Go Russia Go!
At last there may be an end in sight to the disaster that Western foreign policy has landed upon Syria, formerly one of the most stable and secular nations in the Middle East. One also with a strong military force that held stocks of unused chemical weapons primarily to counter the threat of Israel’s nuclear stockpile. It initially seemed clear that Assad had not used Sarin in a fight he was already winning at Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus where his soldiers were stationed.
After the propaganda machines weighed in though, you could be forgiven for thinking Assad would do something so incredibly stupid, soon after Obama declared use of chemical weapons to be America’s “red line.” Assad isn’t stupid. We should follow the money and ask who benefited? The rebel terrorists and the arms industry profited as countless millions of taxpayers’ money was poured into funding the “moderate” opposition, prolonging a conflict that was nearing its end. That opposition, the Free Syrian Army is now little more than a name, but one we hear more of than the hundreds of other militias in the field, predominantly Islamic.
If successful, the so-called revolution that we have been fanning and funding would inevitably lead to the absorption of Syria into the expanding Islamic State, a body that was underwritten by Western money and armaments, now supplemented by oil and taxation revenues from conquered lands. Islamic State are not stupid either, just a new and very upstart state. Should they succeed, it would not be revolution, but conquest. Western efforts to combat IS have been singularly ineffective, with the world’s mightiest war machine unable or unwilling to halt their progress. There is little doubt that if Assad falls Islamic State would rapidly incorporate or eliminate every other faction in the fight, destroy any remaining ancient monuments and be irreversibly en route to one day claiming a seat at the United Nations.
Is this where we want to go?
Is it not a strange turn of affairs that tough-guy Vladimir Putin, the West’s current fa
vourite bad guy, should be the only world leader to realize this is not a good place to go? He may be a gangster, but at least he’s his own gangster and not manipulated by the dark shadowy forces of the military industrial complex that American President Eisenhower warned us of and Kennedy strongly condemned. In Sept 2013 Putin narrowly stopped the US from going on a Syrian bombing spree (prompted by allegations of chemical weapons use) through getting Assad’s agreement to clear out and hand over Syria’s entire chemical weapons stock. Clever move, and one hugely frustrating to those who control the US.
So now Russia steps into the arena, openly and at the request of the legitimate Syrian government. They realize that terrorists are terrorists – these are not revolutionaries seeking democracy and would all meld into IS if Assad fell. Why screw around playing one side against the other, unless you are manipulated by those conflict-loving forces of which Kennedy and Eisenhower spoke? That’s the positive side of being a gangster boss politician – you’re in nobody’s pockets but your own and see no benefit in waging war for the sake of war itself. Even in Crimea, the minimal fighting stopped once Russia’s objective was achieved. Conflict for conflict’s sake is not on the Russian agenda. Curious how we rail about Russian jets straying into Turkish airspace while our jets bomb hospitals and our close ally Saudi Arabia kills thousands of civilians in Yemen with the weapons we supply.
Yes it’s strange for me, a passionate advocate of non-violence to be rallying behind military effort by a powerful state. As do most, I long to see the war over so that refugees can return to rebuild their lives, and believe Russian action could achieve this goal. When we watched refugees flooding into Germany they were fleeing the fighting, NOT politics or religious persecution. Most of them would love to go home. Human beings are amazing animals, able to rebuild lives, towns and cities, as did Europe and Asia after the last big war. Hiroshima and Dresden thrive today. We can do it.
The fighting has to stop.
Full power to you Russia.
History will be grateful.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Peace is not defined by the absence of conflict.
Gregory Sams 
Amazing and objectively true…
For those naives in Europe and US , your governments treat everything in double standards…
LikeLike
You are very right but I don’t think there is much naivety, unless you mean the citizens.. The governments know fully what they are doing..
LikeLike
I agree with everything eloquently presented here. But, as usual, the topic always falls short of the taboo topic – Israel. The ‘ people ‘, not governments and politicians, we know who fuels their coffers, must eventually identify the real problem. Peoples lives, children’s lives, the quality of life for the elderly for gods sake, are being maliciously pawned and destroyed over there. Among many other places. Even as bold and determined as Putin might be, he too, in the long run, is just wasting his time, money, effort, and lives…
With Israel sitting over there, the region will NEVER know peace. Israel has an objective. Friends, peace and harmony doesn’t enter the equation.
Even if successful, Putin’s victory will be short lived. We can be sure that Israel is already hard at work assuring the region remains destabilized whatever the cost. Be sure, as much as Israel is narcissistic and gloating with privilege and entitlement, it is determined.
