghanistan and Chechnya) and he may even end up fighting NATO forces directly. If he ditches Assad and joins the US in fighting ISIS, he endangers the naval base (militarily useless but a prestige object) and appears to be a US puppet. Putin's capacity for shooting himself in the foot is amazing!
Putin is bogged down in Ukraine? Putin has retaken control of the Crimea and secured the important Soviet naval base. Then the Ukraine government was routed in its attempt to impose its anti Russian will on Eastern Ukraine. And Putin may stabilize the situation in Syria and be the force on the ground that Europe and the U.S. are looking for to check ISIS and end the refugee disaster.
Ukraine is 'bogged down' in Ukraine.
By the time the average person found out Russia was actually invading Ukraine there'd be Russian tanks in Kiev.
The Russians are more than capable in defeating the US & NATO on it's borders!
Americans do not even fight unless they have overwhelming superiority in both numbers and fire-power, so there is no way to know just how good US infantry is because they no longer have the belly for an equal fight.
Heck, even with such insane advantages they’ve still managed to lose most wars every single time since WW2.
One advantage Americans have is experience, they have been fighting wars for the last 14 years. But this is also a double edged sword. They have been fighting farmers such as the Taliban, been fighting people that can’t even afford a proper pair of shoes to go into combat. …they don’t have the belly for an equal fight.
The U.S enemy these past 14 years only has small arms to fight with. So their tactics and experience has evolved around smashing the poor local farmer that has picked up an AK47 and if there are 20 Talibs, the Americans call in Close Air Support, anything from Helicopter Gunships to Bombers because they don’t know or don’t want to risk assaulting a position as grunts.
Have the Americans prepared for a war with Russia, where not a single American aircraft will get back in one piece over the battlefield? My guess is they have not.
In this scenario, Air Superiority will be a fantasy and they would have to go toe to toe with the Russian Military which most likely has and is fully preparing for a showdown with NATO on Russia’s home soil.
I believe the Russian military is fully capable of defending themselves against a NATO (USA) offensive and to go further, I believe that Russia would smash NATO so badly, that it would be an end to the alliance once and for good. I also believe that NATO (USA) knows this and therefore all the west can muster, is scamming the poor Ukrainians to fight for them, while they fight on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.
Bloody pathetic !
Putin and Obama may meet to discuss Syria strategy.
Putin is trying to ingratiate himself and as an agent of Russia with US interest, while still attempting to delay a final confrontation that sad to say will be complete Russian nations capitulation.
One can wonder if Putin does not already know that he is fighting for a lost cause and is trying to salvage as much as he can, not so much for Mother Russia, as for the top tiered economic controllers.
Russia is a huge land mass with huge portions deadly to ones healt to livewithin but the need for saleable resources demanding somebody must dig and they will.
Case in point is Soviets ( Russians act as if Soviets were some alien invaders that they had no contact with) left behind in now Sovereign Republics in Central Asia.. Deadly irradiated tens of millions no hundreds of millions of hctares that are
deadly to the human gene pool so thatThey need Chinese manpower to take up lack of qualified or heLthy enough Russian work force.
The oil that so far finances their society can no longer provide enough financial security nor military either and without surrendrring to Euro or US demands, short of a useless and fn insane nuclear deterrent Russia like Gorby will sell out for the easy way out.
If there is a proxy war the Russian Bear is toothless and it will be declawed as well no matter course chosen.
The game has a stacked deck and while everyone knows the US as the dealer is cheating every hand what choice does anyone have its the only game going.
Never read so much tosh on a forum….you obviously don't have a handle on World geo-politics
Russian military is incapable of fighting a modern war, not only because of its equipment but its populaces mindset.
The last conflict Russia had was in Georgia where an ity bitty military destroyed a dozen military aircraft, they had to cannabalize their tanks and armored vehicles and trucks that kept falling apart just to get there.
Once there their troops were canabalizing clothing, boots ,webgear including packs and hydration systems, ammo and grenade pouches and especially they sought out the military food and eating utensiles of their Israeli and US suplied fallen enemies.
No one denies that Rusdia could carry a WWII type vonflict out against smeone like Ukraine( who by the wsy used to produce a lot of Russian militRy equipment for sale overseas) but the old days of flags flying whistles bowing and bugles blaring charge as masses of tropps and equipment face the same are long gone.
One bomb during IRAQ I killed every living thing, and destroyed equipment beyond repair over a 5 mile in radius circle, just one.
The odd part is no survivors have ever come forward.
Russia has only Russian soil to launch from while US and its allies have hundreds if not a couple thousands of bases to attack from.
DARPA WEAPONRY WOULD ANIHALATE MOST OF RUSSIAN POPULATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION AND WATER CENTERS, EMP WEAPONRY LAUNCHED FROM SPACE ALONG WITH DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS WOULD SHUT DOWN NUKE PLANTS COOLING SYSTEMS AND ANY
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN ONE WEEK AND RUSSIA HAS NO DEFENSE AGAINST THEM.
Putin and Russian oligarchs know this and will continue to play game as long as they can enrich themselves withiut any fear of Harm, but being practicle buisness men they will collect assets sell their debits and look for amnew game.