A Debate in a Parallel Universe

debate2

After watching last night’s debate, I’ve come to the conclusion that Americans, or at least our political leaders, really and truly are living in a parallel universe.

The most pressing issues facing our country at this time–our support of terrorists in Syria, our nuclear brinksmanship with Russia, the power of the Israeli lobby, the control of the media–all went unaddressed. They went unaddressed by: a) the candidates, b) the two debate moderators, and, c) the selected audience members who were allowed to ask questions.

It is as if the mainstream media–which of course are owned by a very small group of people, most of whom are Jewish and rabidly Zionist–has defined for everyone in the country, including the two presidential candidates, what they must accept and regard as “reality.”

Stepping outside the parameters of this definition is forbidden. And indeed the two candidates largely adhered to this prerequisite. The only time either deviated was when Trump, responding to Clinton’s fulminations over his comments about women, brought up her legal defense of a 12-year-old girl’s rapist years ago in Arkansas. (As far as I’m aware, the MSM have not reported that story, although it has been discussed at length on a number of videos, such as this one.)

And thus we had Clinton engaging in Russia bashing, Trump denigrating the Iran deal, both arguing over character issues and whether Obama Care is good or bad–while neither dared venture beyond the reality that has been constructed for them.

Not once, for instance, did we hear Trump say,  “I think it would be a good idea if America stopped funding and supporting terrorists in Syria.”

Over the past 15 years, since 9/11, and particularly over the past few years with the war in Syria, we have watched the collapse of professional journalism in the West. A graphic example of this occurred on the first of October when the UK newspaper The Independent reported on the death of a Syrian swimmer and her younger brother in Aleppo, implying they had been killed by Syrian or Russian airstrikes.

hindoyan

News of the deaths of Mireille Hindoyan and her brother, Arman, was originally published by an Armenian news site, Kantasar. When The Independent picked the story up and re-published it, under the byline of Katie Forster, it left out a key piece of information–that the two youngsters were killed by “rebels.”

People started posting tweets about the omission.

This @Independent article by @KatieForster doesn’t mention these Armenian children were killed by rebel attacks on gov.-controlled Aleppo.

Dear @katieforster, I’m assuming this is your first foray in the issue. I suggest you do some research firstpic.twitter.com/T45JhOjXOb

@Nour_Samaha Quite sure @katieforster knew exactly what she was doing.
Story would not have been used if couldn’t be blamed.

SAA reportedly advances in Bustan Pasha, 1st time in years. Area is major source of rebel hell canon shelling on W. Aleppo & Sheikh Maqsud.

Killed by rebel hell canons today in Aleppo:

Siblings Mireille & Arman Hindoyan, Dzila Jabaghchourian & Hasmig Giragosian-Berejiklian. pic.twitter.com/u00KEejJjz

View image on Twitter

After the posting of a number of tweets of this nature, The Independent revised the story to include the following:

“A number of commentators claimed the deaths were a result of a rebel-led attack, although those claims could not be verified.”

This resulted in more Tweets…

.@katieforster @Independent Oh, there’s a correction. But I’m genuinely intrigued, what was the attempt at verification? @iadtawil

Syrian girl and her 12-year-old brother killed by bombing in Aleppohttp://ind.pn/2dmtGVf 

…and eventually a report from RT containing an interview with the victims’ family…

It was last month that John Kerry famously accused Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of living in a “parallel universe.” The US Secretary of State of course got it backwards. The alternate reality is the one he and other US officials are surfing in. Millions of Americans, in fact, are hopelessly entrapped in this alternate reality, this parallel universe, and I am not optimistic they will find their way out anytime soon.

A quiet thinking in politics: How did the Russians accomplish the goal of the understanding? تفكير هادئ في السياسة: كيف أنجز الروس الهدف من التفاهم؟  

 

During a year of the Russian military escalated role in the Syrian war, it seemed clearly that Moscow’s goal has always remained to attract Washington to a cooperation in the war on Al Nusra front, because in their opinion it is the main source of danger against the country and the army in Syria and the betting hidden horse  for all the seekers to overthrow the Syrian President, and without it there is no gate for any military or political opposition but the political solution which based on a unified government under the Syrian Presidency in preparation for elections in which he participates, and because of their deep belief that the differences between Al Nusra and ISIS are tactical, that are related to the difference between two mechanisms of promoting the doctrine of atonement and generalizing it as an approach , one mechanism wants to have the control on a part of a geography and to form  a mechanism of local ruling that is similar to what Taliban and Al Nusra do, and another one supports its similarities where through the original organization it can have control over new geography, and then the return to the UN program of targeting the outside which is being handled by the original organization, exempting the local branches from the consequences of its classification on the terrorism’s lists.This is the approach of Ayman Al –Zawahri through which he succeeded in integrating the Muslim Brotherhood with the formations of Al-Qaeda in Syria, so one of Al-Nusra’s  leaders has become the military leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and he has cleared up the old approach  of Al-Qaeda which was adopted by Osama Bin Laden and which ISIS is still continuing its work according to it, and going on doing  the UN work and targeting the outside starting from the methodology of that the priority of the mobilization to the politics, because without the external work it cannot join the new human waves to the ranks of the organization.
This pivotal episode in the Russian strategy has remained present in all the stages of the military and the negotiating work, it has emerged clearly in the understanding which the Russians have spent months to achieve it with the Americans, they have received many criticisms from some of the allies for the absurdity of the attempt to attract the Americans to their project, and even to make them choose between the hypothesis of losing everything and the acceptance of this partnership. As the understanding has become a text and a political achievement that many people recognize the credibility of the attempt and the bet of Moscow, as its stumbling towards a violent public bombing of the US Russian relations has led people to talk again about the absurdity of the bet and the attempt together, but the question is what happened after that?.
In the field, a Syrian military campaign has been launched with the allies and through an exceptional Russian support in Aleppo and its countryside, it has succeeded within ten days of achieving qualitative breakthroughs and has formed a pressure on the West at its forefront Washington to talk about alternatives that prevent the fall of Aleppo under the control of the Syrian army, even if the title was covered by the humanitarian wrap.The talk has reached to US raids on the Syrian army and about alated missiles that target the airports’ runways, but the Russian response was fiercer. Moscow said that the system of S300 and the system of S400 will be operated against any aerial target, whether a plan or a missile, because there is no time for the networks and their radars to discriminate the destination, the target, and the source before dropping any flying object. The US responses were regressive by showing the lack of intention of such targets and the desire of the success of cease-fire.The White House has issued successive statements to illustrate the futility of the military option in Syria, as when the US Secretary of State John Kerry has already illustrated that in a leaked audio recording the meaning of that, the escalation will bring an escalation, and that the biggest loser will be the factions that are close to Washington which refused the recipe of the political solution and which will be crushed terminally according to Kerry’s speech.
What happened practically was that the hell which the Americans have warned their allies of its occurrence as a justification for their going to have an understanding with Moscow despite of all its concessions is no longer a dead paper but it has been achieved in reality, and that the escalation which will bring the escalation which Kerry has warned of has emerged as a scene of sequential episodes. But this not due to the theatrical distribution of the roles between Washington and Moscow but due to the fact that what have the Americans reached to and was refused by their allies is the best possible, and the fact that the only alternative is the hell as well as the fact that keeping pace of Washington’s allies by testing the resort to escalation was not fruitful as the expectations, which the Americans  have already notified their allies that the escalation will lead to more escalation, thus to where?
It does not seem that the Russians and the Americans will emerge to the public to say that the return to the understanding is still the closest and the best recipe, but they may do that soon and may not, and the Americans may wait the scream of their allies and their appeals, as well as, the Syrian army may precede with its field movement the slowness of the political achievements, but suddenly and before anything the UN Envoy Steffan De Mistura emerged and announced a sudden initiative of humanitarian message about the eastern of Aleppo, that has invoked a reminder from the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to say that why did not we hear you when Al Nusra has launched its attack on Ramouseh threatening of besieging the West of Aleppo, knowing that it has double population of the people of the east of Aleppo?, but the most important is that De Mistura after crying he has presented a project that included in its premise a lot of lies and lot of the important facts, but he cannot talk what he already talked in facts and proposals except with the consent and perhaps a demand from the Americans, so what did De Mistura say?
For the first time we hear a frank statement that Al Nusra is present in the eastern of Aleppo and that it represented half of the armed body and the half of its force has come out to fight in the battles of Ramouseh and the second half remained. The most important here is the initiative. De Mistura said that the solution for ceasing-fire is not as Kerry said at the meeting of the Security Council and supported by the French and the British people that the Syrian army and its Russian ally will stop their raids and their aerial strikes for a continuous week to reassure the opposition factions and to prepare them psychologically to accept to dismantle their relation of Al Nusra, but the solution for ceasing –fire according to De Mistura supported by the Americans is what Lavrov has already said that Washington and the United Nations will take over the responsibility of dismantling the relation between  the opposition and Al Nusra. De Mistura is running a risk by accompanying thousands of Al-Nusra members that are present in the eastern of Aleppo to complete cease-fire and to allow the entry of the relief convoys.
If we examine carefully the proposal of De Mistura, we will find that he presents an active mechanism to achieve the goal which the Russians have already insisted on and insist on considering it a condition for every calm, truce, ceasing-fire, and practical and political understandings. It is to dismantle the relation of Al Nusra of the other groups which are desired to be contributed in the truce, calm, and the political process. De Mistura and who is accompanied him know that what they already knew and because of that they disrupted the understandings. Whenever Al Nusra comes out the ability of the others to fight will fall, this is the recipe of De Mistura, he proposed it practically  not the Russians or the Syrians that the way to achieve this separation between Al Nusra and the other groups is not by depending on a political role of Washington and others, but by exerting military serious and qualitative pressure by Moscow and Damascus on the areas of the military presence of Al Nusra and the armed groups, and bearing the media pressures, the diplomatic escalation and the response to the threat by threat, till De Mistura comes and takes his friends in Al  Nusra front to outside this area and thus from one area to another till the contents of the understanding which the Americans have suspended its implementation are achieved,  but they will implement it at the hands of their envoy the friend of Al Nusra.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

تفكير هادئ في السياسة: كيف أنجز الروس الهدف من التفاهم؟  

ناصر قنديل
– خلال عام من الدور العسكري الروسي العالي الوتيرة في الحرب السورية، بدا بوضوح أن الهدف الذي بقي دائماً في موسكو هو جذب واشنطن إلى تعاون في الحرب على جبهة النصرة، لكونها برأيهم المصدر الرئيسي للخطر على الدولة والجيش في سورية، وحصان الرهان الخفي لكل الساعين لإسقاط الرئيس السوري، وبدونها لا باب لأي معارضة سياسية أو عسكرية إلا الحل السياسي الذي يقوم على حكومة موحدة في ظل الرئيس السوري، تمهيداً لانتخابات بمشاركته، ولقناعتهم العميقة أن الفوارق بين النصرة وداعش تكتيكية، تتّصل بالفرق بين آليتين لنشر عقيدة التكفير وتعميمها كمنهج، آلية ترى السيطرة على جزء من الجغرافيا وبناء آلية حكم محلية، تشبه ما تفعله طالبان والنصرة، ومثلها دعم نظائر لها حيث يمكن عبر التنظيم الأم الإمساك بجغرافيا جديدة، وبعد التمكّن من العودة للبرنامج الأممي باستهداف الخارج، الذي يتولاه التنظيم الأم، معفياً الفروع المحلية من تبعات تصنيفها على لوائح الإرهاب. وهذا هو منهج أيمن الظواهري الذي نجح بفضله بدمج الإخوان المسلمين مع تشكيلات القاعدة في سورية، فصار أحد قادة النصرة القائد العسكري للإخوان، وبين منهج القاعدة القديم الذي تبنّاه أسامة بن لادن ويواصل داعش العمل به ويقوم على المواظبة على العمل الأممي واستهداف الخارج انطلاقاً من منهجية أولوية التعبئة على السياسة. فبدون العمل الخارجي لا يمكن ضمّ موجات بشرية جديدة لصفوف التنظيم.

– هذه الحلقة المحورية في الاستراتيجية الروسية بقيت حاضرة في كلّ مراحل العمل العسكري والتفاوضي. وظهرت بوضوح في التفاهم الذي أمضى الروس شهوراً لبلوغه مع الأميركيين، وتلقوا انتقادات عديدة من بعض الحلفاء على عبثية السعي لجذب الأميركيين لمشروعهم، ولو بجعلهم يختارون بين فرضية خسارة كلّ شيء، أو القبول بهذه الشراكة. وبمثل ما جعل التفاهم كنص وإنجاز سياسي الكثير يسلّمون لموسكو بصوابية سعيها ورهانها، جعل تعثره وصولاً لانفجار علني عنيف للعلاقات الأميركية الروسية يعودون للحديث عن عبثية الرهان والسعي معاً، لكن السؤال هو ماذا جرى بعد ذلك؟

– ميدانياً، انطلقت حملة عسكرية سورية مع الحلفاء بدعم روسي استثنائي في حلب وريفها ونجحت خلال عشرة أيام بتحقيق اختراقات نوعية، وشكلت ضغطاً على الغرب وفي طليعته واشنطن للحديث عن بدائل تمنع سقوط حلب بيد الجيش السوري، ولو كان العنوان مغلفاً بالحديث الإنساني، ووصل الكلام عن غارات أميركية على الجيش السوري، وعن صواريخ مجنّحة تستهدف مدارج المطارات، وكان الردّ الروسي أعنف، فقالت موسكو إنّ منظومة الـ«أس 300» ومنظومة الـ«أس 400» ستشغلان ضدّ أيّ هدف جوي، طائرة كان أم صاروخاً، لأن لا وقت لدى الشبكات وراداراتها لتبيّن الوجهة والهدف والمصدر قبل إسقاط أيّ جسم طائر، وكانت الردود الأميركية تراجعية بإظهار عدم النية بمثل هذه الاستهدافات، وتظهير الرغبة بالنجاح في وقف النار، وأصدر البيت الأبيض بيانات متلاحقة لتوضيح لا جدوى الخيار العسكري في سورية، بمثل ما سبق أن أوضح ذلك كلام وزير الخارجية الأميركي جون كيري في تسجيله المسرّب معنى أنّ التصعيد سيجلب التصعيد، وأنّ الخاسر الأكبر ستكون الفصائل القريبة من واشنطن التي رفضت وصفة الحلّ السياسي، والتي سيُقضى عليها نهائياً، وفقاً لكلام كيري.

– الذي جرى عملياً، أنّ الجحيم الذي حذر الأميركيون حلفاءهم من وقوعه، كتبرير لذهابهم للتفاهم مع موسكو، رغم كل ما فيه من تنازلات، لم يعُد جحيماً على الورق، بل تحقق في الواقع. وأن التصعيد الذي سيجلب التصعيد الذي حذر منه كيري، برز كمشهد بحلقات متسلسلة، وهذا ليس ناجماً عن توزيع مسرحي للأدوار بين واشنطن وموسكو، بل عن حقيقة كون ما توصل له الأميركيون ورفضه حلفاؤهم هو أفضل الممكن، وحقيقة أنّ بديله الوحيد هو الجحيم، وحقيقة أنّ مسايرة واشنطن حلفاءها باختبار اللجوء إلى التصعيد لم يخرج بنتائجه عن توقعاتهم التي أبلغوها للحلفاء مسبقاً أنه سيجلب المزيد من التصعيد، وبالتالي إلى أين؟

– لا يبدو أنّ الروس والأميركيين يقتربون بفعل ذلك من الخروج إلى العالم للقول إنّ العودة للتفاهم لا تزال الوصفة الأقرب والأفضل، وقد يفعلون ذلك قريباً وقد لا يفعلون. وقد ينتظر الأميركيون صراخ حلفائهم واستغاثتهم. وقد يسبق الجيش السوري بحركته الميدانية بطء النقلات السياسية، لكن فجأة وقبل حدوث أيّ من كلّ ذلك يخرج المبعوث الأممي ستيفان دي ميستورا، ويعلن مبادرة فجائعية بلغتها الإنسانية حول شرق حلب، استرعت تذكيراً من وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف، بالقول، لماذا لم نسمعكم عندما شنّت النصرة هجومها على الراموسة مهدّدة بمحاصرة غرب حلب وفيه ضعف سكان شرق حلب؟ لكن المهمّ أنّ دي ميستورا بعد البكاء قدّم مشروعاً تضمّن في مقدّماته الكثير من الأكاذيب والكثير من الحقائق المهمة. وهو لا يمكن أن يقول ما قاله في الوقائع والمقترحات إلا برضا، وربما بطلب من الأميركيين، فماذا قال دي ميستورا؟

– للمرة الأولى نسمع اعترافاً صريحاً بأنّ النصرة موجودة في شرق حلب، وأنها كانت تمثل نصف الجسم المسلح، وأنّ نصف قوتها خرج مع معارك الراموسة وبقي النصف. والأهمّ هنا بالمبادرة، فدي ميستورا يقول إنّ الحلّ لوقف النار، ليس أن يوقف الجيش السوري وحليفه الروسي غاراتهما وطلعاتهما الجوية لأسبوع متواصل لطمأنة الفصائل المعارضة وتهيئتها نفسياً لقبول الفصل مع النصرة، كما قال كيري ودي ميستورا في اجتماع لمجلس الأمن وساندهما الفرنسيون والبريطانيون، بل الحلّ لوقف النار وفقاً لدي ميستورا، ومن ورائه الأميركيون، هو ما سبق وقاله لافروف، أن تتولى واشنطن والأمم المتحدة فك المعارضة عن النصرة، فيتقدّم دي ميستورا بالتطوّع للمخاطرة بـ «حياته»، لمرافقة ألف من عناصر النصرة يتواجدون شرق حلب، ليتمّ وقف النار وإدخال القوافل الإغاثية.