Have the wherewithal to recognize the problem, Have the basic human decency and courage to do something about it. We must cut Israel loose from this fictitious and fanciful obligation and let the chips fall where they may and…
…” Let slip the dogs of war “
LikeLike
Yes, for sure Israel is the elephant in the Middle Eastern room when we are talking about ISIL. Curious that I’ve never heard a bad word said about this classic enemy of Islam by Islamic State.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/21/heres-why-israel-loses-no-sleep-over-islamic-state/
LikeLike
With all the BS we are fed everyday and for so long, peaceful emphathic people are starting to see through the mainstream lies and the mistakes in Iraq Afghanistan and Libya fall on the shoulders of coalition nations for supporting wars on relatively innocent nations. I can only agree and cheer Russia on, let the Zionist military cabal fall for all the wrong they have done. this battle is swaying toward Russia and Assad, but this war is far from over and I pray we can cut out these snakes that have taken root at our goverments cores.
LikeLike
How about just live and let live. In other words don’t be trying to kill each other, but try to live side by side in peace.. You go your way, I’ll go mine.. Who can’t abide by that treaty.. Guess???
LikeLike
Siding with Assad is like siding with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin. Totally indefensible
LikeLike
Absolutely not Heidi, that’s just an MSM viewpoint and not reflected in the Syrian people’s perspective who voted 80% for Assad in observed elections. I have friends in Syria that tell me the view on the ground and your’s is erroneous and obviously foreign to Syria… the ones you mention above were all Jesuit/Vatican proxies and it is precisely because Assad is not, that they seek to remove him… so you are also historically incorrect and factually incorrect… indefensible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes, an election where only three candidates were allowed to stand, only government controlled areas were able to vote, and there was widespread fraud is a valid expression of the people’s wishes. are you familiar with the real world?
LikeLike
David, Where is your proof of what you claim? which is completely different from the Syrian viewpoint… of course only government controlled areas could vote, the areas of rebel control, the people are all mutilated or gone… how many candidates stand with any chance in a UK election? we may be ‘allowed’ to stand, but lack of media coverage for minority candidates and high costs of standing produce a similar result… Election fraud is well known in the US and the UK, how do you measure that? Do you not realise that the accusations that are made are usually the very way the accusers act? because they can’t think of dirty tricks beyond their own method..they are too stupid… You obviously believe that somehow the west is ‘ok’ and that Syria is corrupt in some way, which shows you are truly out of touch with the real world. Assad has a more moral stance than Cameron or Obama or any western politician… you too appear to believe mainstream news without question… and you ask if i am the one out of touch? methinks not David…
LikeLike
And finally David, do you think that a 21% vote for tories was a valid expression of the UK population’s wishes? and that it was even true? I would bet you do… If the result in Syria has been borderline, then you may have a point, but with an 80% positive vote, then yes, I do truly believe it is a valid expression of the Syrian vote and of their wishes… and is confirmed by those i talk to in Syria.
LikeLike
Hi Tim, and thanks for your astute responses on this short thread. I just received this, which is up-to-date, insightful, optimistic and well worth a read, despite the florid prose and anti-simian comparisons. Was planning to work it into a blog but time is not complying at the moment.
http://syrianperspective.com/2015/12/the-view-from-the-balcony-in-damascus-how-to-deal-now-with-the-enemys-rampant-failures.html#MTWODcDyqOJktjdr.99
LikeLike
The problem is Gregory, that Russian airstrikes are not exactly discriminating. Like all airstrikes, really. An MSF hospital was pulverised by Russian bombs a couple of days ago. In that, they are showing themselves no different to the Americans who also bombed an MSF facility recently. I’d also advise you to look at the (widely available) footage of the aftermath of Russian strikes – babies with their skins burned off, are pretty memorable.
Try not to fall into the trap of thinking that Russia has no agenda in Syria, in the region or in the wider world. I’m a regular poster and moderator at the Graham Hancock Message Board, and have been shocked at the pro-Putin posts that have been turning up on the site recently. As you say yourself – this man is a gangster. He is also a tyrant.
It’s funny how people who have been rightly critical of the continuing assault on civil liberties in the West, are willing to give Vladimir Putin a pass when it comes to his country. The fact remains that if you openly criticise Putin’s regime in Russia, you risk imprisonment or death. That risk is doubled for journalists. Putin has co-opted Russian orthodoxy for his own purposes, has created (with the help of Vladislav Surkov) youth groups that do the Kremlin’s bidding on the street, and has whipped up hypernationalism, which exceeds the frenzy that occurred in the US immediately after 9/11.
Russia is a dangerous country, with a criminal gang running it. Certainly as dangerous as the countries steered by the western military industrial complex.
I recommend you read Luke Harding’s Mafia State.
Or Peter Pomerantsev’s excellent Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible.
The Russian airstrikes are not to be celebrated. Syrians are dying. Horribly.
LikeLike
As you recognise, I am well aware of Putin’s gangster status and have no respect for the man himself. However, he is his own gangster and not directed by those who wish war for the sake or war itself, the arms industry, and the security of the state of Israel. As such, I retain my confidence that the horrendous war in Syria will be over soon as a result of Russia’s involvement. I do have admiration for Assad and earnestly hope that his secular Syrian government survives, and not only because the alternative of a Daesh-run Islamic state is so clearly a worse alternative.
