A Syrian ceasefire is intended to precede negotiations to end the Syrian war. The media in the west speaks of a «civil war». Even the Moscow English language Sputnik, which ought to know better, continues to use such language. It is not a civil war in Syria; it’s a proxy war of aggression, financed, brokered, supplied and led by the United States and its various European and regional vassals. These include Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar to mention the most important. Anti-government forces are not Syrian at all, but come from an estimated 40 countries; they are waging war against the secular, multi-confessional government in Damascus. The fact that Daesh and various Islamist terrorist groups are foreign, not Syrian, has disappeared almost entirely from the Mainstream Media.
This Orwellian legerdemain is essential if one wants to promote negotiations with anti-government forces, in fact, with their brokers. But why give belligerent rights to foreign terrorist mercenaries? What legitimacy do Syrian oppositionists have, dressed in expensive suits, lodged in expensive foreign hotels, subsidised by the United States and its vassals? What legitimacy do foreign jihadist terrorists have in the eyes of most Syrians? Could any of these «suits» be expected to win legitimate Syrian elections, having wrought so much death and destruction?
It beggars belief, and that’s the American problem.
But you know the United States, it creates its own realities, and the western media serve as propagandists for them. That’s how it works. One hopes that the ordinary everyman will catch on. In Europe, sometimes they do, voting in referenda, but then ignored by their government elites. Half the American population labours to make ends meet, or lives from paycheque to paycheque. One supposes they don’t have the time to look up from their daily struggles for economic survival to notice what evil the US government is perpetrating in their name. But even when the times were better, the American people have rarely caught on. The last time was during the so-called Vietnam War.
There is also the issue of Turkey and the burying of the hatchet after the ambush of the Russian fighter jet and the killing of its pilot in his parachute and of a Russian marine sent to rescue him. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed a formal letter of apology, and Vladimir Putin immediately ordered the end of sanctions against Russian tourism in Turkey.
Wasn’t that a little too hasty? Apart from Erdogan’s scrap of paper, did the Russian government obtain any quid pro quo for the lifting of sanctions? Although we cannot know for certain, Russia apparently obtained nothing concrete from the Turkish government. Promises to discuss this or that issue were made, but is that enough for dead Russian servicemen or for Russia’s Syrian, Lebanese (Hezbollah), and Iranian allies? According to media reports, Turkey is now going to join Russia in fighting terrorism. Does that mean that Turkey will cease its support of Daesh, close down the supply routes into Syria, stop buying Daesh oil at cut-rate prices (apparently some still transits the frontier) and close the hospitals in Turkey used to treat Daesh wounded? If not, then the concept of Turkey joining «the fight against terrorism» is Orwellian newspeak.
Recently, there has been more comment in Moscow about Russia having «completed» its mission in Syria. Is this «liberal» code to prepare public opinion for a Russian «skedaddle»? Since the conflict in Syria is not a civil war but a war of aggression led by the United States, a Russian pull-out would eventually mean the defeat of the Syrian government in Damascus. It cannot hold out against all the resources of the United States and its vassals.
Russia is not pulling out of Syria – so it appears – and shame on those Moscow «liberals» who suggest that it should. Russian armed forces are fighting with their Syrian, Iranian and Lebanese allies. They have suffered losses. Russian airstrikes are supporting Syrian forces around Aleppo and elsewhere. If Syria still fights, it is because Russia has lent a hand.
But what’s next? A new ceasefire? With whom and to what end? The United States has not changed its policy; it’s still part of the problem, not the solution. Is there any point in asking for a dance with Washington, as long as it backs the al-Nusra front, and Daesh indirectly through its vassals like Turkey? Russia gave an answer which Obama and his neoliberal neocons can understand. A few weeks ago Russian bombers attacked al-Nusra and the «imbedded» US-backed «moderates» around Aleppo.
«Provocation», cried the Obama neoliberals. Not really, though Obama knows a thing or two about provoking Russia. It’s the language of force, and the only language which the US government understands.