– إن دققنا بهدوء بعرض دي ميستورا، وجدنا أنه يقدّم آلية عملانية لتحقيق الهدف الذي أصرّ الروس ويصرّون على اعتباره شرطاً لكلّ تهدئة وهدنة ووقف نار، وتفاهمات وعملية سياسية، وهو فصل النصرة عن سائر الجماعات المراد إشراكها بالهدنة والتهدئة والعملية السياسية، ودي ميستورا ومَن معه ومن خلفه يعلمون ما كانوا يعلمونه من قبل وبسببه عطّلوا التفاهمات، وهو أنه متى خرجت النصرة سقطت قدرة القتال لدى ما تبقى. وهذه وصفة يقولها دي ميستورا عملياً، وليس الروس ولا السوريون، أنّ الطريق لتحقيق هذا الفصل بين النصرة وسائر الجماعات، ليس بالاعتماد على دور سياسي لواشنطن وسواها، بل بذهاب موسكو ودمشق إلى الضغط العسكري الجدي والنوعي والشديد على مناطق التواجد العسكري للنصرة والجماعات المسلحة، وتحمّل الضغوط الإعلامية والتصعيد الدبلوماسي والردّ على التهديد بالتهديد، حتى يأتي دي ميستورا ويصطحب أصدقاءه في النصرة إلى خارج هذه المنطقة، وهكذا من منطقة إلى منطقة، حتى تتحقق مضامين التفاهم الذي علّق الأميركيون تنفيذه، لكنهم ينفذونه على أيدي مبعوثهم صديق النصرة.

Do Hypocrites Know No Shame?

Posted on October 7, 2016

 photo kerry3032_zpsmvcswzfh.jpg

After the US has started wars under false pretexts, bombed wedding parties, and operated torture centers, Secretary of State John Kerry has finally called for a war crimes investigation–of Russia.

Secretary of State John Kerry gets my nomination for “hypocrite of the month” for October. I realize I’m going out on a limb here since the month isn’t even half over, but I’m pretty confident Kerry’s performance today will be difficult, if not impossible, for any  Washington politician to surpass.

In a briefing at the State Department, and with the foreign minister of France present, Kerry called for a war crimes investigation into Russia as well as of Syria–or “the regime,” as he put it, using the term universally employed by propagandists when referring to the Syria’s elected government.

“Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children,” Kerry said, as quoted by CBS.

“They are beyond the accidental now, way beyond,” he added.

The US has of course presented no evidence that Russia has bombed hospitals, accidentally or otherwise, but I guess this is beside the point. For Kerry, Russia’s and Syria’s actions “beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes,” and that’s that.

I am beginning to think that US officials like Kerry are little different from the so-called “crisis actors” who purportedly show up at events like the Boston bombing. Their role, in fact, seems to be very similar. During his comments, Kerry, sounding very much  like a crisis actor, alleged that Syrian forces bombed a hospital overnight, killing 20  people and wounding 100.

“This is a targeted strategy to terrorize civilians and to kill anybody and everybody who is in the way of their military objectives,” claimed Kerry.

Is it possible the US secretary of state is projecting? Did not the Bush II administration launch the Iraq war in 2003 with a self-proclaimed “shock and awe” campaign, and have not countless drone strikes in Afghanistan over the years essentially served a similar purpose?

In a pattern that has become familiar, the CBS report on Kerry’s comments shrouds and obfuscates certain facts about the Syrian conflict as we see from the following excerpt:

Kerry’s Sept. 9 agreement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would have created a new counterterrorism alliance in Syria, had fighting stopped for a week and aid deliveries been permitted to reach desperate civilians in rebel-held parts of Aleppo and other besieged areas.

Neither condition was ever met.

The truce then broke completely when Syria and Russia renewed their military offensive in Aleppo. Kerry ended bilateral discussions with Russia on the military partnership earlier this week.

No mention is made by CBS of the fact that Syrian troops observed the terms of the ceasefire, while the terrorists did not, nor is any mention made of the US-coalition attack which killed upwards of 80 Syrian soldiers. And while allegations have been made that Russia or Syria bombed the humanitarian convoy shortly afterwards, no evidence has been presented of that either.

Kerry’s comments have been denounced by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

“Kerry’s statement – this is propaganda. There are some very serious legal consequences behind this terminology, and I think that Kerry used all of these terms to inflame the situation,” she said. And she also called Kerry out on his hypocrisy.

“If it comes to war crimes, US representatives should start with Iraq. And then move to Libya, and of course to Yemen – find out what’s there. I want to say that juggling these words is very dangerous, because there are indeed war crimes on the part of the American representatives.”

Do hypocrites know any shame? It’s an often-asked question. The actions of US officials would suggest they do not.

But then maybe it’s all just part of being a paid crisis actor.

America which is strong and weak أميركا القوية الضعيفة

Written by Nasser Kandil, 

When the limit of the American speech becomes higher than waving of non-diplomatic options many people wait active US steps, but as a result of the rapid comparison between the decision of dismissing the war 2013, despite the huge differences in favor of going to war at that time not today, either in terms of the situation of the US presidential mandate or in terms of the political psychological media and military mobilization for the war, and under the slogan of the chemical weapon, and most importantly is that this opportunity was during the absence of Russian military re-positioning comparing with the qualitative magnitude which is witnessed by Syria, and it was before the nuclear understanding with Iran, before the Saudi military exhausting involvement in Yemen, before modifying the balances in favor of the Syrian army by the force in the field, and before Turkey gets confused with its issues, relations, and choices. So the one who dismissed at that date for fear of the cost, will not do it today. The Secretary of State John Kerry says in a leaked recording by the New York Times that the escalation will bring an escalation, and that the US people do not want more war, furthermore, the Congress will not give an authorization for going to war, but the most important is that the decision of the withdrawal despite the coming of the fleets was according to the estimation of the Pentagon, which many people suppose today that its encouragement of the choice of confrontation based on that it does not favor the choice of the understanding.

The Pentagon is behaving by the inspiration of the interests of the big companies in the aerospace industry, especially the missiles which carry nuclear warheads to avoid any military understandings with Russia that make the understanding on recycling the plutonium which its reactors has been disabled by the Russian President Vladimir Putin two days ago a main item in any Russian US cooperation, it is a wearying item for the companies and a source of unbearable losses. The Pentagon is behaving as well on the basis of that the regional issues are not of US concern in order to make Washington pay the costs of their implementation, they are mere attempts to reduce the losses and to achieve the profits of the allies which do not seem that they are comfortable with what is included in the understanding and what the US Department of State assumes it through its spokesman Kerry as an ideal solution, which its content is the partnership of the opposition and the armed groups in a unified Syrian government in preparation for elections in which the Syrian President participates, in exchange of US partnership in the war on Al Nusra front. While the Pentagon sees that just the refusal of the understanding by the groups concerned in the political solution is enough to keep it suspended, especially because it includes an item that supposes the US Russian military cooperation. While Washington can leave the Syrian groups to get matured through the war track in order to ask for a solution, or Russia and its allies will wage a war on Al Nusra, and Washington will just wait the entitlement of the war on ISIS then it will return to the understanding.

The advocates of suspending the Russian US military cooperation consider that America is strong to the extent that it does not need to pay the cost of the understandings from its prestige, because the worst option which is awaiting it is the complete victory of the Syrian country, its army, and its president. In this case the victorious country has to legitimize its victory and to normalize its relation with the abroad at its forefront the West, as well as to restore its position in the global markets, and to retune to trade and the banking transactions. The keys of all of these are American, then the negotiation will have a meaning and justifications, while America is putting its equations of direct interests not the equations of others, so how if this other thinks that it has better alternatives. The waiting here with some moral and political support and a bit of military aid to the armed groups to enhance their resilience without the involvement in escalation form an optimal choice than waging the battle of applying the understanding against Washington’s allies and the emerging as the weak renounced party which has sold its allies to the Russians.

America is extinguishing in the foreign politics due to the plans of intervention, it dispenses of its armies as a tool in making politics, just satisfying with hiding behind the wall of financial diplomatic and legal force which is summarized in the war through the sanctions and boycotting, while its reverse in the states of peace becomes as when Israel seeks protection from behind the cement wall as an expression of the inability to wage a war and the inability to make peace, as when Saudi Arabia fails to make its war and to make its peace in Yemen, with one difference is that the US wall is real not an illusionary, and that its military effectiveness after the experiences of blockade and sanctions on Iran and later on Russia prove its failure in weakening the opponents and the preparation for their fall or subjecting them, but its positive effectiveness in the states of enticement of opening the wall in front of the opponents under understandings that cancel the sanctions is still real.

This is America which is strong and weak.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ناصر قنديل
– عندما يصير سقف الكلام الأميركي مرتفعاً عن لغة التلويح بخيارات غير دبلوماسية ينتظر الكثيرون خطوات أميركية عملانية، لكن المقارنة السريعة بقرار صرف النظر عن الحرب عام 2013 رغم فوارق هائلة لصالح خوض الحرب وقتها، وليس اليوم، سواء لجهة وضع الولاية الرئاسية الأميركية أو لجهة التعبئة السياسية والنفسية والإعلامية والعسكرية للحرب، والشعار الذي اتخذ من السلاح الكيميائي عنواناً، أو الأهمّ أنّ تلك الفرصة كانت بغياب تموضع عسكري روسي بالحجم النوعي الذي تشهده سورية، وقبل التفاهم النووي مع إيران، وقبل التورّط العسكري السعودي المرهق في اليمن، وقبل تعديل الموازين لصالح الجيش السوري بقوة في الميدان، وقبل أن ترتبك تركيا بملفاتها وعلاقاتها وخياراتها. ومَن صرف النظر يومها تهيّباً للثمن والكلفة، لن يفعلها اليوم، ووزير خارجيته جون كيري يقول في التسجيل المسرّب عبر «نيويورك تايمز» إنّ التصعيد سيجلب التصعيد، وإنّ الشعب الأميركي لا يريد مزيداً من الحروب، وإنّ الكونغرس لن يمنح تفويضاً لحرب، وأهمّ ما يجب قوله هو أنّ قرار الانسحاب رغم مجيء الأساطيل كان بحصيلة تقدير موقف للبنتاغون الذي يفترض كثيرون اليوم تشجيعه لخيار المواجهة، استناداً لعدم تحبيذه خيار التفاهم.

– يتصرف البنتاغون بوحي مصالح الشركات الكبرى في الصناعات الفضائية، خصوصاً الصواريخ المحمّلة بالرؤوس النووية، لتفادي أيّ تفاهمات عسكرية مع روسيا تجعل التفاهم على تدوير البلوتونيوم الذي جمّد مفاعيله الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين منذ يومين، بنداً رئيسياً في أيّ تعاون روسي أميركي. وهو بند مرهق للشركات ومصدر خسائر لا طاقة لها على تحمّلها. كما يتصرف البنتاغون على خلفية أنّ الملفات الإقليمية ليست هماً أميركياً لتضطر واشنطن دفع فواتير تنفيذها. فهي مجرد محاولات لتخفيف خسائر وتحقيق أرباح لحلفاء، لا يبدو أنهم مرتاحون لما يتضمّنه التفاهم وتفترضه الخارجية الأميركية بلسان كيري، حلاً مثالياً، مضمونه شراكة المعارضة والجماعات المسلحة في حكومة سورية موحّدة، تمهيداً لانتخابات يشارك فيها الرئيس السوري، مقابل شراكة أميركية في الحرب على جبهة النصرة، بينما يرى البنتاغون أنّ مجرد رفض الجماعات المعنية بالحلّ السياسي ترفض التفاهم يكفي لتعليقه، خصوصاً لتضمّنه بنداً يفترض التعاون العسكري الأميركي الروسي بينما تستطيع واشنطن أن تترك الجماعات السورية لتنضج عبر مسار الحرب لطلب الحلّ، أو أن تخوض روسيا وحلفاؤها حرب النصرة، وتنتظر واشنطن استحقاق الحرب على داعش، وعندها تعود للتفاهم.

– يعتبر دعاة تعليق التعاون العسكري الروسي الأميركي أنّ أميركا قوية لدرجة أنها لا تحتاج دفع ثمن التفاهمات من هيبتها، فأسوأ خيار ينتظرها هو انتصار كامل للدولة السورية وجيشها ورئيسها. وفي هذه الحالة سيكون على الدولة المنتصرة شرعنة نصرها وتطبيع علاقاتها بالخارج وفي مقدمته الغرب، واسترداد مكانتها في الأسواق العالمية، والعودة للمتاجرة والتعاملات المصرفية، وهذه كلها مفاتيحها أميركية، وعندها يكون للتفاوض معناه ومبرّراته وتضع أميركا معادلاتها المصلحية المباشرة وليس معادلات غيرها، كيف وأنّ هذا الغير يعتبر أنّ لديه بدائل أفضل، والانتظار هنا مع بعض الدعم المعنوي والسياسي وقليل من معونة عسكرية للجماعات المسلحة تعزيزاً لصمودها دون التورّط بالتصعيد، يشكلان خياراً أمثل من خوض معركة تطبيق التفاهم بوجه حلفاء واشنطن، والظهور بمظهر المتنازل الضعيف الذي باع حلفاءه للروس.

– أميركا تنكفئ في السياسة الخارجية من خطط التدخل، وتستغني عن جيوشها كأداة لصناعة السياسة، وتكتفي بالاحتماء وراء جدار القوة المالية والدبلوماسية والقانونية، الذي تختصره في الحرب العقوبات والمقاطعة، ويصير عكسه في حالات السلم، كما تحتمي «إسرائيل» وراء جدار عازل من الإسمنت، تعبيراً عن العجز عن الحرب والعجز عن السلم، وكما تعجز السعودية عن صناعة حربها في اليمن وتعجز عن صناعة سلمها، مع فارق أنّ الجدار الأميركي حقيقي، وليس وهمياً، وأنّ فعاليته الحربية بعد تجارب الحصار والعقوبات مع إيران ولاحقاً مع روسيا، أدت إلى فشله لإضعاف الخصوم والتمهيد لسقوطهم أو خضوعهم، لكن فاعليته الإيجابية في حالات الترغيب بفتح الجدار أمام الخصوم بموجب تفاهمات تلغي العقوبات، لا تزال حقيقة.

– هذه هي أميركا القوية الضعيفة.

Related Video

Related Articles

 

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff Want to Join Aleppo Battle on the Jihadi Side, in Support of Al Qaeda

Global Research, October 06, 2016
Russia Insider 5 October 2016
syria-obama2

There won’t be a direct US military intervention against Assad under Obama. Obama turned back from plunging the US into what was clearly going to be an unpopular adventure after the false flag Ghouta chemical attack in 2013. He certainly isn’t going to roll the dice at the height of election season and with the Democratic candidate just barely edging out the Republican Trump.

Moreover, we’ve now learned that this time around even Secretary of State John Kerry – who was one of the main proponents of bombing in 2013 – is against it. The Washington Post:

This time around, Kerry has not favored using U.S. military force against the Assad regime, two administration officials said. He now prefers continued diplomacy with Russia, even in the face of what he says is Moscow’s willingness to “turn a blind eye” to, if not participate directly, in war crimes in Aleppo.

But just so you don’t think this means there are now fewer utter morons running around DC; since renewed brainstorming on Syria begun in the Obama administration last week the Joint Chiefs of Staff have joined the CIA in backing the US entering the Syrian civil war on the side of the Islamist rebels:

The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented in the Deputies Committee meeting by Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said. That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.

Even these clowns understand this would be blatantly illegal, but not to worry, they have a solution for it:

The options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me.

One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.

This proposal — raining down cruise missiles without taking responsibility for them — happens to be the exact same hare-brained scheme Kerry was banding about in 2013, and even he has since grown out of it.

Funny how the US on the one hand is talking up its bombs as a fitting instruments of its virtuous foreign policy but on the other hand would actually be reluctant to carry out this virtuous bombing out in the open. If the campaign is a virtuous one why the apparent shame?

And just so you know, the reason why Assad has to be bombed is counter-terrorism:

“There’s an increased mood in support of kinetic actions against the regime,” one senior administration official said.

“The CIA and the Joint Staff have said that the fall of Aleppo would undermine America’s counterterrorism goals in Syria.”

That’s right. Should the jihadis allied and intermingled with al-Qaeda be driven from Syria’s Aleppo city this will set back “America’s counterterrorism goals in Syria”. For America’s “counter-terrorism” goals in Syria to keep a strong foundation terrorist sympathizers have to remain in control of half of Syria’s largest city. Somebody has read their Orwell well.

Russia FM: US is ready to deal with the devil to change the regime in Syria. Failure of Russia-US Agreements Must be Prevented

October 4, 2016

Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that Moscow believes the US is ready to hold “a deal with the devil” in order to change the regime in Syria.