Personally, I doubt that the recent hospital bombings were by Russia, and note that they have garnered ten times the publicity of what was clearly a US MSF hospital-attack some months ago. I could be wrong. War is awful and truth is the first casualty. I have no doubt that the oft-quoted 2013 Sarin gas attack in Damascus was not instigated by his government.
So I am in the difficult position of not being pro-Putin, while supporting the Russian intervention in this conflict. My own paternal grandparents both came from a village outside Homs, which my family and myself have visited on occasion. The are within a group of some fifty Christian villages and remain intact, solely because Assad equipped them with guns and training, making it impossible for a handful of jihadists to over-run and slaughter.
I do not celebrate any aspect of war and this is clearly expressed in my book, The State Is Out Of Date.
LikeLike
To be honest, Gregory, I still see a massive double standard in your thinking. And it’s the same thing I’m witnessing with increasing frequency from posters on the GHMB.
Which amounts to:
‘Russia isn’t steered by the western military industrial complex. Therefore – Russia good.’
This is simplistic, to say the least.
Putin has an agenda in the region. Just like the West. And for all intents and purposes, Putin IS Russia. He makes the decisions. Politburos and committees of the Soviet era being long gone. When you talk about ‘Russia’s intervention’, you are actually talking about Putin’s intervention.
And what is Putin?
Many things to many people.
Here’s what we do know though:
He’s an authoritarian tyrant.
He has reassembled the security structures that saw so many Russians suffer under the USSR.
Along with his inner circle he ‘owns’ much of Russia’s industry.
He continues to promote a highly intolerant ultranationalism that has enabled Russian homophobes, racists, neo-Czarist fantasists, miltarists and expansionists.
He controls the press.
Dissenting voices in Putin’s Russia tend to end up dead, imprisoned or exiled.
So when you type ‘go Russia go’ on a blog post, you’ll forgive me for sounding less than enthusiastic in response. As I’ve already mentioned, the terms ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ are interchangeable because of the power he wields.
Speaking for myself, I think in a few years time, all the people who are now willing to overlook Putin’s domestic tyranny, because it’s somehow more permissible than the crushing of civil liberties in the West, will be deathly quiet. The man has global ambitions. And so in fact do the people waiting in the wings of the Kremlin. Some of whom are much worse than Putin.
LikeLike
As I’ve said before, I am not fan of Putin. I do love Syria though, and would much prefer it to revert to a peaceful secular state ruled by the not-too-despicable Assad than have it ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. The vast majority of Syrians agree would with me on that. The US and UK have been funding, directly and indirectly, the conflict in Syria that was leading it to complete dissolution, as did Western support of the phoney Libyan uprising. Without Russian intervention Syria was inevitably being pushed in the direction of Libya. That is why I applaud it. Time will tell whether Syria becomes another ongoing out-of-control conflict-ridden patch of the Middle East, or the functioning secular nation that it was before our Western leaders fanned the flames of conflict in their manic drive for ‘regime change.”
LikeLike
How can you possibly call him the ‘not so despicable Assad’? From the outset he claimed that the protesters (initially peaceful) were ‘terrorists’ and then set out to make that true and create the situation where he had to be seen as the only possible outcome.
He immediately released the most dangerous Islamists from his jails – and then concentrated his attacks on the FSA and the less radical elements – all the while bombing civilian areas indiscrimately precisely in order to radicalise them further. All this is well documented – by brave journalistic friends of mine as well as more widely – they were saying this was happening back in 2012/13 – that he was destroying entirely civilian areas for no other reason than to push them further into the arms of the Islamists.
He is responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in Syria – and now backed by the Russians who are wilfully and deliberately targeting civilian, and worse than that – hospitals and ambulances – as a repeated tactic.
How can you possibly defend this – he’s an evil genius for sure – but responsible for the most horrific killing on the planet for the last few years.
Your (justified) distrust of western motives has blinded you to the truth of the situation.
This is my job – I’ve covered Syria since the start of the conflict – been to Lebanon many times and made films with the refugees. I don’t recognise your description of the conflict at all.
Sorry.
LikeLike
Have to say that your description bears no resemblance to my understanding of what is happening on the ground in Syria. I too have been close to this conflict from the beginning, having 50% Syrian ancestry, and many relatives on the ground in Syria. I suggest you take a look at the informative, well researched and fully source-backed book titled “The Dirty War on Syria,” which you can download online from http://www.amazon.co.uk/DIRTY-WAR-SYRIA-Tomasz-Zackiewicz-ebook/dp/B00C70BNK2
Here is an extract from the Preface:
Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressing- ly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-man- nered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the “new evil” in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past fifteen years.
This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.
LikeLike