“We have a growing impression that Washington’s obsession with changing the regime in Damascus led it to be ready to make a deal with the devil,” and to make an alliance with notorious terrorists, who are dreaming to turn the history back and laying their inhuman customs by force,” it said in a statement posted on its official website

The US State Department spokesman, John Kirby, said earlier that his country would stop its bilateral cooperation with Russia on the truce in Syria.

Source: Al-Manar Website

daash-statue-of-liberty

Lavrov: Failure of Russia-US Agreements on Syria Must be Prevented

Monday, 03 October 2016 15:29

MOSCOW  — Russia believes it is important to prevent the failure of Russia-US agreements on Syria, which could be used as a platform for coordination of international efforts in the fight against terrorism in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday, Sputnik reported.

In a speech dedicated to the celebration of the Islamic New Year on October 3, Lavrov said: “We are convinced that the strict implementation [of these agreements] could help establish efficient coordination in fight against terrorism, strengthen the ceasefire regime and expand access to civilian population in need of humanitarian aid.”

In the same context and in a joint press conference with the Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhon, Lavrov said “Russia is concerned about attempts by some countries and parties to act contrary to UN Security Council resolutions on Syria.”

“We are also seriously concerned about what is happening in Syria, how the UN Security Resolutions are carried out in their entirety. We are concerned about some stakeholders’ both inside and outside Syria attempts to act contrary to the UN Security Council decisions,” Lavrov clarified.

Russia Wants to Remove Ambiguity in Contradictory US Statements on Syria

Lavrov also said that Moscow would like to remove ambiguity in contradictory statements and actions on the part of the United States on Syria.

“the US colleagues’ statements and actions are characterized by well-known inconsistency,” Lavrov said. “[Russia would like to] remove any ambiguity, especially since they directly affect our cooperation with the US in implementing Russian-US agreements.”

Lavrov observed that the Russian-US agreements on Syria were “in limbo.” “The agreements are now in limbo because of the lack of clarity in the way Washington perceives the approaches of a number of opposition groups,” he explained.

Gatilove: Syrian Opposition Consolidates Alliance with Jabhat al-Nusra

Meantime, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said that the “opposition” in Syria has consolidated its alliance with Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group and this alliance has become evident

He noted that the “merging into each other, and many of them moving into Nusra’s ranks…does not ease the situation.” “The fact that the opposition has strengthened its alliance with Nusra is becoming increasingly evident to us,” Gatilov said at a conference hosted by the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency.

Accusing Russia of Airstrikes on Syrian Hospitals Groundless

Gatilov described as groundless accusing Moscow of conducting airstrikes on hospitals and humanitarian convoys in Syria.

“It is not in Russia’s interests to bomb a humanitarian convoy. We had been seeking to achieve this aim for a long time — we had worked with the United Nations and the Syrian government. We made great efforts to facilitate the movement of that aid convoy to the city of Aleppo,” Gatilov said.

“Accusations that Russia allegedly carries out strikes on medical facilities, hospitals, schools, all this is also baseless,” he added, according to Sputnik.

On September 19, a deadly attack hit a joint UN-Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy carrying humanitarian aid for Syria’s Aleppo province. The tragic incident claimed scores of lives and destroyed some trucks.

“[The opposition] was in fact the one to generally threaten consequences if the convoy was sent down the [Castello] road. Therefore, saying that Russia has some responsibility here is at least baseless,” Gatilov said at a press conference hosted by the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency.

Deployment of Peacekeeping Mission to Syria Unlikely – Russian Deputy FM

Gatilov expressed doubts that it would be possible to send a peacekeeping mission, in particular of the United Nations to Syria.

“It is hard to imagine the possibility of any peacekeepers being sent there,” he told the press conference.

H.M

Related Videos

Related Articles

Russia Responds to Kirby’s ‘Body Bags’ Comments; US Bombs Euphrates River Bridges

Posted on

by Richard Edmondson |

zakharova

The remarks by State Department spokesperson John Kirby that the world may soon see Russian troops going home in “body bags” has prompted a rejoinder from his counterpart in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.

“Don’t you think that such ventriloquism about ‘body bags,’ terrorist attacks in Russian cities’ and ‘loss of aircraft’ sounds more like a ‘get’em’ command, rather than a diplomatic comment?” Zakharova asked in a Facebook post.

As reported yesterday, Kirby’s remarks, including his prediction that “Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags,” sounded like a veiled threat.

“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources, even perhaps more aircraft,” said the State Department official.

He added that if the war continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”

The fact that the “extremist groups” spoken of by Kirby are being supported in large measure by the US obviously is not lost upon Zakharova.

“And those [acts of terrorism] will be perpetrated by ‘moderate’ [Syrian opposition groups]?” Zakharova inquired. “Just the ones that Washington has been unable to separate from Al-Nusra for as long as six months?”

“[What about] Terrorist attacks in France,” she went on, “America and other countries; the beheadings of people of all nationalities by Islamic State militants in Syria – is this all kind of a different paradigm? Perhaps another ‘parallel reality?’”

In case you missed it, Secretary of State John Kerry, in an acrimonious exchange at the UN last week, suggested Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is living in a “parallel universe.” What the US State Department is doing publicly is engaging in childish finger pointing: “It’s all your fault!” they are essentially saying.

What they are doing privately, behind the scenes, is providing support for terrorist outfits such as Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which beheaded a 12-year-old boy back in July. Why they continue to do this, even as increasing numbers of people are beginning to see through the charade, is a mystery, though perhaps it’s a sign of desperation.

Another Russian official who has responded to Kirby’s undiplomatic remarks is Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov.

“Once again we declare that we are fully prepared to continue the dialogue with the American side and carry on with the joint actions to combat terrorists in Syria,” he said. “However, even the slightest hints of a threat to our soldiers and Russian citizens must be excluded from this dialogue. The matter of safety of Russian citizens, wherever they may be, is not up for bargaining. It is our main and unconditional priority.”

Kirby says the State Department is considering non-diplomatic options, and there are indications it has already found them. In what may be the first step toward partitioning eastern Syria, the US coalition carried out airstrikes yesterday that destroyed two bridges over the Euphrates River, bridges that large segments of the population depend upon for transportation. The following is from Press TV:

Syria has slammed the US-led coalition purportedly fighting Daesh for destroying two bridges over Euphrates River in the eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr, where the same alliance recently killed 83 Syrian soldiers.

The attacks “confirm the so-called international coalition’s intent to bomb and destroy Syrian infrastructure and economic and social establishments through repeated aggressive acts,” state TV quoted the Syrian Foreign Ministry as saying Thursday.

The official SANA news agency reported that the bridges of al-Asharah and al-Mayadin in the eastern countryside of the provincial capital city of Dayr al-Zawr were hit by the coalition’s warplanes on Wednesday.

Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar Ja’afari said the bridges had been used by hundreds of thousands of civilians in the area.

Meanwhile, the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based rights group advocating militants in Syria, said the two bridges are now unusable, a situation which would impede aid deliveries and hamper movement of civilians.

It may well be that the US is now opting for a different game plan–that of leaving Assad in power in Damascus while imposing what in effect could be a partitioning off of eastern Syria. This would still achieve the aim of balkanizing the country as well as make it possible to route a pipeline through Syrian territory for purpose of transporting natural gas from Qatar to Turkey and then into the EU. The question, of course, is whether Russia would allow it to happen.

If Syrians are not willing to see their country split apart, and if Russia and Iran continue to support them–with maybe China actively joining the alliance as well–we could be looking at World War III.

He Who Hesitates Is Lost And Russia Hesitated

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 25, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – The Russian government deceived itself with its fantasy belief that Russia and Washington had a common cause in fighting ISIS. The Russian government even went along with the pretense that the various ISIS groups operating under various pen names were “moderate rebels” who could be separated from the extremists, all the while agreeing to cease fighting on successive verges of victory so that Washington could resupply ISIS and prepare to introduce US and NATO forces into the conflict. The Russian government apparently also thought that as a result of the coup against Erdogan, which was said to implicate Washington, Turkey was going to cease supporting ISIS and cooperate with Russia.

Alas, the Russians so fervently, or perhaps I should say feverishly, desired an agreement with Washington that they deceived themselves. If Finian Cunningham’s report is correct, Washington has taken advantage of Russia’s urging that Washington and Turkey join in the attack on ISIS by invading northern Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS.”

Syria has now been partitioned, and the pretend or fake “moderate rebels” can be built up inside the US/Turkish occupied areas of Syria and the war against Syria kept going for as long as Washington wants. The western presstitutes will report that the Turkish/American forces occupying areas of Syria are not invaders but are attacking ISIS.

With US, Turkish, and, little doubt, soon other NATO troops operating inside Syria, the neoconservatives will have many opportunities to provoke a conflict with Russia from which Russia will have to stand down or reply with force. In the event of a Trump presidential victory, the neocons want to make certain Trump is embroiled in a war that will prevent an accommodation with Russia.

It is unclear whether US Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to arrange a Syrian ceasefire was sincere and he was sandbagged by the Pentagon and CIA. Regardless, if Kerry was sincere, he is obviously unable to stand up to the neocons, blessed as the State Department is with Victoria Nuland and a number of other warmongers.

Obama is equally weak, which is why he was chosen by the oligarchy as president. A person without experience and knowledge is an excellent tool for the oligarchy. American blacks and white liberals actually believed that an inexperienced candidate from nowhere without an organization of his own could make a difference. Apparently, the gullibility of a majority of Americans is endless. This American hallmark of gullibility is why a handful of neoconservatives can so easily lead the sheeple into endless wars.

The idiot Americans have been at war for 15 years and the morons have no idea what has been achieved. The fools are unaware that the US in its decades long accumulation of weakness now confronts two major nuclear powers: Russia and China.

Americans have been taught by the presstitutes serving the military/security complex that nuclear war is not all that different from ordinary war. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two targets of American atomic bombs. Today, seven decades later, the cities are flourishing, so what’s the problem with nuclear weapons?

The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centers while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons. One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years. Five or six of these “Satans” as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.

Russia had a victory for Syria and democracy in its hands, but Putin lacked the decisiveness of a Napoleon or a Stalin and let his victory slip away as a result of false hopes that Washington could be trusted. Now a Russian/Syrian victory would require driving the Turks and Americans out of Syria.

If Russia struck hard and fast, Russia could succeed by using Washington’s lie and claiming that Russia thought the US and Turkish forces were ISIS, just as Washington claimed when Washington intentionally struck a known Syrian Army position.

If Russia actually annihilated the Turkish and US force, which Russia could easily do, NATO would collapse, because no European country wants to be destroyed in World War 3. But Russia won’t collapse NATO by decisive action. The Russians won’t fight until war is absolutely and totally forced upon them. Then they will pay a huge price for their indecisiveness rooted in their foolish belief that Russia has common grounds with Washington. The only common grounds Russia has with Washington requires Russia’s surrender. If Russia will surrender, Russia can achieve Western acceptance, and Washington’s agents, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists, can rule Russia for Washington.

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.

Related Videos 

Related Articles

How US Propaganda Plays in Syrian War

How US Propaganda Plays in Syrian War

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 25.09.2016

How US Propaganda Plays in Syrian War

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement

Manipulation of public perception has risen to a new level with the emergence of powerful social media. Multibillion-dollar corporate giants, such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, influence public perceptions, often via payments for “boosting” Facebook posts, paid promotion of Tweets, and biased results from search engines.

Marketing and advertising companies use social media to promote their clients, but so do U.S. foreign policy managers who hire or enlist these companies to influence public perceptions to support U.S. foreign policy goals.

For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described making sure that Twitter was primed for street protests in Iran following the 2009 election, ready to spread and manage news of protests following the election and the killing of a young woman, which was blamed on the Iranian government although the circumstances of her death were murky. [Hard Choices hardback, p 423]

The results of similar media manipulation can be seen in the widespread misunderstanding of the conflict in Syria, amid the demonization of the Syrian government and leadership and the skillful use of social media by anti-government activists. Influenced by both mainstream and this alternative media, most people in the West do not know that Bashar al-Assad remains popular with many Syrians. Nor do they realize that Assad won an election two years ago.

There were three contestants in the Syrian presidential election of June 2014. Turnout was 73 percent of the registered voters, with 88 percent voting for Assad. In Beirut, the streets were clogged with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees marching through the city to vote at the Syrian Embassy. Hundreds of Syrian citizens living in the U.S. and other Western countries flew to Syria to vote because Syrian Embassies in Washington and other Western capitals were shut down.

While Secretary of State John Kerry was condemning the Syrian election as a “farce” before it had even happened, a marketing company known as The Syria Campaign waged a campaign to block knowledge of the Syrian election. Along with demonizing President Assad, the company launched a campaign which led to Facebook censoring information about the Syrian election.

Incubating Propaganda

The Syria Campaign was created by a larger company named “Purpose,” which – according to its website – “incubated” The Syria Campaign. The company’s website says, “Purpose creates new movements, brands and organizations from the ground up to address complex global challenges. We apply this experience as movement creators to our work with progressive companies, nonprofits and philanthropies, helping them to put purpose and participation at the heart of what they do.”

Smoke billows skyward as homes and buildings are shelled in the city of Homs, Syria. June 9, 2012. (Photo from the United Nations)

Smoke billows skyward as homes and buildings are shelled in the city of Homs, Syria. June 9, 2012. (Photo from the United Nations)

The major achievement of The Syria Campaign has been the branding and promotion of the “White Helmets,” also known as “Syria Civil Defense,” which began with a British military contractor, James LeMesurier, giving some rescue training to Syrians in Turkey with funding provided by the U.S. and U.K. The group stole this name from the REAL Syria Civil Defense as documented in this recent report from Aleppo.

The “White Helmets” are marketed in the West as civilian volunteers doing rescue work. On Sept. 22, it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award , the so-called “Alternative Nobel Prize,” is being given to the U.S./U.K.-created White Helmets “for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.”

But the White Helmets are largely a propaganda tool promoting Western intervention against Syria. Unlike a legitimate rescue organization such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the “White Helmets” only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition. As shown in this video, the White Helmets pick up the bodies of individuals executed by the terrorists; they claim to be unarmed but are not; and they falsely claim to be neutral.

Many of the videos from Al Qaeda/terrorist-dominated areas of Syria have the “White Helmets” logo because the White Helmets work in alliance with these extremist groups as primarily a media marketing tool to raise public support for continuing the support to the armed opposition as well as the demonization of the Syrian government.

The Rights Livelihood press release said the White Helmets “remain outspoken in calling for an end to hostilities in the country.” But that is false, too. The White Helmets actively call for U.S./NATO military intervention through a “No Fly Zone,” which would begin with attacks upon and destruction of government anti-aircraft positions and aircraft.

A Major Act of War

Taking over the skies above another country is an act of war that would require a major U.S. military operation, according to senior American generals.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

The New York Times reported that in 2012 General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the White House that imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would require up to 70,000 American servicemen to destroy Syria’s antiaircraft system and then impose round-the-clock control over Syrian airspace.

General Carter Ham, former commander of the U.S. Africa Command who oversaw the aerial attacks on Libya in 2011, said on CBS News that “I worry sometimes that, when people say ‘impose a no-fly zone,’ there is this almost antiseptic view that this is an easily accomplished military task. It’s extraordinarily difficult. …

“It first entails — we should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.”

In other words, an appeal for a “no-fly zone” is not a call for a non-violent solution. It is seeking a bloody act of war by the United States against Syria, a nation that poses no threat to America. It also would almost surely be carried out in violation of international law since a United Nations Security Council resolution would face vetoes from Russia and probably China.

Also, the White Helmets have never criticized or called for the end of funding to extremist organizations including Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. On the contrary, White Helmets are generally embedded with this organization which is defined as “terrorist” by even the U.S., which is likely why the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was denied entry to the U.S.

The foreign and marketing company origins of the White Helmets were exposed over 1½ years ago – and since then, writer Vanessa Beeley has revealed the organization in more depth in articles such as “Who Are the White Helmets?” and “War by Way of Deception.”

Despite these exposés, understanding of the White Helmets is limited, with many liberal and progressive people uncritically accepting the propaganda and misinformation about Syria. Much of the progressive media has effectively blocked or censored critical examinations amid a flood of propaganda about “barrel bombs” dropped by the “brutal dictator” and his “regime.”

In the last week, Netflix started showing a 40-minute documentary movie about the “White Helmets” that amounts to a promotional video. A substantial portion of it takes place in Turkey where we see trainees in hotel rooms making impassioned phone calls to inquire about their families in Syria.

The “family values” theme is evident throughout, a good marketing angle. The political message of the video is also clear: after a bombing attack, “It’s the Russians …. they say they are fighting ISIS but they are targeting civilians.”

The movie includes video previously promoted by the White Helmets such as the “Miracle Baby” rescue, an incident that may or may not have been staged. The video includes self-promoting proclamations such as “You are real heroes.” While no doubt there are some real rescues in the midst of war, many of the videos purporting to show the heroes at work have an unrealistic and contrived look to them as revealed here.

Tricking Progressives

“Alternative media” in the West has echoed mainstream media regarding the Syria conflict. The result is that many progressive individuals and groups are confused or worse. For example, the activist group CodePink recently issued a media release promoting the Netflix White Helmets propaganda video.

U.S.-backed Syrian

U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

The White Helmets video is produced by Grain Media and Violet Films/Ultra-Violet Consulting, which advertises itself as a marketing corporation specializing in social media management, grant writing, crowd building and campaign implementation. The only question is who paid them to produce this video.

There is growing resistance to this manipulation and deception. In response to a petition to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets, there is a counter petition at Change.org. Following the Right Livelihood Awards’ announcement, there will soon be a petition demanding retraction of the award to the White Helmets.

The story of the White Helmets is principally a “feel good” hoax to manipulate public perception about the conflict in Syria and continue the drive for “regime change.” That’s why big money was paid to “Purpose” to “incubate” The Syria Campaign to brand and promote the White Helmets using Facebook, Twitter, etc. That’s why more big money was paid to create a self-promotional documentary.

The judges at Rights Livelihood were probably influenced by the documentary since critical examination of facts around Syria is so rare. It’s a sad commentary on the media. As veteran war correspondent Stephen Kinzer recently wrote, “Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”

consortiumnews.com

Related articles

 

Washington Seeks a ‘We Fly, You Don’t’ Zone Over Syria

US officials are loudly calling for–demanding almost, although we haven’t quite reached that point yet, it seems–a no-fly zone over all of Syria–a no-fly zone in which Russian and Syrian planes would be grounded, while US coalition planes would continue to carry out bombing missions.

If the US continues to press this demand, Russia will essentially be faced with two choices–either submit or fight a war with the US. I wonder how many clueless Americans, breathlessly following the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt marriage breakup, are aware how close to World War 3 we are, or how many of them have the slightest idea of the heinous and destructive high jinks those in control of the country, whoever they may be, are up to.

From RT report on Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held Thursday:

The lawmakers were far less interested in the war against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) than about the future of the Syrian government, Iran’s “malign influence,” and “aggression” by China and Russia – all ranked far ahead of terrorism on Carter and Dunford’s list of security challenges.

The Pentagon had “no intention” of sharing intelligence with Russia when it came to Syria, Dunford told the lawmakers unequivocally. Secretary Carter explained that the joint implementation councils envisioned by the ceasefire proposal negotiated in Geneva wouldn’t share intelligence, just coordinate efforts – but that they were a moot point anyway, since the ceasefire was effectively dead.

“I don’t have the facts,” Dunford said, when asked about the convoy attack by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut). “It was either the Russians or the regime,” he added.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians are responsible,” whether directly or because they backed the government in Damascus, Dunford said, describing the attack as “an unacceptable atrocity.”

Carter explained Dunford’s logic in a response to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), saying that “the Russians are responsible for this strike whether they conducted it or not, because they took responsibility for the conduct of the Syrians by associating themselves with the Syrian regime.”

The latest proposal by Secretary of State John Kerry involves grounding only Syrian and Russian airplanes, Carter told Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire).

“There can be no question of grounding US aircraft” over Syria, he said, adding that US jets conduct their strikes “with exceptional precision… that no other country can match.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) asked about what it would take for the US to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, using the phrase “control the airspace.”

“Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied, drawing a rebuke from committee chairman John McCain (R-Arizona), who argued a no-fly zone was possible without war.

Apparently McCain is convinced the Russians will back down.

From a RIANovosti report on an expanded US missile deployment in Europe:

NATO continues to expand its missile potential in Europe and Moscow is concerned over the deployment of NATO infrastructure near its borders, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated.

“NATO members are continuing to expand their anti-missile capability in Europe in the framework of the so-called ‘phased adaptive approach.’ We have repeatedly expressed concern over the placement of elements of strategic infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of our borders, which directly affects our interests in the field of security,” he said at a session of the Russian Public Council on International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy in the Public Chamber.

Ryabkov added that the US’ plans to place new nuclear bombs with increased accuracy in Europe cause serious concern.According to Ryabkov, “this might indicate an intention to use them against military targets, including populated areas during specific military scenarios.”

In the deputy foreign minister’s words, the US’ creation of the European segment of its “missile defense system” is a factor for destabilization “insofar as, at once point, the so-called ‘European missile defense system’ could began to negatively effect the effectiveness of our strategic deterrence.”

“If this line is crossed and the US and NATO continue to expand their missile shield, then we consider this a symptomatic, demonstrative reluctance on the part of Washington and Brussels to adjust their missile defense plans despite the agreements on settling the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program,” the deputy foreign minister asserted.

He remarked that Moscow “will continue to closely monitor the situation and carry on solid work with the Europeans to demonstrate to them the inevitably undesirable consequences of this American project’s realization.”

Russia is now calling for a UN investigation into US coordination with ISIS. FromRussia Insider:

By Matthew Allen

He’s done it: Sergei Lavrov just told the U.N. Security Council that U.S. coordination with terrorist groups in Syria warrants a full, impartial investigation.

In a carefully-worded address given in New York on Wednesday, Russia’s Foreign Minister cited recent “coincidences” which have undermined the cease-fire agreement in Syria — and allowed ISIS and Al-Nusra to launch successful attacks:

Coalition strikes on government troops positions at Deir ez-Zor on September 16 is a blatant violation of the cessation of hostilities regime. Furthermore, right after those strikes, ISIS forces attacked government troops. On September 19, there was another unacceptable provocation. I am referring to the bombing of a UN humanitarian convoy near Aleppo on a territory controlled by the armed opposition. Incidentally, it should be noted that on the same day, September 19, in the same area known as the Ramus road, Jabhat al-Nusra and allied detachments mounted a fierce attack on government forces. As a result, the jihadists advanced to Neighbourhood 1070.

I am not trying to make any accusations. However, I am convinced that such coincidences call for serious analysis and investigation. We insist on the most thorough and impartial probe into the attack against the humanitarian convoy. There are many indications that it could have been a rocket or artillery attack. Initially that was how it was reported. Then they started mentioning helicopters and then aircraft. Therefore it is probably necessary to refrain from emotional responses and to not immediately grab the microphone and make comments, but conduct a thorough and professional investigation.

It’s difficult to overstate what Lavrov’s statements will mean going forward: In the most diplomatic way possible, Lavrov just accused the United States of military coordination with ISIS and Al-Nusra. Or, at the very least, he is suggesting that the U.S. acted with full knowledge that these terrorists groups would immediately benefit.

Lavrov’s comments about the changing narratives of the aid convoy attack is easily verified: As we reported yesterday, the attacks were described first as involving helicopters, then Russian air strikes were blamed, and now not even NATO’s Secretary General is brave enough to speculate. Even the U.N. quickly dropped the “air strike” language after it was clear that it could not be substantiated.

The blatant bombing of Syrian army positions — coupled with the latest accusations against Moscow, without providing any evidence — makes it difficult to believe that a meaningful cease-fire agreement will ever be realized. And of course, an impartial investigation into the attack on the aid convoy will never materialize.

We are now reaching a critical stage in Syria. When Lavrov and Kerry announced on September 9 that a deal had been reached, Lavrov began his remarks with a rather ominous warning: “I have to say, the – some mistrust remains and some – there are some people who would like our – today’s arrangement to be undermined.”

Will the international community finally take a stand against Washington? If not, expect more “coincidences” — with disastrous consequences.

Meanwhile, mainstream media continue to pump out their standard fare about “Russian aggression.” Claims by the widely discredited Syrian Observatory for Human Rights are the basis of a USA Today report alleging that Russian planes dropped “dozens of bombs” Friday in rebel-held areas of Aleppo, killing 14 civilians; the report has the bombs landing on “civil defense centers.”

A BBC report, filed a few hours after the USA Today article, boosts the same incident’s death toll  to “at least 45 civilians” and possibly to as many as 91–adding also that “White Helmet volunteers frantically searched for those trapped in the rubble of demolished buildings, often with bare hands” as an additional touch.

The Western media seem to be serving as a weapon in this war, not unlike the tanks, howitzers and fighter jets. The Obama administration, whoever may be in charge of it at this point (it doesn’t seem to be Obama), is apparently attempting to set the stage for an escalation of the information war into an all-out shooting war.

Why the recent developments in Syria show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony

via The Saker

The latest developments in Syria are not, I believe, the result of some deliberate plan of Why the recent developments in Syria show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agonythe USA to help their “moderate terrorist” allies on the ground, but they are the symptom of something even worse: the complete loss of control of the USA over the situation in Syria and, possibly, elsewhere.  Let me just re-state what just happened:

First, after days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least “freeze” the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).

Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front.  The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces.  Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead.  The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”.  What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement.  While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.  For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state.  But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic.  It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal.  Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”.  That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillsetneeded to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit.  This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking.  Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers.  From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally “lost it”.

Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia.  The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes.  First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that “the Russians make mistakes too” and that “the Russians killed the cease-fire”.  Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that – either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!).  Somehow, the Americans “forgot” to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies.  Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.

What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.

All this simply goes to show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony.  The White House apparently is so freaked out at the prospects of a Trump victory in November that it has basically lost control of its foreign policy in general and, especially, in Syria.  The Russians are quite literally right: the Obama Administration is truly “not-agreement-capable”.

Of course, the fact that the Americans are acting like clueless frustrated children does not mean that Russia will reciprocate in kind.  We have already seen Lavrov go back and further negotiate with Kerry.  Not because the Russians are naive, but precisely because, unlike their US colleagues, the Russians are professionals who know that negotiations and open lines of communications are always, and by definition, preferable to a walk-away, especially when dealing with a superpower.  Those observers who criticize Russia for being “weak” or “naive” simply project their own, mostly American, “reaction set” on the Russians and fail to realize the simply truth that Russians are not Americans, they think differently and they act differently.  For one thing, the Russians don’t care if they are perceived as “weak” or “naive”.  In fact, they would prefer to be perceived as such if that furthers their goals and confuses the opponent about their real intentions and capabilities.  The Russians know that they did not build the biggest country on the planet by being “weak” or “naive” and they won’t be take lessons from a country which is younger that many Russian buildings.  The western paradigm is usually like this: a crises leads to a breakdown in negotiations and conflict follows.  The Russian paradigm is completely different: a crisis leads to negotiations which are conducted up the the last second before a conflict erupts.  There are two reasons for that: first, continuing to negotiate up to the last second makes it possible to seek a way out of the confrontation up to the last second and, second, negotiations up to the last second make it possible to come as close as possible to achieving strategic surprise for an attack.  This is exactly how Russia acted in Crimea and in Syria – with absolutely no warning signs or, even less so, a well-publicized display of power to attempt to intimidate somebody (intimidation is also a western political strategy the Russians don’t use).

So Lavrov will continue to negotiate, no matter how ridiculous and useless such negotiations will appear.  And Lavrov himself will probably never officially utter the word “недоговороспособны”, but the message to the Russian people and to the Syrian, Iranian and Chinese allies of Russia will be that at this point Russia has lost any hope of dealing with the current US Administration.

Obama and Co. now have their hands full with trying to hide Hillary’s health and character problems and right now they probably can think of only one thing: how to survive the upcoming Hillary-Trump debate.  The Pentagon and the Department of State are mostly busy fighting each other over Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and Russia.  The CIA seems to be fighting itself, though this is hard to ascertain.

It is likely that some kind of deal with still be announced by Kerry and Lavrov, if not today, then tomorrow or the day after.  But, frankly, I completely agree with the Russians: the American are truly “not-agreement-capable” and at this point in time, both the conflict in Syria and the one in the Ukraine are frozen.  I don’t mean “frozen” in the sense of “no fighting”, not at all, but I do mean “frozen” in the same of “no major developments possible”.  There will still be combats, especially now that the Wahabi and Nazi allies of the USA feel that their boss is not in charge because he is busy with elections and race riots, but since there is no quick military solution possible in either one of these wars, the tactical clashes and offensives will not yield any strategic result.

Barring an election-canceling false flag inside the USA, like the murder of either Hillary or Trump by a “lone gunman”, the wars in the Ukraine and Syria will go on with no prospects of any kind of meaningful negotiations.  And whether Trump or Hillary get into the White House next, a major “reset” will take place in early 2017.  Trump will probably want to meet Putin for a major negotiations session involving all the key outstanding issues between the USA and Russia.  If Hillary and her Neocons make it into the White House then some kind of war between Russia and the USA will become almost impossible to prevent.

The Saker

PS: some Russian military experts are saying that the kind of damage shown in the footage of the attack on the humanitarian convey is not consistent with an airstrike or even an artillery strike and that it looks much more like the result of a blast of several IEDs.  If so, then that would still not point at Russia, but at the “moderate terrorist” forces in control of that location.  This could still be a US ordered-false flag attack or, alternatively, the proof that the US has lost control over its Wahabi allies on the ground.

Russia Elections results, The US Military revolt and a Syrian kerfuffle SITREP by Scott Humor

Via the saker

Russian election results in two words: We Won!

That’s it. “Bloody revolution” had been canceled.

In May I posted an article, Waiting for Yalta – 2, or What the Kerry-Lavrov pact brings to the table.  In accidence with the new principles of the new world. ” Color revolutions” will not be allowed.

It doesn’t mean that an illegitimate government of the US won’t stop plotting them. We simply can’t let the illegitimate government of the US to keep destroying country after country, leaving in its wake mountains of dead bodies, drastically reduced population, poverty, hunger on unprecedented level, the degradation of civil societies that extremely difficult if not impossible to stop and reverse.

The plan to dismantle the “color revolution” machine is working.

The FSB discovered and the government got millions of dollars that the US gave to the anti-Russian opposition in order to organize an “uprising.” The bloodier the better. The professional war criminals that were coming to kill, but weren’t allowed to cross the Ukro-land border. The background actors and stage hands refused to perform for free and stayed home.

This group of young men in black timidly listening to their “leader” Vyaceslav Malcev, a retired police officer turned “fascist” reading the law about public meetings, and just as timidly showing their IDs to the Police to go to vote. Apparently, the “”fascists” voted for the ultra-liberal Parnas party.

 Despite all the hard labor of Prime Minister Dmitry “iPhone” Medvedev to discredit the United Russia party, it won the majority in Parliament Duma. It means that we won’t see as our rulers the social engineers from the US, EU, Georgia, Latvia, and Ukraine.

russia election chart

Blue – United Russia

Red – communists

Yellow – Zhirinovsky’s Liberal democrats

Purple  -Just Russia Social Democrats

Black –  other parties

Green – Independent

Liberals are kindly recommended to not show up for the grants in the US Embassy.

As some extremely independent observers suspect, liberal voters didn’t show up to vote for anti-Russia liberals because Putin invited them to come and vote. In other words, they felt that showing up at the polls and voting would be something Putin wanted them to do.

On the other hand, Kiev junta leader Poroshenko is very impressed with the ultra-liberal Parnas party results, and thinks that 0.7 is much better than the 0.5 he got during after the Miadan elections.

A leader of the Iabloko (“apple”) party with 1.75% announced that he is going to run for president in 2018.

“It’s still better than working,” he allegedly conceded.

The Western Media called the Parliamentary elections dull and predictable,” because they wanted an “exiting and unpredictable” “bloody revolution” in Russia that failed to materialize.

Frankly, how could openly anti-Russian groups of people expect to be elected with the political platform like this: “We will unconditionally surrender to Washington. We will break this country apart.  We will give away all of the country’s mineral resources, like we did in the 90s. We will dismantle the Russian military and destroy all its nukes. We owe the entire world and we will pay.”

It’s almost like the “color revolutions” engineers never expected for these parties to come to power via elections, but they were supposed to be brought to power on the shoulders of the “Russian Maidan.”

Russia’s law enforcement forces have accomplished a Herculean task of making the elections as peaceful and lawful as humanly possible.

They literally dismantled a color revolution machine, screw by screw, part by part, took these huge piles of garbage and threw them all in the dumpster.

Remarkably, immediately after it became obviously, the dumpsters and trash bins in US cities started blowing up. It’s almost like Western secret services were kicking something, anything to blow off some steam.

Bombing CRISIS ACTORS

 

Professional makeup

просто макияж. Для профессионалов-банкиграбить,терактылепить,посольства перед выборами атакopic.twitter.com/fMbtVoIRsr https://twitter.com/gifsvideo/status/777506343305502720 

Russian elections SITREP Links

Occupied by Israel and the US Ukraine has done everything it could to prevent the Russian citizens living on its territory to exercise their democratic rights, acting on principle that if Ukrainians are in the fascist hell hole, so should everyone else.

  • In Kiev some people were forced to leave without voting

 

Occupied by the Israel and US Ukraine has done everything it could to prevent the Russian citizens living on its territory to exercise their democratic rights, acting on principle that if Ukrainians are in the fascist hell hole, so should everyone else.

I wrote many times before that so called “Ukrainian nationalists” are people who belong to a dangerous extremist religious cult.  Since they all belong to the same extremist ideology, they tend to demonstrate this openly and in no uncertain terms. They know that brainwashed people will look at their bloody inhumane shenanigans and see nothing and understand nothing.

A synagogue is set up in one of the Right Sector Nazi armed formations

 

The US Military revolt and a Syrian kerfuffle

“Who is in charge of Washington? Is it the White House, or Pentagon?”  Vitally Churkin

The bombing of the Syrian armed forces in violation of the peace agreement is the big provocation we were talking about and expected. There is little doubt that it was directly linked to the Parliamentary elections in Russia. Conducted a day before the elections, this violation of the Syrian peace agreement was supposed to show to the Russian public the futility of the Russian government efforts.

However, the US bombings had a completely opposite effect on people because it showed that the US is off its rockers and will stop at nothing to murder every single human being in Syria, so in Russia, given a chance.

Vitaly Churkin on Syria – Security Council September 17, 2016 Media Stakeout – Full video

 

 

On the New Situation that is shaping up after the secret Syrian peace agreement signed by the Russia and the legitimate government of the US

 

On Saturday, September 17, 2016, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, walked out of the Emergency UN Security Council meeting that was called by Russia in order to discuss the US bombing of Syrian troops following the Russia – US cooperation agreement signed a week prior.

Above is his full speech, about 20 minutes. I urge you to watch the video, and not just read his press briefing.

You have to experience how angry and worried he is. What we have to understand is why he is reacting with such anger and concern.

An official representative of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement saying: “after today’s attack on the Syrian army, we come to the terrible conclusion that the White House is defending the Islamic State.”

But, this is just a statement of fact. It’s nothing new for Russian diplomats and it’s something that everyone already knows.

Also, since the US immediately admitted the “mistake,” and Churkin gave the legitimate government of the US a way out saying that it most likely was a “provocation,” we can tell the peace agreement will hold and the cooperation will continue.

What’s truly got Churkin so worried  is a realization that we have just witnessed a military revolt in the US.

Who is in charge of Washington? Is it the White House, or Pentagon?”

Friday, September 16, 2016 is the day of the military revolt in the US. End of story.

The fact that on Monday September 19, the UK, Australia and Denmark admitted that they also participated in a violation if the Syrian peace agreement and an agreement for cooperation in Syria signed by the US and Russia  makes this a NATO revolt against the legitimate government of the US.

Don’t mind what the President Obama and Secretary Kerry are saying now, they might have a gun pointing at them as they speak, for all we know.

The Saker wrote many times before that the US military is deeply divided and plagued with enormous controversies. But there is an abyss between inner problems and controversies and outright military revolt.

The reason why Vitaly Churkin has been so worried, is the reason why we should be absolutely terrified right now. The US legitimate federal government doesn’t have any control over US military forces.

I want to play the devil’s advocate here and say a couple of words in defense of the US federal government. If a personal anecdote is of any value, I can say that whenever I had contact with the US federal government, it’s always been a pleasant and positive experience. I attribute this to the fact that the federal government is the only power structure in the US that actually and willfully adheres to the US Constitution and it’s the only power structure that actually commits to maintain basic human rights.

Don’t rush to write angry comments. Just let me finish. All hell breaks loose when you start drilling down to the state levels, to the level of the state representatives, state senators, the governors’ offices, to the states supreme courts. On the state level the Constitutional law and other “good” laws are still considered, but as something that need to be defeated, overturned and avoided.

If you drill deeper to the level of counties, district attorneys, country courts judges, attorneys and bar associations, local prisons officials, police departments, and public school officials, what you find is a wall of corruption and lawlessness at an unimaginable, and unprecedented scale.

Those are all local political bottom feeders and these are the power structures where there is no law. Please, do not point out for me books with the Civil and Criminal codes, because they mean nothing since the general population doesn’t have any access to those laws.

A stone wall of corrupt officials has been erected between the general population and the “good” laws. That’s why the general population for the US is in state of a complete lawlessness, because people simply don’t have access to the laws that technically should protect them and work for them.

This is the official power structure of the US in a nutshell. However, there is a second “unofficial” power structure that is sometimes called a “deep state,” or a “shadow” government.

In November 2015 zerohedge posted an informative article of the subject.

The Deep State: The Unelected Shadow Government Is Here To Stay

Let’s be truthful and call this second government for what it is, an illegitimate government of the US.

John Whitehead from the Rutherford Institute, who wrote the article, believes that this illegitimate government is a part of the legitimate government, and exists to support the legitimate government’s desire to govern everything and everyone. This idea is an informational virus, as Cat Motya calls them. John Whitehead works for a think tank which is a part of the illegitimate government. What those think tankers try to achieve is to maintain the appearance that the illegitimate government is not a gigantic parasite, but a part of much smaller and weaker legitimate government.  

There is no argument here that they infiltrated the federal government and work to destroy it from within and to completely replace it. But, they are not the same.

It’s vital for non-Western countries to understand what the Western [US, EU] power structure is, in order to successfully confront it.

The US power structure has been fractured. Those fractures are fighting with each other right now trying to take the shape and the space of the whole.  The rape of the world that the US has been conducting with impunity finally is catching with this nation.

The EU is not far behind. The failed Summit in Bratislava solemnly interred the dead spirit of the United Europe. The German newspapers posted articles about alleged “violations” during the elections in Russia, and have not posted a word about the elections in Germany that took place the same day. This instead of German instead of media can’t face the truth that their traditional power is eroding underneath them.

Still, the good news is that the Syrian agreement kerfuffle has revealed to us a few remaining healthy organs of the legitimate US government that are trying to fight back.

We also are able to see unconstitutional and illegal forces inside the US government.  We witness how the US senators conduct their own foreign policies. We witness how the retired US officials conduct their own foreign policies.

    “I spent 4 hours with Bill Richardson to tell Bill Clinton not to invade Haiti.

    A week later the embassy called me and told me that Bill Clinton has a messenger for him.

    He came and told me to sign with Bill Clinton, join his movement and Clinton will make me the richest man in Haiti.

    I told him he is a principled man and I will not sell out…

    A week later, Clinton revoked my visa.”

Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary Hillary Clinton told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that, if she were president, she would “totally obliterate” Iran

We witness the bankers that conduct their own foreign policy around the world. Finally, this past week, we witnessed US generals that have started the war in clear defiance of the legitimate government represented by the US president and the Secretary of State.

It’s an indication of the total disintegration of US power structures.

The most urgent questions now are as follows. Who is in charge? Who are the decision makers? What is the status of the US armed forces deployed overseas since they have rebelled against the US legitimate government?

Russia’s Envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin made public to reporters some provisions from the Moscow-Washington agreement on Syria.

Putin: US is already violating Syria agreement, “regrouping” Al-Nusra said RIA News in fort-russ translation:

“The US does not want to disclose the agreement on Syria because the international community will find out who is not really fulfilling their commitments,” Russian President Vladimir Putin stated.

We agreed that Jebat Al-Nusra and others like it should be singled out and it should be shown where they are at and where so-called healthy forces are. But what do we see now? We are now seeing not the separation of terrorists from the healthy part of the opposition, but attempts at regrouping these terrorists,” the president added.”

Syrian Armed Forces Reportedly Shoot Down US Spy Drone Over Deir ez-Zor

A ZERO Hedge SITREP on the US violation of the peace agreement in Syria

Now on every step in foreign policy that contradicts the letter and spirit of the Syrian peace agreement, especially in terms of the deepening and improving cooperation with Russia should be viewed by us as a proof of the anti legitimate government revolt. Let’s collectively start taking a note of every official and unofficial who conducts such a step.

  1. US Envoy to the UN Samantha Power, for making a two ring circus from the Emergency UN Security Council Meeting, that had caused the Russian representatives to leave the meeting.

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/17/us-envoy-slams-russian-stunt-of-calling-emergency-un-security-council-meeting/

 

Thank you for your time,

Scott

‘Coincidence: ISIS launched offensive straight after US strike on Syrian troops?’

A general view shows Castello road in Aleppo, Syria September 16, 2016 © Abdalrhman Ismail
A general view shows Castello road in Aleppo, Syria September 16, 2016 © Abdalrhman Ismail / Reuters
By RT
Global Research, September 19, 2016
obama_isis_war

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.

 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.

‘Who is Samantha Power working for?’

William Jones, Washington Bureau Chief of Executive Intelligence Review magazine has criticized the US envoy to the UN for “not only throwing a monkey wrench into the whole thing,” but refusing to even talk.

“I ask myself the question: who is Samantha Power working for? Is it the US government? Kerry and Lavrov put together this deal apparently… also with the backing of the White House – it’s US government policy. What she should do as representative of the US government is try and follow this policy,” he said. 
Jones said he suspected that Secretary Kerry might be “extremely upset about this whole encounter.” 

“It is not the way that he conducts policy, and it is not a policy that is in the interest of the US. I think she should be fired on the basis of what she has done,” he added.

‘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.”

Another explanation presented by the editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs is that US President Barack Obama personally wanted to get more involved in Syria before he leaves office.

The outgoing president, Barack Obama, really wanted to get the US engaged in military operations directly in Syria,” Copley said. “This will no doubt gain him some degree of support back from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

“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.”

If the strike was not deliberate, then the US is to blame for its forces’ “poor targeting” intelligence.

“What we see is the US going into these areas with very poor targeting information. It is making a lot of mistakes,”Copley said, noting that a similar situation is unfolding with the US contingent fighting in Iraq, where US forces are “totally disorganized.” 

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.

US Desperately Pumps ‘Humanitarian’ Smokescreen for Failing Syria Ceasefire

US Desperately Pumps ‘Humanitarian’ Smokescreen for Failing Syria Ceasefire

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 18.09.2016 |

US Desperately Pumps ‘Humanitarian’ Smokescreen for Failing Syria Ceasefire

Washington’s lie about seeking a genuine ceasefire in Syria is in danger of being exposed for the world to see. So, hilariously, a charade is being hurriedly orchestrated in order to hide this ignominy. As usual, the Syrian government is being scapegoated for the real cause of violence in the country. That real cause is Washington’s state-sponsored terrorist-fueled war for regime change.

After four days of continuing deadly breaches by US-backed «rebels» since the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal was implemented last Monday, Washington and the dutiful Western mainstream media are preparing the inevitable excuses.

Rather than focusing on ongoing «rebel» violence in contravention of the truce, US Secretary of State John Kerry fingered the Syrian government for preventing humanitarian access to insurgent-held eastern Aleppo as the reason for why the ceasefire is in danger of collapsing.

Kerry accused the Syrian government of causing «unacceptable repeated delays» in delivery of humanitarian aid convoys to the northern city. Some 300,000 people are estimated to be stuck in dire conditions in the eastern side of Aleppo, which has become a key battleground in the five-year war.

Western media reports followed suit with Reuters reporting: «Syria ceasefire deal in balance as Aleppo aid plan stalls». Another publication, USA Today, made the more pointed claim: «The regime has broken its pledges on the distribution of life-saving supplies».

So, in Washington’s artful spin of events, it is the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad which is reneging on the ceasefire arrangement by blocking food and medical supplies to starving civilians. This, of course, plays handily into the broader Western narrative that the Syrian «regime» is the ultimate villain of the piece. The vile Assad is mercilessly denying children food and water, goes the spin.

Based on that premise, Washington is giving notice that it will not follow through on its ceasefire commitment to join with Russian air forces for targeting terror groups like ISIS (Daesh) and al Nusra Front. Those anticipated «joint operations» between US and Russian aircraft were supposed to be the highlight of the ceasefire plan worked out last weekend in Geneva by Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

But that supposed «breakthrough» is now in doubt. McClatchy News reported at the end of the week: «US to Russia – Syria military cooperation not guaranteed».

US State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters four days into the truce:

«If, by Monday we have continued to see reduced violence and no humanitarian access, there will be no Joint Implementation Center [with Russian military]».

Washington is mendaciously trying to pretend that there have been no breaches of the ceasefire and that the whole problem revolves around «no humanitarian access» being granted by the Syrian authorities. If the US does indeed backtrack from its stated prior commitment to cooperate with Russian forces for targeting terror groups then it is safe to assume that the entire ceasefire «deal» will be dead, even as a rhetorical concept.

Admittedly, the level of violence in Aleppo and across the country subsided when the US-Russian ceasefire pact came into effect on September 12. Russian and allied Syrian forces halted their campaign of air strikes. Opposition violence appeared to abate too. Nevertheless, the truce was reportedly violated multiple times by anti-government militias, not just in Aleppo, but in other locations, such as Latakia, Hama and Homs.

Furthermore, there was no apparent distinction between so-called US-backed moderate rebels and recognized terror groups in carrying out these violations. All insurgents groups were engaging in sporadic attacks – in contravention of the putative ceasefire.

Credible Russian military reports confirmed that Syrian army units had observed the truce and had begun demilitarizing a major access road into eastern Aleppo. Syrian troops are being replaced by Russian units to safeguard the route. However, it is the militants who are refusing to withdraw from the Castello Road area, which would provide the humanitarian aid convoys access to the city.

Indeed, insurgent factions openly declared that they would continue shelling and sniping in the Castello Road precisely in order to prevent the aid convoys arriving because they opposed the ceasefire accord even being implemented.

Russia has correctly criticized the US as using a «verbal smokescreen» to conceal why the ceasefire is failing. The point is that Washington has negligible control over its declared moderate rebels. In fact, there is no control because in practice there is no distinction between the myriad illegally armed insurgents.

Like the ceasefire called earlier this year in February, this latest one is breaking down because all the militants continue to breach any cessation. As Lt General Vladimir Savchenko, chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation in Syria, points out, the US-backed opposition is using the ceasefire simply as an opportunity to rearm and regroup.

And Washington’s policy is impotent about altering that. The CIA and Washington’s allies in Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey armed the anti-government insurgents, including the known terror groups. The regime-change conspirators created a veritable Frankenstein monster over which they now have little control even to the point of getting it to at least appear to be complying with a ceasefire for tactical reasons.

The latest ceasefire is floundering like the previous attempt because Washington’s assertions about «moderate rebels» dissociating from «terror» groups is total and utter humbug.

Risibly, as one could have predicted, John Kerry’s bombastic appeal last weekend for US-backed «rebels» to «separate» from the extremists so that American and Russian forces could then get on with the task of eliminating the terrorists has been subsequently shown to be the consummate delusion that it is.

Washington and its allies are being caught out spectacularly in their lies over the Syrian conflict. The stone-cold truth is that they have been sponsoring terrorist proxies for the criminal purpose of regime change.

So conspicuous and damning is Washington’s nefarious role in Syria’s conflict – which has resulted in 400,000 dead and millions turned into desperate refugees – that this crime has to be covered up at all costs. But covering it up is becoming futile because of the increasing glaring reality.

Syria’s ceasefire is flawed because Washington, the supposed co-architect of the truce along with Moscow, is not motivated by finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The conflict is all about regime change and deploying terrorist agents to achieve that. That is why the ceasefire is failing – yet again.

The unbearable truth about Washington and its criminal gang of state-sponsors of terrorism has to be concealed from public view. And that is why Washington and the dutiful Western media lie machine are cranking up the «explanation» for the ceasefire unravelling as being due to the fault of the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally for not delivering on humanitarian commitments.

This American smokescreen has been pumped out for nearly six years in Syria. It is really galling to hear the likes of John Kerry and Barack Obama talk about «human suffering» and the need for humanitarian ceasefires.

The suffering and violence in Syria will stop when Washington is seen for the criminal regime that it is. That day is coming. The American smokescreen is dissipating with each passing day because of its absurd contradictions.

And the terrorists – state sponsors and proxies alike – are finally being exposed.

 

Al Qaeda’s Ties to US-Backed Syrian Rebels

The U.S. is demanding the grounding of Syria’s air force but is resisting Russian demands that U.S.-armed rebels separate from Al Qaeda, a possible fatal flaw in the new cease-fire, writes Gareth Porter.

By Gareth Porter

September 16, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – The new ceasefire agreement between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which went into effect at noon Monday, has a new central compromise absent from the earlier ceasefire agreement that the same two men negotiated last February. But it isn’t clear that it will produce markedly different results.

The new agreement incorporates a U.S.-Russian bargain: the Syrian air force is prohibited from operating except under very specific circumstances in return for U.S.-Russian military cooperation against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as Daesh, ISIS or ISIL. That compromise could be a much stronger basis for an effective ceasefire, provided there is sufficient motivation to carry it out fully.

The question, however, is whether the Obama administration is willing to do what would certainly be necessary for the agreement to establish a longer-term ceasefire at the expense of Daesh and Al Qaeda.

In return for ending the Syrian air force’s operations, generally regarded as indiscriminate, and lifting the siege on the rebel-controlled sectors of Aleppo, the United States is supposed to ensure the end of the close military collaboration between the armed groups it supports and Al Qaeda, and join with Russian forces in weakening Al Qaeda.

The new bargain is actually a variant of a provision in the Feb. 27 ceasefire agreement: in return for Russian and Syrian restraints on bombing operations, the United States would prevail on its clients to separate themselves from their erstwhile Al Qaeda allies.

But that never happened. Instead the U.S.-supported groups not only declared publicly that they would not honor a “partial ceasefire” that excluded areas controlled by Al Qaeda’s affiliate, then known as Nusra Front, but joined with Nusra Front and its close ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a major open violation of the ceasefire by seizing strategic terrain south of Aleppo in early April.

As the Kerry-Lavrov negotiations on a ceasefire continued, Kerry’s State Department hinted that the U.S. was linking its willingness to pressure its Syrian military clients to separate themselves from Al Qaeda’s forces in the northwest to an unspecified Russian concession on the ceasefire that was still being negotiated.

It is now clear that what Kerry was pushing for was what the Obama administration characterized as the “grounding” of the Syrian air force in the current agreement.

Al Qaeda’s Ties

Now that it has gotten that concession from the Russians, the crucial question is what the Obama administration intends to do about the ties between its own military clients and Al Qaeda in Aleppo and elsewhere in the northwest.

Thus far the primary evidence available for answering that question is two letters from U.S. envoy to the Syrian opposition Michael Ratney to opposition groups backed by the United States. The first letter, sent on Sept. 3, after most of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement had already been hammered out, appears to have been aimed primarily at reassuring those Syrian armed groups.

As translated by al-Monitor, it asserted, “Russia will prevent regime planes from flying, and this means there will not be bombing by the regime of areas controlled by the opposition, regardless of who is present in the area, including areas in which Jabhat Fateh al Sham [the new name adopted by Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front] has a presence alongside other opposition factions.”

Ratney confirmed that the U.S. would in return “offer Russia coordination from our side to weaken al Qaeda.” But he also assured U.S. clients that their interests would be protected under the new agreement.

“[W]e believe this ceasefire should be stronger,” he wrote, “because it should prevent Russia and the regime from bombing the opposition and civilians under the pretext that its striking Jabhat al Nusra.”

The Ratney letter makes no reference to any requirement for the armed opposition to move away from their Al Qaeda allies or even terminate their military relationships, and thus implied that they need not do so.

But in a follow-up letter, undated but apparently sent on Sept. 10, following the completion of the new Kerry-Lavrov agreement, Ratney wrote, “We urge the rebels to distance themselves and cut all ties with Fateh of Sham, formerly Nusra Front, or there will be severe consequences.”

The difference between the two messages is obviously dramatic. That suggests that one of the last concessions made by Kerry in the Sept. 9 meeting with Lavrov may have been that a message would be sent to U.S. military clients with precisely such language.

The totality of the two letters from Ratney underlines the reluctance of the United States to present an ultimatum to its Syrian clients, no matter how clearly they are implicated in Al Qaeda operations against the ceasefire. Last spring, the State Department never publicly commented on the participation by the U.S.-supported armed groups in the Nusra Front offensive in violation of the ceasefire agreement, effectively providing political cover for it.

The decision by U.S.-supported armed groups in March to defy the ceasefire was taken in the knowledge that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia had agreed to resupply the Nusra Front-led commands in the northwest and had even provided shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles to Nusra’s close ally Ahrar al Sham.

Turkey’s Dubious Role

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent shift in policy toward rapprochement with Russia and his talk of ending the war in Syria are fueled by determination to prevent Syrian Kurds from establishing a unified Kurdistan along the Turkish border.

The Wilson Center’s Henry Barkey, a leading specialist on Turkey, told a meeting sponsored by the Middle East Institute last week that Erdogan’s Syria policy is “90 percent about the Kurds.”

But Erdogan does not appear ready to pull the rug out from under Turkey’s client groups in Syria. In fact, Turkey suddenly dialed back its rhetorical shift on Syria in July just when the newly renamed Jabhat Fateh al Sham revealed for the first time that it was about to launch its major offensive for Aleppo.

The domestic political context of U.S. Syrian policy remains strongly hostile to any joint U.S. operations with Russia that could affect U.S.-supported anti-Assad clients, even though it is now generally acknowledged that those forces are “marbled” with troops of Al Qaeda’s franchise, especially in Aleppo.

During the spring and summer, Reuters, The Washington Post and other media outlets reported a string of complaints from the Pentagon and the CIA about Obama’s plans to reach an agreement with Russia on Syria that would commit the United States to cooperate against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise. These complaints argued that the Russians could not be trusted and that they intended to target U.S –supported groups in a proxy war.

The real reasons for these attacks on the negotiations with Russia, however, were more parochial. The Pentagon is determined to maintain the line that Russia is a dangerous threat and should be firmly opposed everywhere. The CIA’s clandestine service has long wanted a more aggressive program of military assistance for its Syrian clients, which would be a major CIA covert operation.

Thus, even though the new agreement calls for U.S. “coordination” with Russia of air strikes against Al Qaeda forces, the Obama administration can be expected to raise objections whenever it sees that a proposed operation would come too close to targets associated with its clients. Otherwise, more leaks from opponents of the agreement in the Pentagon and CIA – or even in the State Department – would surely follow.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Syrian ceasefire II – Why any cessation of hostilities in Syria is doomed to fail and what it would mean for the Syrian Army and its allies

September 13, 2016

Syrian ceasefire II – Why any cessation of hostilities in Syria is doomed to fail and what it would mean for the Syrian Army and its allies

By Aram Mirzaei

On 12 September a new nationwide ceasefire agreement was implemented in Syria, one brokered by the US and Russian Foreign Ministers after weeks of crunch talks. There had been several attempts to reach a deal in the previous weeks, but finally last Friday when foreign ministers Kerry and Lavrov announced their agreement, the world was lit with hope for some reason. Perhaps this time people believed the US would be genuine and able to control their multiple proxies operating in the country.

Part of this ceasefire agreement would include the fabled moderate rebels withdrawing from the jihadist camps; if they do not, the US says it will withdraw its support for these groups. Interestingly, this is the first time that the US openly threatens to withdraw its support for its proxies, something that Russian analyst Dmitry Kosyrev believes is because Washington does not have a chance to achieve its goals in this conflict, hence why they agreed to this painful deal. Kosyrev however also added that the most likely scenario will be that jihadists will most likely try to capitalize on this cessation of hostilities because “someone on the ground will refuse to adhere to the agreement”. [1]

I am inclined to agree with Kosyrev’s analysis and would also go as far to say that the Russian demand for “moderate rebels” to disassociate themselves from jihadist camps won’t be met. I say this for two reasons; firstly because there are no moderate rebels, there are only radical jihadists who want to overthrow the Syrian government, one of the last truly secular governments left in the region, and turn Syria into a Levantine Emirate. Secondly, in the unlikely event that there are any moderate rebels among the jihadist coalitions such as Jaysh Al-Fateh and Fatah Halab, any such group leaving these jihadist coalitions would commit both political and military suicide as they would lose any leverage they have over the Syrian government, as the jihadists know they are stronger if they remain united, furthermore any such group leaving the jihadist coalitions would most likely be turned into targets by the other jihadist groups who would deem them to be traitors. We are all too familiar with what terrorist groups such as ISIL and Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) do to those that they deem to be traitors.

Supporting this theory is the fact that rebel (jihadist) groups announced that they would not abide by the ceasefire even before it was implemented on Monday at sunset. Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, Syria’s largest jihadist faction officially announced, through their deputy leader in a televised statement “Abu Ammar Al-Umar” that they reject the nationwide ceasefire proposal. He cited that they would reject any ceasefire that excludes “certain groups” in Syria, referring to Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, a close partner of Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham. This once again confirms the suspicion that the plethora of “rebel” groups in Syria all work as one with a common goal in mind, and that they will not leave the side of internationally designated terrorist groups, with close links to Al-Qaeda.[2]

On Tuesday morning, jihadist militants once again reaffirmed this position when over 20 jihadist groups declared that they have rejected the ceasefire proposal, an announcement made by groups such as the US-backed Free Syrian Army, Harakat Nour Al-Deen Al-Zinki, Jabhat Al-Shamia, Jaysh Al-Nasr and Ajnad Al-Sham. They all cited that the major reason for their rejection was the exclusion of Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham and that this would leave the Syrian Army in a more beneficial position than they would. [3]

Contrary to the jihadist statements, Damascus, Tehran and Hezbollah all welcomed the ceasefire proposal. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi, said on Sunday that “The Islamic republic of Iran always welcomes a ceasefire in Syria and the facilitation of the access of all the country’s people to humanitarian aid.” Meanwhile Hezbollah’s media wing “Military media” said that “the allies of Syria will support any decision that the Damascus government makes”. [4] [5]

Ghassemi also blamed armed groups for breaking previous ceasefires, saying, “Just as the Syrian government has a number of times emphasized, the lack of necessary guarantees on the adherence of terrorist-takfiri groups to the ceasefire have been an obstacle to the success of previous ceasefires.” Ghassemi added that for this ceasefire to be successful, there needs to be “comprehensive monitoring and control of the borders to block the dispatch of terrorism and arms.”

Ali Akbar Velayati, the foreign policy adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, however was more cautious about the ceasefire. “A ceasefire and a suspension of the war is the desire of everyone; however, if the cost of it is that the enemies of the government and people of Syria misuse it, not only will this ceasefire not be successful, but it will be harmful,” Velayati said. He added that previous ceasefires had been to the benefit of groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra.[6]

Velayati was referring to the previous ceasefire deal that failed and resulted in the jihadists capitalizing on the ceasefire to launch attacks in Southern Aleppo and recapturing areas previously lost to the Syrian Army and its allies, an incident that angered the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and Hezbollah. In a previous article I quoted the Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan who expressed his dissatisfaction with the ceasefires that almost always resulted in the jihadists rearming and resupplying their forces in order to launch new attacks on the Syrian Army and its allies, Dehqan, referring to a May 7 attack on the town of Khan Touman said that “We agree to a guaranteed cease-fire that does not lead to terrorists building up their powers.”

The conservative newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz appeared to welcome the news of a ceasefire in an article titled “Obama’s Force Could Not Reach Assad.” It contends that the differences between the United States and Russia will force President Barack Obama to leave office with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad still in office.[7]

It would seem that this time, there is a closer coordination between Moscow and Tehran on the conditions for the cessation of hostilities, with Iran and Hezbollah assuming an overall more positive stance towards the agreement. [8] This could be explained by the fact that the Syrian Army and its Iranian and Lebanese allies are seemingly no longer left paralyzed with their hands tied behind their backs, this time they are able to respond to any aggression with force, and due to the exclusion of Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham and their collaborators such as Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham and Harakat Nour Al-Deen Al-Zinki who have already rejected the ceasefire, the Syrian Army does not have to stop its campaigns in areas such as Southern Aleppo and Northern Latakia.

It should have come as no surprise to anyone that the jihadists broke the ceasefire only an hour after it took into effect last night by firing rockets at the Syrian Army positions in the volatile Northern Hama front. Later that same night, jihadists launched a new assault, targeting the small town of Khattab in Northern Hama. [9]

By all logic, this violation coupled with the jihadists rejecting the ceasefire should make them legitimate targets for the Russian Air Force, the Syrian government forces and its allies on the ground. This seems to be the case in areas such as Northern Latakia, Southern Aleppo, Quneitra and Northern Hama as the Syrian Army has geared up to continue its campaigns against the jihadists who have plagued these areas. As a matter of fact, the Syrian Army has already flooded the Aleppo province with reinforcements from the Republican Guard, IRGC and Harakat Al-Nujaba (Iraqi paramilitary) in preparations for an upcoming offensive, possibly led by the prominent Iranian General Qassem Soleimani who was seen last week in Southern Aleppo, inspecting the troops stationed there. [10]

It remains to be seen how Washington will respond to their proxies’ rejection of the ceasefire agreement, and the continued Syrian Army advance in the aforementioned areas. We can safely assume that Washington has not had a change of heart when it comes to the idea of regime change in Syria. This ceasefire deal is doomed to collapse because the jihadists cannot and will not accept a cessation of hostilities, and while the Russian Foreign Ministry said that it “hope[s] the American side walks its part of the road and exerts due influence on those it considers Syria’s ‘moderate’ opposition to have them completely obey by the regime of cessation of hostilities and implement the Russian-U.S. agreements,” the question remains; will Washington stay true to its words and end its support for these jihadists? [11]

The Russian Foreign ministry also added that “it is worth reminding that despite our consistent calls the United States has given no consent to put Ahrar al-Sham on the United Nations terrorist list.” Washington has kept a consistent policy of protecting terrorist factions in Syria from being designated as terrorists, why would it change its policy now, and label one of its major proxy forces as a terrorist organization, thus legitimizing Russian-Syrian-Iranian efforts against them?

  1. https://m.sputniknews.com/politics/20160911/1045187157/russia-us-syria-deal.html
  2. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/ahrar-al-sham-officially-rejects-syrian-ceasefire/
  3. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/20-militant-groups-reject-syrian-ceasefire-agreement/
  4. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-hezbollah-welcome-aleppo-truce/
  5. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/11/484184/Iran-Syria-Bahram-Qassemi
  6. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/iran-cautious-cease-fire-deal-russia-us.html#ixzz4K8Ts7NIL
  7. http://www.vatanemrooz.ir/newspaper/page/1978/1/163525/0
  8. http://thesaker.is/the-syrian-conflict-an-iranian-perspective-on-the-russian-involvement-and-a-potential-turkish-cooperation/
  9. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-rebels-ignore-ceasefire-launch-new-assault-northern-hama/
  10. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/ceasefire-allows-syrian-army-prepare-upcoming-aleppo-offensive/
  11. http://tass.com/politics/899385

التفاهم صفقة على حساب سورية أم انتصار لها؟

ناصر قنديل
– يطرح التفاهم الروسي الأميركي على ضفتي أصدقاء سورية وأعدائها النقاش ذاته، ففي كلّ القوى المنخرطة في الحرب على سورية من دول إقليمية وحركات تحمل لواء المعارضة صوت مرتفع لوصف التفاهم بالصفقة على حسابهم، ويستخدمون الأوصاف ذاتها للخيانة الأميركية التي استعملوها من قبل عند التفاهم على الملف النووي الإيراني. وعلى ضفة أصدقاء سورية استعادة لهدنة شهر شباط الماضي وما شهدته من تحضيرات من قبل تركيا والسعودية والجماعات المسلحة في شمال سورية، مهّدت لهجوم معاكس سمح باستعادة تلال العيس وخلصة وخان طومان، رغم أنّ سورية وحلفاءها يومها استغلوا الهدنة لتحرير تدمر، ليقولوا مرة أخرى يخدع الأميركيون الروس ونحن في ذروة الإنجاز العسكري لتأمين وقف للنار يمنح الجماعات المسلحة فرصة التقاط الأنفاس، ويصل بعضهم للقول إنه ربما حدثت صفقة تلقى فيها الروس أثماناً في غير مكان لقاء تنازلات قدّموها من جيب سورية وعلى حسابها، فما هو التوصيف الحقيقي للتفاهم بموازين الحرب التي تشهدها سورية؟

– العمل السياسي الذي يواكب الحروب هو محاولة لتثمير موازين القوى في معادلات سياسية، لكنها معادلات تحاول أن تجد صياغة بتعابير لا تشبه مفردات خطاب الحرب فيطغى عليها الحديث عن البعد الإنساني وعن وقف النار وعن الذهاب للحلّ السياسي بعيداً عن الحرب. وهي معادلات يصنعها الأعداء أنفسهم الذين وجدوا أنفسهم على طاولة المفاوضات يمارسون الحرب بأشكال أخرى فليبسون قفازات حريرية بدلاً من حمل السيوف الحديدية، ويبحثون لخلاصة التفاوض عن لغة تقدّمهم كحلفاء وأصدقاء، وهم يعلمون أنهم يمارسون العداوة بطريقة مختلفة تختبئ فيها الخناجر وراء الظهور، ويعلمون أنّ أحدهم خدع الآخر برضاه، لأنه لم يبق له في الميدان فرصة الفوز، ولا فرصة الخوض في اختبار جديد، وبهذا ليس في الحديث عن الخدعة مجانبة للحقيقة، لكن السؤال مَن خدع مَن، ولكن كيف فعل ذلك برضاه ومعرفته الكاملة؟

– جوهر الحرب في سورية هو مستقبل النظام السياسي الحاكم بسطوته وجيشه ورئيسه، بين خياري الإضعاف تمهيداً للإسقاط أو التمكين تمهيداً للتعويم، وجوهر الدور الروسي منذ الفيتو الشهير قبل أربع سنوات ومروراً بالتصدي لمشروع الحرب يوم جاءت الأساطيل الأميركية قبل ثلاث سنوات، حتى التموضع العسكري في عاصفة السوخوي قبل عام، هو التمكين تمهيداً للتعويم، وجوهر الدور الأميركي مرة بالوضوح ومرة بالغموض المقصود، ومرة بالانخراط ومرات بالانكفاء، هو الإضعاف تمهيداً للإسقاط، ومحور التجاذب الروسي الأميركي منذ أربع سنوات واضح، وهو أين تقع جبهة النصرة من هذه الحرب، وأين يقع التعامل معها في قلب الحرب على الإرهاب. والنصرة هي نخبة المعارضة السورية المسلحة والعقائدية، فهي تشكل ثلاثة أرباع الجسم المسلح الذي يقاتل الجيش السوري، وتستقطب الغالبية الكاسحة من السوريين الذين يحلمون بإسقاط النظام، ويشكلون ثلاثة أرباع جسمها العسكري، الذي يتشكل ربعه من غير السوريين الآتين من متطوّعي تنظيم القاعدة الذي تنتسب النصرة إلى فكره الوهابي التكفيري.

– لا يحقق الإحراج المنطقي أيّ انتصار تفاوضي إلا عندما يدعمه إحراج ميداني يضيّق الخيارات على الخصم المفاوض، لذلك لم ينجح كلّ الكلام عن دور الإرهاب في سورية بإحراج أميركا التي تعلم أنها وحلفاءها استنجدوا بتنظيم القاعدة لتحقيق هدف فشلوا بتحقيقه منفردين، وهو إسقاط النظام، ووفروا التغطية واخترعوا الذرائع لتبرير التغاضي عن جموع الإرهابيين الوافدة إلى سورية، فبقيت هيلاري كلينتون وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية السابقة، تقول إنّ حضور متطوّعي القاعدة لا يعني أنّ الخطر في سورية يأتي من الإرهاب بل من «وحشية النظام» التي استجلبت هؤلاء للقتال بسببها، ولذلك فوجود الإرهاب هو من الأعراض الجانبية المصاحبة للأزمة في سورية وليست قضيتها، وجوهر الأزمة وفقاً لكلينتون يبقى ببقاء النظام ويحلّ بإسقاطه، ولم يعترف الأميركيون بالإرهاب عنواناً لما يجري في سورية إلا عندما فشلوا وتيقنوا من الفشل، في إسقاط النظام، وبدأوا يبحثون عن حلول تفاوضية كان عنوانها ما قاله وزير الخارجية جون كيري مجدداً، بأنّ تنحّي الرئيس السوري وحده يتكفل بطمأنة الشرائح السورية التي تقاتل جنباً إلى جنب مع جبهة النصرة كفرع لتنظيم القاعدة، والفرز بين الجهتين لحصر القتال بالإرهاب يتوقف على هذا التنحّي، ويلوّحون من موقع إعلانهم للحرب على داعش، بما بقي يردّده مدير المخابرات الأميركية السابق ديفيد بتريوس عن كون الانتصار على داعش يتوقف على التحالف مع النصرة، وبعدما فشل الأميركيون في اختباراتهم ورهاناتهم، وظهرت اندفاعات عسكرية وسياسية حازمة وحاسمة لقوى الحلف الروسي الإيراني السوري، بمواصلة الحسم مع النصرة ومَن معها، لطالما رفضت واشنطن القيام بدورها بعزل مَن تسمّيهم فصائل معارضة معتدلة عن النصرة، وطالما أنّ تركيا التائهة بعد الانقلاب الفاشل وتعاني أزمة ثقة في علاقتها بواشنطن في ضوء الاستخدام الاستبدالي المثير للريبة لعلاقتها بالميليشيات التركية، صارت شريكاً افتراضياً بديلاً للانخراط مع واشنطن في اجتذاب مَن أمكن مِن المعارضين إلى خارج مناطق سيطرة النصرة، فعاد الأميركي للتفاوض من موقع مختلف.

– الأميركيون يعرفون أنهم عندما يوقعون أخيراً وبعد طول مكابرة وممانعة على اتفاق يقضي باستهداف النصرة إنما يقبلون الخدعة الروسية، فالنصرة ليست وجوداً مكتشفاً في سورية، إنها قلب المعارضة وعصبها الذي رعته واشنطن، وراهنت عليه، وموسكو تقبل الخدعة الأميركية التي تقول إنّ هناك معارضة معتدلة، وهي تعلم أنّ الفصائل المسلحة كلها من فكر تنظيم القاعدة، والباقي كما وصفه الرئيس الأميركي باراك أوباما «فانتازيا»، فترتضي تحييد من تستطيع واشنطن إقناعهم بالابتعاد عن النصرة وهم بعض منها وتقبل بتسميتهم بالمعارضة المعتدلة. وهنا يقع الاتفاق، بمقايضة عنوانها موافقة أميركية على إنهاء الخطر الرئيسي على النظام الذي تمثله النصرة، مقابل فتح الباب لمن يرغب الدخول بتسوية سياسية. وهذا هو تماماً ما قامت عليه مبادرة الرئيس السوري قبل ثلاث سنوات ونصف السنة مطلع العام 2013، والتي عرضت على الجماعات المسلحة ما لم يعرضه التفاهم الروسي الأميركي، مقابل محورية الحرب على النصرة كعنوان لإرهاب تكفيري، يهدّد وحدة النسيج الوطني لسورية ويأخذها إلى التفتيت.

– في مفاوضات إنهاء حرب تموز عام 2006 قدّمت المقاومة للمفاوض الرئيس نبيه بري آنذاك، وهو المكان الذي يشغله وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف في حالة سورية، ما يشبه اتفاق تسليم السلاح الكيميائي السوري الذي شكل نهاية فرصة الحرب الوحيدة على سورية، أيّ عرض قبول خدعة أنّ أميركا لم تهزم بسحب أساطيلها مقابل خدعة أنّ تسليم السلاح الكيميائي السوري إنجاز نوعي وتاريخي، وفي نهاية حرب تموز قبول خدعة أنّ نشر الجيش واليونيفيل يعنيان تقييداً للمقاومة مقابل خدعة أنّ السلاح باق ولن يمسّ، واليوم مقايضة شبيهة بالاثنتين، خدعة شراكة أميركية بالحرب على النصرة ولو معنوياً وإعلامياً، مقابل خدعة حمايتها لمن تسمّيهم معارضة معتدلة. ويكفي سماع ما يقوله قادة المعارضة وجماعاتها المسلحة حتى نفهم مكان التفاهم من الحرب. فيقول ميشيل كيلو التفاهم يخيّرنا بين ان نقول نعم ونخسر أو نقول لا ونخسر، فقول النعم يعني القبول ضمناً بسحق أكبر قوة تقاتل النظام وداعش ولا عمليات خارجية لها، وفقاً لتوصيف الأميركيين السابق للمعارضة التي يريدون التعاون معها، وهذه ضربة لن تقوم بعدها للمعارضة المسلحة قيامة، ولا يبدو سهلاً تطبيق موجباتها بالفك المستحيل ميدانياً وإنْ قلنا لا فسنسحق تحت شعار أننا كلنا إرهاب.

– يخطئ مَن يقيس التفاهم بأمتار المسافة بين الحواجز في الكاستيلو، لأنّ الستاتيكو الحلبي سيكون مختلاً لحساب الجيش والحلفاء بخطوط إمدادهم المفتوحة مقابل حصر الإمداد لشرق حلب بمواد إغاثية، وحربهم التي تعصف في الأرياف على النصرة وتتقدّم وتتوسع في محافظات حماة وحلب وإدلب وصولاً إلى فتح الطريق الدولي بين دمشق والحدود التركية، ويخطئ مَن يقيس التفاهم بقياس الهدنة السابقة، فالأمر أكبر من كليهما، إنه ثمرة تراكم المفاوضات والاختبارات والمواجهات طوال الأعوام السابقة. فالنصرة التي حيّدت في الهدنة بداعي اختبائها تحت أعلام المعارضة، وحيّدت من الغارات الروسية نفسها، بينما النصرة اليوم هي هدف للحرب الروسية الأميركية، وحدود تركيا مقطوعة عن أحياء حلب من الكاستيلو، عدا عن شراكة تركيا بدور مختلف هذه المرة عنوانه هاجسها الكردي وما يستدعيه من حرص على التفاهم مع روسيا، وليس رهانها على النصرة وما سبّبه من تصادم مع موسكو، لتصير المعادلة الراهنة تجسيداً لعبقرية الحرب، قضم القوة المركزية للعدو برضا وشراكة وتغطية حلفائه مع ابتسامة صفراء تدّعي البراءة. قبل الاستدارة للسؤال عن مصير الباقي الذي يقول من اليوم أُكلنا جميعاً يوم أُكل الثور الأبيض، والخيارات محدودة، مصير النصرة أو تسويات على طريقة داريا… أو الجنسية التي يتبرّع بها أردوغان للراغبين، أو تجربة الحظ في صناديق اقتراع يريد الكثيرون تجاهل حقيقة أنّ تجاهل المعارضة للدعوة إلى الاحتكام لها بإشراف أممي هي دعوة كانت دائماً متاحة لها، كانت الفضيحة التي تؤكد معرفة هذه المعارضة ومعرفة حلفائها المسبقة بحجم تمثيلها الضحل، وبأكذوبة أنها تمثل الشعب السوري.

– إذا كان التفاهم نقلة نوعية لتمكين النظام تمهيداً لتعويمه الذي تحمله محادثات سياسية لتشكيل حكومة في ظلّ الرئاسة السورية، وليس نقلة باتجاه إضعافه تمهيداً لإسقاطه عبر تعويم خصمه الأول الذي تمثله النصرة، وعنوان سياسي للإسقاط هو تنحّي الرئيس كشرط للحلّ السياسي، فإنّ القول بنصر سياسي لسورية وإنجاز للمفاوض الروسي، كما كانت مفاوضة بري في حرب تموز ومفاوضة لافروف في الحلّ السياسي للسلاح الكيميائي، استنتاجاً لا يجافي الحقيقة.

 

Related Articles

 

الكتابة بالبرق على دفاتر حلب .. ماذا قال الاتفاق الروسي الاميريكي؟؟

 

نارام سرجون

 كما أنني أرتاب في ربطات العنق الفاخرة والياقات البيضاء التي يرتديها ذوو السوابق واولئك الذين تقول سجلاتهم انهم لصوص وقوادون .. فانني أرتاب في الكلام الفخم الذي يرتدي المخمل الناعم والقماش الأنيق الذي يصنعه اللصوص والمنافقون ..

وكما أنني أرتاب بالرصاصة المصنوعة من الذهب فانني أرتاب بالكلام المرصّع بالذهب .. لأن الذهب يزين كل شيء الا جسد الكلام .. بل ان الكلام البديع هو الذي يزين جسد الذهب الشاحب الأصفر .. فما أقبح الكلمة التي يلبسها أصحابها الفضة والماس ويكسون جسدها الدافئ اللين البض بصفائح الذهب الباردة ويعرضونها في معارض الكلام ..

انني أرتاب بكل شيء جميل يتزين بالجمال .. بل انني أرتاب في الجمل المقدسة لكتب الله عندما تكتب بماء الذهب على جدران المعابد والكنائس والمساجد .. كما أرتاب في عبارات السماء كثيرا عندما تخرج مجوّدة مذهّبة من أفواه الطغاة والزناة والقتلة مخلوطة بالتكبير والدم .. فهل يحتاج كلام الاله ليكتب بماء الذهب ليكون جميلا وباهرا ولامعا كالبرق كما يكتب الله بالبرق والنجوم كلامه على دفاتر السماء؟؟ ..

فلا تلوموني لأنني لاأقرأ البيانات السياسية مثل أي سياسي .. بل أخضعها دوما لمعاييري الصارمة .. وأنزع عن البيانات الديبلوماسية الحرير والقماش الموشى بالقصب والذهب .. وأخلع عنها أطواق الماس والياقوت الأحمر ثم اتأمل وجوهها وأجسادها العارية .. وأقدر أن أقول بثقة أنني لذلك قلما أكترث بما يقال في البيانات التي تصدر عن الديبلوماسيين ومؤتمراتهم الصحفية وخاصة الأميريكيين .. فنحن من صنعنا الكلام واخترعنا وجه اللغة .. وهم دوما يفسدونها بما يلبسونها من حرير ويثقلونها بصفائح الذهب حتى لاتقدر ان تعوم في الروح .. فتغرق في مياه العقل ..

هذا هو مافعلته عندما قرأت تفاصيل الاتفاق الأخير بين الروس والاميركيين بشأن هدنة حلب .. فاتفاق آخر الليل مليء بالمساعدات الانسانية .. ومليء بالامنيات بالسلام للشعب السوري .. ومحشو بالجوز والعسل و”المعتدلين” .. وفيه وعود وعهود ومواثيق .. ولكن بعد أن نعري البيان الجميل ونجرده من أقنعته المسرحية ونستعيد الحروف التي ينبض فيها دمنا منذ زمن أوغاريت نكتشف الحقيقة التي تريد متاريس الذهب أن تخفيها .. وهي أن جيش الولايات المتحدة السري في سورية والمتمثل بالمعارضة المعتدلة والمتطرفة على وشك الانهيار في حلب .. وأن الوضع العسكري على الارض ينذر بشر خطير يقترب من جيش الفتح الذي تزدحم فيه الملائكة وطلاب الحور العين .. وان حملة الابادة الأفقية والعمودية التي تعرض لها اضطرت الولايات المتحدة الى أن تشتري الحياة له ولمن بقي في أحياء حلب الشرقية ساعة بساعة وتحقنه بالأمل والصبر .. سهر جون كيري حتى الصباح مع لافروف يطلب الرحمة بجيش الفتح ومقاتلي المعارضة اليائسين .. لم يعد جيش الفتح يريد الا استراحة من المجزرة والمقتلة التي تعرض لها وحفظ ماء الوجه ..

وصار المحيسني يبحث عن سلم من السماء ينزله من أرض الحور العين التي استحالت جحيما الى أرض الواقع .. فماذا سيفعل بالحور العين في السماء اذا لم يبق مقاتلون له في حلب ..؟؟

قبل السهرة الطويلة المضنية الروسية الاميركية بأيام لفت أنظارنا أن الاعلام الغربي يستيقظ فجأة على هدير الدبابات السورية وهي تطحن جيش الفتح في الراموسة وحول الكليات العسكرية وتبحث عن أي عظم بقي للمسلحين حول المنطقة .. وصار الاعلام يبحث قي ملفاته العاجلة عن ملف السلاح الكيماوي – الذي كان كالعظم الرميم الذي يراد احياؤه – ليهدد به ودفع به الى مجلس الأمن وتوعد وهدد .. بل انه دخل الى مستودعات الجيش السوري وجعل يدس فيها السلاح الكيماوي لتلفيق الاتهام الممل البليد باستعمال أسلحة محظورة .. وقد صارت لعبة السلاح الكيماوي ممجوجة ومستهلكة وذريعة لاتجد لها مشجعين مثل أي فيلم قديم يعرض في السينما من زمن الأبيض والأسود .. ونعرف كل الحبكات فيه التي لم تعد تفاجئ أحدا .. ولذلك تم رمي الذريعة الكيماوية لترهيبنا فيما سافر الاميريكيون على عجل الى جنيف لغاية أخرى تماما .. ففي كل ساعة تأخير يذوب جيش الفتح الذي تبين انه جيش مصنوع من الزبدة .. والزبدة الآن يطعمها الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه النار في حلقها وبطنها ..

من يقرأ الهدنة التي تلت تدمير قيادات الصف الأول لجيش الفتح ومفخرة القاعدة في غارة جوية قيل انها غامضة تركت جيش الفتح بلا رؤوسه “النووية” بعد ان سقط القادة المخضرمون الذين كانوا يقطفون المدن في سلال القاعدة فاذا برؤوسهم تسقط في سلة حلب الكبيرة بضربة واحدة .. وكل ماقيل عن دور اميريكا في قطف رؤوس جيش الفتح كعربون للروس على جديتهم في حرب القاعدة ليس مقنعا لأن من يهرول الى جنيف ليشتري ساعة من الحياة لمسلحي حلب لايقتل زعماء التمرد الذي يريد انقاذ حلب الشرقية قبل اي اتفاق بل ينتظر الاتفاق ويقدم الثمن الذي اتفق عليه بعده .. أما أن يدفع الثمن سلفا فانه لن يكون سياسيا اميريكيا .. فالاميركي تاجر ماكر ومراوغ وله عقل شايلوك وهو لايدفع الأثمان سلفا على الاطلاق وينتظر وصول الهدية بالبريد العسكري .. ولم يحدث عبر كل تاريخه انه دفع ثمنا الا بعد انجاز الصفقة التي يبحث عنها ..

ولذلك فان غالب الظن ان من أعدم نخبة قادة جيش الفتح هو نيران سورية لأن تكنيك العملية وطريقتها ذكرتنا بعملية تصفية قادة جيش الاسلام في الغوطة عند اجتماعهم الاخير مع زهران علوش .. وذكرتنا بتصفية حجي مارع في حلب ومن ثم قادة أحرار الشام في ادلب في الاجتماع الشهير الذي بتر رؤوس أحرار الشام .. وقد لفت نظري تحليل غربي يميل الى أن احتمال اقدام اميريكا على تصفية قادة جيش الفتح احتمال قوي في حال ثبتت المعلومات التي تقول ان الاميركيين لم يقدموا حلفاءهم عربون صداقة للروس بل تمت تصفيتهم لأنهم لمسوا في تقارير الاستخبارات وتناهى الى مسامعهم من مصادر عدة أن تغييرا وتمردا في قيادة جيش الفتح بدأ يتبلور بعد ان تبين للقيادات انهم دفعوا الى معركة يموتون فيها وحدهم دون أن يظهر الداعمون في الحلف الغربي اي بادرة عسكرية لردع الطيران الروسي عن المعركة .. وأن قادة جيش الفتح وخاصة السوريين منهم ربما كانوا في صدد تعليق معركة حلب واعلان انسحابهم منها واعلان براءتهم من دم آلاف المسلحين الذين ماتوا مجانا دون ظهير وعدوا به .. وهذا الاعلان لو حدث كان سيكسر الأمل في أحياء حلب الشرقية .. حيث ستنهار المجموعات المسلحة بسرعة وستنتهي معركة حلب خلال أيام دون أن يحصل الاميركيون على مايريدونه من اثمان .. فتمت تصفية قادة الصف الاول لاستبدالهم بقيادات اكثر مرونة وولاء وتقبل باستمرار المعركة وقد أدركت انها ستعاقب بقسوة اذا مافكرت بالتمرد .. واتجهت اميريكا في نفس الوقت الى محاولة اطالة المعركة فقط .. ريثما تحضر جبهة أخرى وتحرك آخر من الشرق او الجنوب قبل ان ينهار كل شيء في حلب كما صار متوقعا ..

والشكل الظاهري للصفقة الاميركية مع الروس هو انها اشترت بثمن ما ممرا للمساعدات الانسانية للمحاصرين لمدة 48 ساعة والبعض يراها ممرا خطيرا للسلاح لتأمين صمود المحاصرين في حلب .. ولكن البنادق المحاصرة لاتكفيها المساعدات بل تحتاج الى الأمل .. وقد يدخل الى مسلحي حلب كل شيء يطلبونه في الصناديق الا الأمل .. والأمل للمحاصرين لاتحمله الشاحنات بل تحمله الدبابات القادمة لنصرتهم والجيوش التي ستأتيهم بالنجدة .. ولكن من ذا الذي يغامر بتحدي الحلفاء على أرضهم وفي أجوائهم من أجل مسلحي حلب؟؟ ومن هو الجيش الذي سيركب الدبابات من أجل أن يموت من أجل مقاتلي حلب الشرقية؟؟

حتى اردوغان وقف يتفرج بعيدا في جرابلس وهو يدعو لهم بالنصر .. وماأرسله هو تصريحات عتيقة صدئة صارت اذا مرت من بين اسنانه سمع لها صرير الكلمات الصدئة .. وكأن فمه ناعورة تتحرك في نفس المكان وترتفع وتهبط وتغرف نفس الماء منذ ست سنوات ..

الروس والسوريون وحلفاؤهم ليسوا بالاغبياء ولا بالسذج كي ينجزوا انتصارات بالدم والجهد ثم يهدونها للمسلحين بمناسبة عيد الأضحى .. وفي نظر العسكريين من كل المدارس الغربية والشرقية تكاد تكون معركة حلب في خواتيمها .. وستنتهي .. اما على طريقة داريا أو على طريقة بابا عمرو .. وفي رأي البعض فانها قد تنتهي على الطريقة السوفييتية في برلين في ايار عام 45 .. فالحصار مطبق والممرات الانسانية لاتمنح للمنتصرين بل لمن ينتظر الاستسلام أو الموت .. وماقيل للاميركيين صراحة هو أن ادخال أي سلاح الى الاحياء الشرقية لن يعني الا أن تكون نيراننا أغزر وأكثر فتكا .. وان من يعطي السلاح للمحاصرين انما يعطيهم الموت السريع بسلاحنا .. فماذا يفيد الذئب الحبيس في قفص فولاذي ولو أطعمته لحم الذئاب؟؟

من يقرأ الاتفاق عاريا من تزيينات الاميركيين للثورجيين وانجازاتهم ووعدهم بالامل يعرف انه اتفاق توسل فيه الغرب الرحمة لمسلحي حلب .. وفيه اعتراف اميريكي أن كل اللحى هي اميركية الهوى وأن اميركيا تحاول انقاذ جيشها السري ..

وفي الاتفاق نفاذ صبر روسي سوري لأنه اعطي بالقطارة وبالساعات والايام .. وترك هامش الاتفاق الخاص بالحلفاء الروس والسوريين ليكون أكبر من أوراق الاتفاق نفسه .. وسيضع الاميركيون اللجام في فم المعارضة السورية وفي أفواه بنادقها خوفا عليها .. ولكن هذا سيصيب روح جبهة النصرة بالأسيد .. فتزيينها بشعارات الاعتدال وتذويبها في أحواض المعارضة السورية وغسيلها فيها لحمايتها يعني انه تمت هزيمة عقيدتها وطبعها وروحها المتأصلة فيها وحدث شرخ في كيانها وايديولوجيتها الجذابة للمتطرفين .. فتسييس جبهة النصرة وتذويبها يعني أنها تموت عمليا كايديولوجية جذابة للرفض اللاهوتي الصلف ..

ربطات العنق والياقات البيضاء وأطواق الذهب التي يسربها الاميركيون لم تغير من حقيقة الاتفاق بأنه استجداء للرحمة وحاول أن يخفي شكوى وانين المعارضة المسلحة وأحزان جيش الفتح الذي جاء الاتفاق ليحفظ ماء وجهه لينزله عن شجرة تحرير حلب التي صعد اليها ولايعرف كيف ينزل عنها .. لأنه الآن سيقول بأنه كان يريد تحرير حلب ولكن المتآمرين منعوه ..

ومن أجل ذلك .. أنصحكم أن ترتابوا بكل شيء يقال في السياسة .. ولكن اياكم أن ترتابوا بالجيش السوري لانه لايكتب كلام الاله بماء الذهب ليكون جميلا وباهرا ولامعا كالبرق بل يكتب كما يكتب الله بحبر البرق على دفاتر السماء .. وهو اليوم يكتب بالبرق على دفاتر حلب ..

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

لافروف لكيري: شرق حلب ليس أربيل

ناصر قنديل
 لو نجحت الجماعات المسلحة بالاحتفاظ بالكليات العسكرية ومعبر الراموسة، أو لو نجحت باستردادها بين جولتي لقاءات الوزيرين جون كيري وسيرغي لافروف خلال أسبوع، لكان التفاهم الأميركي الروسي قد أبصر النور. فالميدان هو الذي يقرّر التوازنات، وما تريده واشنطن موطأ قدم للجماعات المسلحة في حلب، تتم حمايته باتفاق سياسي وتحصينه كموقع مرجعي في التفاهمات، ويحظى بهذه الصفة بالحماية الدولية من الاستهداف العسكري، وتوفر له خطوط إمداد تحت رقابة دولية، وربما يفكر الأميركيون بتشجيع قيادة جماعة الرياض على إعلانه مقراً رسمياً لهم وعنواناً لحكومتهم المؤقتة، ولهذا قام الجيش السوري بدعم روسي ومشاركة الحلفاء، عشية الجلسة التي كانت مقررة بين الرئيسين الأميركي والروسي في قمة العشرين، بتسريع عملياته العسكرية لاسترداد الكليات العسكرية وإقفال معبر الراموسة نهائيا، تمهيدا لاسترداده وإعادة فتحه، وإحكام طوق الحصار على الجماعات المسلحة في الأحياء الشرقية لحلب.

– التردّد الأميركي في مواصلة التفاوض كان ناجماً عن طبيعة المعلومات التي تردهم من الميدان والتي تقول بأن أي تفاوض لم يعد ممكناً أن يواصل من حيث توقفت مفاوضات الجولة الأخيرة حول وضع حلب العسكري، وأن الطاقة الهجومية لجبهة النصرة التي تعمل باسمها الجديد جيش فتح الشام قد استهلكت، وما عاد ممكناً ترميمها والرهان على تحقيق أي إنجاز يسهم بفك الحصار عسكرياً عن الأحياء الشرقية، وخلال أيام تصرف الأميركيون بغضب ويأس لفقدان مشروعهم الذي راهنوا عليه كثيراً، حتى اقاموا الاستعدادات لمعاملة شرق حلب كأنها أربيل، لجهة نقل وحدات أميركية أمنية وتقل شركات خدمية وإعلامية لمعداتها ومقدراتها وإيجاد بعثة دبلوماسية لاتخاذها مقرا لقيادة العمل المستقبلي في سورية، وبسقوط الحلم افترض البعض في واشنطن أن لا جدوى من مواصلة التفاوض كما قالت البيانات الأميركية، وفقدان الأمل من التوصل لتفاهم كان يعني فقدان الأمل من إعادة الحياة للحلم الذي سقط بسقوط الراموسة. لكن تسارع المعلومات الميدانية عن تهاوي مواقع النصرة وانهيار جبهاتها في جنوب حلب، أيقظ الأميركيين لضرورة العودة لمحاولة منع المزيد من الانهيار، واستغاثات الجماعات المسلحة طلبا لوقف النار وفك الحصار، منعا لانخراطهم في تسويات محلية كتلك التي شهدتها داريا وتشهدها المعضمية، أعادا لكيري تفويض الذهاب إلى جنيف، لكن لمحاولة الحفاظ على خصوصية محصنة لأحياء حلب الشرقية، وتوفير حماية دولية سياسية وإذا امكن أمنية، وضمان فك الحصار عن مسلحيها، وبالمقابل إبداء استعداد لترجمة الشراكة بالحرب على جبهة النصرة التي فقدت أهميتها مع خسارة قدرتها على تغيير الوضع في حلب، كما قالت الغارة الأميركية التي استهدفت قادتها والتي قالت للروس نحن جاهزون للأكثر، ولا نريد إلا ان تتركوا لنا موطأ قدم في حلب.

– التفاهم الروسي السوري الإيراني على أهمية حلب، قطع الطريق على تصوير خصوصية معينة لشرق حلب كجائزة ترضية تحفظ ماء الوجه لمعارضة يجب جلبها للحل السياسي، كما حاول الأميركيون تسويق مطلبهم بالخصوصية، وخلال أكثر من عشر ساعات بقي الموقف الروسي ثابتاً بأن لا جوائز ترضية على حساب السيادة السورية، بل فك حصار عن المدنيين وتسهيل لعمليات الإغاثة، ضمن حلول فردية للمسلحين، بين مَن يريد الخروج ومَن يرتضي تسوية وضعه مع الدولة وأجهزتها، ولا يزال الميدان صاحب الكلمة الفصل في المفاوضات. وكما انخفض السقف الأميركي، على قاعدة لا بديل عن التفاهم إلا التفاهم، سينخفض أكثر كلما سجل الميدان المزيد من الانتصارات للجيش السوري وحلفائه، وكلما ارتفع صراخ الجماعات المسلحة طلباً لحل سريع.

– مفاوضات ماراتونية مستمرة على إيقاع الحرب الماراتونية المستمرة، والنصر في كل من المسارين يسرع النصر في الآخر.

Related Articles

ارتباك أميركي وتركي… وصلابة روسية دبلوماسية شدّ الحبال في المفاوضات الصعبة

Updated

ناصر قنديل

– تبدو الأيام والساعات حبلى بتقلّبات تجعل متابع أحداث المنطقة وتردداتها الدولية يفقد القدرة على معرفة الحقائق، حتى الأخبار الصحيحة تصير عرضة للتشكيك، فلا مجال للتحقق مثلاً من فرص انعقاد لقاء وزيري خارجية روسيا سيرغي لافروف وأميركا جون كيري، بعد التأكيد والنفي وعدم التأكيد، إلا إذا ظهر الوزيران وصدر خبر اللقاء بينهما، أو مرّ النهار من دون أن يلتقيا، فتسارع التطورات ليس ناجماً فقط عن ضيق الوقت المتبقي لترجمة ما يمكن التفاهم حوله إذا تم التفاهم الروسي الأميركي وإذا سلك التفاهم طريقه إلى الضوء وأبصر النور، ولا وقت لصناعة بدائل عنه، على الأقل بالنسبة للأميركي إذا صرف النظر عنه، لذلك يكون التسارع ولذلك يظهر الإرتباك، لكنهما تسارع وإرتباك على ضفة واحدة هي الضفة الأميركية .

– في المشهد الميداني السوري الذي يشكل محور التجاذبات والسياسات الدولية والإقليمية، تحاول تركيا ترجمة موقعها الجديد بأوسع مدى تتيحه مصالحها، فتطلق بالوانات اختبار عن فرضية توغل أعمق في الجغرافيا السورية، وتركيا تعتقد أن وقتها الثمين عند روسيا يتأتى من تعقيد التفاهم الأميركي الروسي. فهي الحصان البديل الذي سيضغط وجوده على الأميركي للتسريع بالسير في خطة التفاهم، ولذلك تحاول تركيا أن تفرض ثمن هذا الدور بقوة الأمر الواقع للحد الأقصى الممكن، فتخرج موسكو عن الصمت وتعلن القلق الذي يتخذ صفة التحذير من الخروج عن حدود المسموح والمقبول، وتذكّر تركيا أن ما تمّ من سماح لها به كافٍ لطمأنتها إلى عدم نشوء كيان كردي، وأن ما يتخطّاه يحتاج لتفاهمات أوسع وتموضع أوضح. فاحتلال المقعد الأميركي في التسويات فرصة ممنوحة لتركيا أكثر مما هو ضرورة قسرية على روسيا. وهذا معناه أن على أنقرة أخذ الالتزامات التي تتهرب واشنطن من أدائها، وفي مقدمتها الشراكة في الحرب على جبهة النصرة، واعتبار الجماعات المسلحة التي تتموضع معها جزءاً من الإرهاب الذي لا مكان له في الحل السياسي، وبالمقابل لا يحق لأنقرة التطلع للثمن ذاته الذي يعرض على واشنطن، لأن ما يمنحه انضمام واشنطن يتخطى على الأقل ما تستطيع أنقرة تقديمه للتسوية في توفير مظلة مجلس الأمن الدولي التي تشكل وفقاً للفهم الروسي أمراً غاية في الأهمية.

– تنطلق الحسابات الروسية من أن تركيا التي تريد تفادي نشوء خصوصية كردية على حدودها أمر لن تمنحها واشنطن الغطاء لتحقيقه، وأن التعاون مع موسكو وطهران ودمشق هو التعبير الموضوعي عن المصلحة التركية العليا لمفهوم أمنها القومي، ولا منّة ولا جميلة لتركيا في ترجمته، وعليها الإقدام نحوه بكل شجاعة. وبالمقابل ترى موسكو أنها مع حلفائها وحدهم يملكون البدائل التي يترجمونها في الميدان بالتقدم العسكري على الجبهات كلها، وهو ما سيتزخم كلما مرّ الوقت الذي يقول بتلكؤ المرشحين للتسويات، الأميركي أولاً، والتركي تالياً. وأن مَن يجب أن يقلق هم معارضو التسويات الذين يضعون ثقلهم لمنع حدوثها، لأنه عندما تسقط فرصها سيكون الميدان السوري قاسياً على الجماعات كلها التي يظن هؤلاء أن إحجام واشنطن وأنقرة عن التفاهم مع موسكو وطهران سيقدّم فرص حماية لهؤلاء، بينما الواقع هو العكس، فاستجابة هذه الجماعات لدعوات انضمامها إلى خيارات الابتعاد عن جبهة النصرة بات الطريق الوحيد لحمايتها بتسوية وبدون تسوية، وربما في التسوية تتاح فرص التحييد والمهل خلافاً لخيار اللاتسوية.

– الارتباك الأميركي الناجم بوضوح عن تجاذب تيار الرئيس باراك أوباما والوزير جون كيري من جهة وتيار المرشحة هيلاري كلينتون ووزيرالدفاع آشتون كارتر من جهة مقابلة، حيث تقول مصادر متابعة للشأن الأميركي أن وجهات النظر في واشنطن ليست متصلة بقراءات استراتيجية متعاكسة، بل بموقع السير في التسوية أو عدمه في المواجهة الانتخابية الحامية بين الحزبين الديمقراطي والجمهوري، حيث يسلم فريق كلينتون بالعجز عن تقديم بدائل للتسوية، ويقول إن اعتراضاته تنطلق من عدم امتلاك بدائل، لأن وجود البدائل يتيح تفاوضاً من موقع قوة، وأن التفاوض اليوم يشبه الإذعان للمشيئة الروسية، ويصير القلق من عدم تقيد الروس بها لنيل مكاسبها الانتخابية بحرب تحقق نصراً مبهراً على داعش، قلقاً مشروعاً مع شكوك فريق كلينتون بأن الروس سيفعلون أي شيء يساعدها في الفوز وأنهم يفضلون وصول منافسها دونالد ترامب. ولذلك يقول هؤلاء إن الأفضل هو التسوية، ولكن ليس الآن، بل بعد الانتخابات أولاً، وبعد مرور وقت يُستنزف فيه الروس والإيرانيون والحلفاء أكثر وأكثر.

– الساعات الحاسمة التي ترسم معادلة التفاوض، ستحسم لصالح ما هو أقل سوءاً بالنسبة للأميركيين، والأمر يتوقف على ما منحوه للجماعات المسلحة بما فيها جبهة النصرة لتحقيق ما وعدوا به من إعادة الأمور إلى ما كانت عليه قبل استرداد الجيش السوري وحلفائه الكليات العسكرية وسيطرته على معبر الراموسة، وعندها سيتضح مدى إمكانية الرهان على حرب استنزاف من جهة، ومدى صحة القول بأن التخلي عن خيار التسوية يعني رهاناً على استنزاف لروسيا وإيران وسورية والحلفاء، أم هو فتح طريق لحسم من طرف واحد وانفراد بالمعادلة السورية والمعادلات المرتبطة بها، ليكون مصير اللقاء بين كيري ولافروف التأجيل وليس الإلغاء، فيوم ويومان تتسع لهما روزنامة الانتظار، والمهم أن يلتقيا هذا الأسبوع وتتبلور معهما صورة الإعلان عن السير بتفاهم يبدو أنه قدر لا مفرَّ منه ولا بديل عنه، ولا يزال العيد على موعد مع هدنة.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: