Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Peace in Syria? It's Putin's Fault if it Happens

Peace in Syria? It's Putin's Fault

Can Russia save the US from its own stupidity once more?
(Asia Times)
Mon, Sep 21 
Appeared Originally  at Asia Times 

All one needs to know about the intellectual caliber of the Obama administration is that it is still pondering whether to persist in "ignoring" Russian President Vladimir Putin, or invest in a real partnership to solve the Syrian geopolitical / humanitarian drama.
After all, when in doubt between diplomacy or chaos, the Beltway weapon of choice still veers towards the simplistic group think uniting neocons and neoliberalcons: regime change.
Then there's And the non-stop  The Russians Are Coming!  Hysteria - the Cold War 2.0 We do remix, now switching from the invasion / military occupation of Ukraine to the invasion / military occupation of Syria.
The White House - which, same as the Pentagon, does not do irony - actually appealed to the Kremlin to behave in a "more constructive" way side-by-side with the spectacularly inefficient coalition of the dodgy opportunists which is in thesis fighting ISIS / ISIL / Daesh.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest clarified that when Obama decides that the Sisyphean task of picking up the phone and dialing K for Kremlin is actually in America's interests, he will do it. The Shakespearean doubt may last days - even as Putin reaffirmed, via Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov, he was always open to dialogue.
The White House at least is mulling an offer from Moscow to actually discuss the Russian buildup in Syria via direct military-to-military talks. The Pentagon will do the talking, seeking the "clarity" that so eludes the Obama administration.
Ankara's double game
Diplomacy, meanwhile, has been hectic. Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu went to Sochi to talk Syria - and Ukraine - with the Russians. Ankara's position remains fossilized; any support for Bashar al-Assad equals more civilian casualties.
They also talked Pipelineistan - as in Turkish Stream; unlike apocalyptic US corporate media reports, the pipeline has not been ditched by Ankara; the problem is Ankara can not even form a coherent government after the June elections.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) 's superstar commander Qasem Soleimani also went to Moscow this week to promote Damascus-Moscow cooperation. Wait; he did not, because Moscow flatly denied the visit. Soleimani was in Russia actually three months ago. The next important meeting to discuss Syria is actually on Monday, between Iranian deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and his Russian counterpart, Mikhail Bogdanov.
A quick recap is essential. The Syrian Arab Spring chapter was sponsored / financed / weaponized mostly by Ankara - totally reversing its previous "zero problems with our neighbors" geopolitical doctrine - with backing by Doha, substantial House of Saud involvement and full led-from-behind support by the Obama White House.
After over four and a half years and immeasurable tragedy, the real face of this "Assad must go" regime change operation is the refugee crisis. Over 2 million out of 4 million Syrians fled to Turkey; Ankara recently released them en masse from holding camps on their way to the Balkans and the Teutonic Promised Land.
So Ankara is right at the center of the largest refugee crisis in Europe in 70 years. And so is Ankara-supporting Washington; ISIS / ISIL / Daesh captured all the weapons delivered with CIA help to that pathetic "Free Syrian Army" - as well as tanks and Humvees from the disjointed US-trained Iraqi Army. Any possible solution for relieving the refugee crisis while fighting ISIS / ISIL / Daesh must include cutting off Ankara's myriad direct and indirect forms of "support" for the fake "Caliphate."
The problem is Ankara is part of the supremely inefficient US coalition. The glaring paradox at least has been identified by some adults in Washington. Yet the Obama administration is still besotted by a dominatrix Ankara playing wag the dog. Team Obama still believes "Assad must go" is responsible not only for the creation of the fake "Caliphate" - an absurdity gleefully repeated by David of Arabia Cameron and General Hollande - but he's also responsible for the abysmal failure of the US coalition to smash it. It's actually Ankara that rules what passes for a no-fly zone along the Turkish-Syrian border, and what Ankara wants to fight is Syrian Kurds or PKK Kurds, not al-Baghdadi's goons.
Damn, where's my ground intel?
Meanwhile the Pentagon machine, were they to focus on the "mission," could shock and awe the "Caliphate" goons on a weekend binge. Yet considering how much they did not learn in Iraq, it's unlikely the Pentagon has minimally decent ground intel.
It's all about an over 400 kilometer-long desert strip alongside the Sykes-Picot-in-disarray Syrian-Iraqi border - between al-Baaj in northern Iraq and Rutba near the Jordanian border. Some call it the Iraqi Tora Bora; yes, it does look a bit like Afghanistan, only with more desert.
ISIS / ISIL / Daesh rules over the provinces of Ninive, Dijla, Ifrit and Al-Jazeera in Iraq, Abu Kamal and Deir ez-Zor in Syria, and most of all in Iraqi Furhat, around al-Baaj; that's where the ISIS / ISIL / Daesh command and control center is located. If some Pentagon analyst took the trouble to contact Iraqi analyst Hisham al-Hashemi, he would tell him that al-Baghdadi himself is holed up in al-Baaj, along with his two wives. But who's actually in command for the moment is the emir for Syria and Iraq, Abu Alaa al-Afari.
The US never managed to control these desolate lands - not to mention, previously, Saddam Hussein. Local tribes are extremely hardcore and excel in smuggling. "Caliphate" goons married tribal women and are totally integrated. All Shi'ites are derided as evil heretics, even worse than Christians. Guess who indoctrinated the tribals? Saudi Arabian imams.

Yet the coalition could easily bomb to smithereens five ISIS / ISIL / Daesh special batallions - up to 500 jihadis each, divided by nationality and specialization, and all concentrated locally; GCC and Maghreb nationals assure the protection of the commanders, for instance, while Eastern Europeans and Asians collect the loot, taxes and take care of weapons transportation. The key brigade is the one that "liberated" Mosul; 80% are Iraqis, and they are now fighting in Hassake, in Syria.
There may be up to 125,000 "Caliphate" goons in action, including up to 15,000 foreigners. But the hydra-like heads of the snake are in al-Baaj. Raze it to the ground, and we got Perseus Obama slaying the jihadi medusa.
Instead, we have the pitiful spectacle of four - I repeat, four - US-trained "moderate rebels" left to fight ISIS / ISIL / Daesh in Syria, as admitted by US General Lloyd Austin at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this past Wednesday . Everyone remembers those "rebels" out of a hefty group of 54 who were attacked by Jabhat al-Nusra in July. That is, al-Qaeda in Syria - paraded as "moderate" by neocons and US corporate media - reduced the "moderate rebel" Obama administration chimera (15,000! Well trained and well equipped!) To ... well, a chimera.
Aaaaand now, heeere's Putin
The Obama administration - duly followed by the European minions - simply will not listen. Already in 2014 UN-Arab former League representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, was  saying  the Russian analysis of the whole Syrian puzzle was right from the beginning.
Now, Nobel peace prize winner and former negotiator Martti Ahtisaari is  saying  that already in early 2012 a Russian proposal was floated that included Assad stepping out of power after peace negotiations with credible, non-jihadi opposition interlocutors.
What Moscow has done now is to step up the diplomatic game - trying to bridge the gap between Damascus and the credible opposition (not exactly a huge crowd) while cobbling up a real coalition to fight ISIS / ISIL / Daesh; as far as Moscow is concerned, this is a major national security threat, what with jihadis slouching towards "Syraq" from the Volga to the north Caucasus.
And here we find an important distinction; Russia's national security interests do not necessarily converge with Iran's national security interests (as in Syria offering a bridge to Hezbollah and also a Mediterranean projection for Iran.)
Still, Moscow's is the only diplomatic game in town because Washington's Plan A continues to be regime change, and there's no coherent "Western" road map which simultaneously guarantees smashing ISIS / ISIL / Daesh while preventing the catastrophic dismemberment of the Syrian state.
Position's Assad, in detail, is  here.  Putin's position, in detail, is  here. It's up to any informed, unbiased observer to draw the necessary conclusions. Meanwhile, the enormity of the refugee crisis is open to scrutiny practically  next door  to EU headquarters; no summit-addicted Eurocrat even bothered to go there and talk to the asylum seekers.
As it ramps up the diplomatic front, Moscow obviously pays attention to facts on the ground - as in the expanded infrastructure at Latakia's air base where Russian advisers are stationed. US Think Tankland's concerted hysteria denouncing the build up "greatly complicates" the US-led coalition campaign do not even qualify as a kindergarten prank.
There will not be a "direct clash" between coalition F-16s and Russian jets - and the Pentagon knows it. What the Pentagon can not possibly admit is that the Russian build up necessarily prevents funny ideas such as the coalition pulling a Turk - as in bombing Assad's forces instead of ISIS / ISIL / Daesh. And by the way, Ankara's clout in Washington continues to drop - as in the US not being part of a much-hyped no-fly zone to be established over northern Aleppo.
Turkey and GCC coalition members have been indirectly warned; forget about targeting Russian advisers opposing "moderate rebels" using lethal weapons supplied by Turkey, GCC and the US. "Complicating" the coalition "efforts", in US Think Tankland newspeak, means one can not bomb Assad's forces with impunity. Damn, it's tough to deliver regime change under so many constraints.
Back to pre-Bismarck?
The EU, meanwhile, pays the price for the regime change obsession, convulsed and torn apart by endless divisions provoked by the refugee crisis coupled with the specter of the eternal recurrence of jihad in the streets - and trains - linking major European capitals. But then, as the EU may desperately want a solution to the tragic Syrian puzzle, we have David of Arabia Cameron and General Hollande getting ready to deliver puny air strikes that will hardly cause "Caliphate" goons to shake in their designer desert boots.
No wonder pan-Europe public opinion is increasingly considering it's actually the Obama administration which is perpetuating the Syrian tragedy - as long as it sticks to the mirages of regime change, a non-existent "Free Syrian Army," "moderate rebels" (of the al-Qaeda in Syria kind), not to mention demonizing any support offered by Russia and Iran to Damascus.
Putin could not have been more crystal clear - and adults from Washington to Brussels did get the message; "Without an active participation of the Syrian authorities and the military, it would be impossible to expel the terrorists from that country and the region as a whole ... Without Russia's support for Syria, the situation in the country would have been worse than in Libya, and the flow of refugees even bigger. "
So if there's any chance of a peace deal in Syria, it's Putin's fault.
But there's another possible scenario being actively discussed for the near future. That would be the "surge 'of multiple microstates across the Middle East - as a counterpunch to internecine carnage. So we would have, among others, Allawistan, Kurdistan, Druzistan, Yazidistan, Houthistan - with borders that are already reasonably clear on the ground.
Talk about a 21 st  century remix of pre-Bismarck Europe princely states. The precedent is what the EU created in the Balkans; the break up of Yugoslavia across religious lines even as the bulk of the population is Slavic.
A Middle Eastern remix would only work if Turkey and Iran would agree to a Kurdistan. It will not happen. Most Iraqis and Syrians, for their part, have also developed a strong national identity; 70% of Syrians, in a recent poll, oppose the partition of the country (while 82% view ISIS / ISIL / Daesh as a US and / or foreign made concoction.) Yet Syria arguably could still be split in three, depending on where the US-Russia power play will lead. But as we stand, the struggle for a unified, pacified, secular Syria is the only realpolitik game in town.



Now the blockade on the economy. In view of all this political liberal Svidomo (in Russia that Ukraine) about the world around them. So long to praise the invisible hand of the market - and did not understand how the hand works. Educational program for uporotyh.

 We live in a world where the market works is not the seller and the buyer. In other words, it is hard not to produce and sell. Wishing to sell too much, buyers are not enough. It's hard to sell everything - from their hands (or non-working brain) to smart phones and "Ukrainian lard." Campaign in Ukrainian shops "do not buy Russian" at least had the sense and logic. The campaign to cut off the borders of sense and logic does not.

When the "bureaucrats pressured food tractors," they punish foreign producers, but not its customers. Buyers have food in abundance. The blockade makes sense when it is - a real blockade. Brutal bastard, inhuman - but the meaning. The blockade of Crimea - complete idiocy. For example, government employees and pensioners there are already receiving Russian money. And gave them Ukrainian farmers. Rather, they give. More will not give.

After temporary difficulties logistics will change, and ale. Bye. Georgian wine back to our market - but the train was gone. They do not need anyone else. There bottles sold by Mimino nostalgia, nostalgia is no more, the price is too high, the tastes of the public changed. In the southeast is another story. There really is a humanitarian disaster in some places, but not because of the blockade (it does not exist at the common border with Russia), but because the economy is destroyed. There is no money.

When the West imposes sanctions against Russia, he beats two sick things. Blocks access to technology (although before them to us at the hands did not give, but to sell high-tech pieces) and access to cheap loans. It's all. And Ukraine can not offer Russia anything (even her transit selected), and therefore any sanctions from Ukraine - is the most sanctions against Ukraine. Peremoga. But it is necessary to jump ahead and write that "Colorado hysterical", "eager bunch." Yes, yes, hysterical. bashed against the Head wall. You go on, do not stop. Enjoy our hysteria.   


Kiev The Dictatorship's Assault On Its Own People And The Press

Aggression In The Real Ukraine - 

Kiev The Dictatorship's Assault On Its Own People And The Press 

by Justin Raimondo
September 21, 2015 

The media narrative about Ukraine - that the "Maiden revolution" was a democratic European-values ​​oriented revolt against a tyrannical Russian-controlled puppet - has always been a fairytale, largely perpetrated by the Western media in complicity with the US State Department and the European Union. Now that same Yet media is being forced to reexamine their bias in the wake of the Ukrainian government's banning of 34 journalists and seven bloggers from entering the country. The list of the banned includes journalists from Britain, Switzerland, Israel, Slovakia, Germany, Spain , Kazakhstan, Hungary, Estonia, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, and Serbia. Unlike most of the rest of the English-speaking news media, the Committee to Protect Journalists is reporting that the list of banned journalists represents but a portion of a larger blacklist consisting of 388 individuals and over 100 forbidden from entering organizations the country on the grounds of "national security" and an alleged threat to Ukraine's "territorial integrity." The Here Is complete list (in Ukrainian). The Guardian Is reporting that the list also includes businesspeople and journalists from the United States.

After an uproar - not over the existence of such a list, but over the fact that three BBC reporters were included, along with two Spaniards who have been captured by the Islamic State in Syria, and a German writer - the six Western journalists everyone was making a fuss such about were removed from the list. The rest remain.

His statement defending In the ban, "President" Petro Poroshenko averred that the move to censor the international media was taken "in coordination with our partners from the European Union, the United States of America and other countries." Explains why we Which haven 't heard a word about this - not a peep of public protest - from the US State Department, or the EU, who authored the coup that brought to power Poroshenko in the first place.

I do not know I if I'm on the list, as I do not read Ukrainian, but I have to say I'll be very much disappointed to discover that I'm not - and I'll be working assiduously to ensure that I'll be added. Hopefully this column will serve to wake the Ukrainian authorities up to the fact that I represent a threat to their dictatorship. For a dictatorship it is: in a statement accompanying the ban, Poroshenko made ​​it clear the move was "in response to the rebels 'plan to hold local elections in October and November in territory they control.' This adventurism and irresponsible decision requires our exact, coordinated reaction to the threat that has been created to the Minsk (peace) agreements. '"Shorter Poroshenko: We do not want the international media covering those elections. Of the Course And Minsk agreements, both of them, call for local elections to be held in the disputed eastern part of the country, as well as a reasonable degree of autonomy for the rebellious region.

When Western-The backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovich, I warned that - in spite of the Western media narrative depicting the "Maiden" rebellion as "democracy" -loving liberals - Ukraine was headed for authoritarian rule. My prediction has been borne out several times over. Media crackdown in The Ukraine is nothing new: the television journalist Ruslan Kotsaba was arrested on "treason" charges last year - for making a video opposing Ukraine's conscription law. His story was ignored or buried in the Western media, and as far as I can tell he's still in detention - facing a possible death penalty.

Speaking of death The penalty, the prominent writer Oles Buzina was murdered in cold blood recently, along with several opposition figures who - we were told - simply committed "suicide." Not one word of protest was heard from those ubiquitous "democracy" -promoters in the West. People been Have rounded up and jailed for their political views routinely in Poroshenko's "democratic" utopia, and the silence in the West was deafening - until, that is, a couple of the the the the BBC journalists were banned from the country.

The irony is that the BBC coverage of the Ukrainian civil war has been decidedly pro-Kiev, and at pains to take the Ukrainian government line that what is in fact a civil war is really a Russian "invasion." Are the Ukrainians Just stupid or did get wind that they one of the banned BBC'ers used to work for Russia Today, and that was a factor? We'll never know, but I'm betting on the stupidity factor, never a loser when we're talking about the Kiev coup leaders.

And is not It just journalists, bloggers, and NGOs who are being banned from Ukraine: actors, singers, movies, books - nothing and no one is safe from the prying eyes of the censors. (And it's spreading here, in Canada and the United States.) Yet we in the West have heard very little about this - now why do you suppose that is?

The reason is because the US government and its European sock puppets have installed a friendly regime in Kiev, and are determined to subsidize and even protect the oligarch Poroshenko from his own people by military force - all under the guise of resisting "Russian aggression." The reality is that the only real aggression taking place in Ukraine is the Kiev government's directed at Ukrainian citizens, in the western provinces as well as in the east. Tens of thousands Of young people are fleeing the country in order to avoid being conscripted into Poroshenko's slave army, while the few remaining independent media outlets are being shut down by government decree.

And the worst is yet to come. Right -Wing nationalists Radical are gathering their s welling forces in a bid for power. That Europeans The Angry, led by Germany, are insisting on Poroshenko's adherence to the Minsk accords, they are accusing the Kiev coup leaders of "betraying the revolution," and have been staging violent protests in Kiev and around the country. The fascism of Specter - real fascism, complete with neo-Nazi symbols and skinheads wielding truncheons - looms large over Ukraine.

Meanwhile, US "trainers" are in Ukraine, putting the neo-Nazi battalion Azov through their paces, and the Pentagon is dusting off war plans designed to confront nuclear-armed Russia.

This is utter madness. Have no business We supporting the Ukrainian dictatorship and the idea of going to war with Russia is Strangelovian, to say the least. It is nothing short of criminal that Washington is provoking a showdown with Russia in the interests of a regime in Kiev that is as authoritarian as our outright own cold warriors imagine to be Russia. Ukraine is on a path to unabashed fascist rule - and its rulers are taking us on the road to war. This will stop Who craziness before it's too late? THE MARGIN NOTES IN You can check out my Twitter feed You by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made ​​in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I A've couple Written of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George Carey W., a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy You An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

This Is A Syndicated repost courtesy of Antiwar.com Original. View Original To, click here.

Monday, September 21, 2015

US decides to support Russia in the fight against "Islamic state" in Syria

US decides to support Russia in the fight against "Islamic state" in Syria

Published on Sep 21, 2015

News Agency-ANNA is a volunteer project. Volunteers ANNA-News led its report from the scene, shoot videos and publish analytical articles on the issue of national security of Russia and its allies in the current military-political situation.

Free Syrian Army A fighter fires an anti-aircraft weapon toward warplanes loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Kaferzita, Hama countryside, Sept. 19, 2014. (photo by REUTERS / Khalil Ashawi)

US support Syrians Do airstrikes in Syria?

But do Syrians want peace or US airstrikes?


US airstrikes Syrians worry about; Iran could be bridge to Syria in international coalition against the Islamic State (IS); Syrian Revolutionary Forces reject report of pact with IS; Syrian Kurds lose ground to IS; Claims leadership in Iran battle against terrorists IS.
Author Week in Review Posted September 21, 2014
Translator Inga Michaeli

As a wary US Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Barack Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels against the Islamic State (IS), and as US military planners consider airstrikes against IS in Syria, Al-Monitor's Syria Pulse covered how Syrians, suffering from more than three years of war, might react. Khaled Attalah reports from Damascus that there Syrians prefer a political solution to the war rather than US airstrikes. The National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change in Syria rejects US intervention in Syria, even with the Syrian government's approval. Attalah writes, "After mobilizing its allies from around the world, the White House hopes that by using force and launching airstrikes, the IS threat will disappear. However, the Syrian people are not only hoping to be rid of this terrorist group, but also the bloody bottleneck they have been living through for more than three years. "The Al Reporting From Bab-region, an IS stronghold east of Aleppo, Al-Monitor columnist Edward Dark writes that the prospect of US airstrikes is being greeted with more enthusiasm than anxiety, and could redound to the advantage of IS.

Dark speculates that "it would be foolish to believe that US military action against IS is popular here or will go down well, especially when civilian casualties start to mount. On the contrary, it will most likely prove counterproductive, stoking anti-Western resentment among the population and increasing support for IS, driving even more recruits to its ranks. The terror group knows this well, which is why it is secretly overjoyed at the prospect of military action against it. In its calculations, the loss of fighters to strikes is than outweighed by more the outpouring of support it expects both locally and on the international jihadist scene. "In A separate report from Aleppo, questions the wisdom and timing of an expanded Dark train-and-equip approach to US- and Saudi-backed opposition groups.

"The failure of these groups to make substantial gains against the regime or the jihadists despite a large investment in arms, funds and training begs the question of what has now changed. If they were unreliable then, what makes them a viable option now? Not only were some of them merely unreliable, but they also openly collaborated and allied with al-Qaeda-linked groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, or through sheer incompetence and corruption allowed Western-supplied weapons and equipment to fall into the hands of extremists. Indeed, the stigma of corruption and ineptitude permeates most of the Syrian rebel factions designated as 'moderates,' and some have even been involved outright in serious war crimes. This makes them not only an unreliable ally on the ground, but also a potentially very dangerous one. "

That the Dark Observes moderate Syrian opposition groups are not to address address address close e-ee-winning "hearts and minds" in Syria. IS, while a bigger loser in the hearts and minds category, and despite its brutality, has nonetheless brought some degree of order and services to the areas it controls in Aleppo:

"The rise and popularity of IS seems to have more to do with the failings of the Syrian opposition and the fractious rebel factions than with the Islamic State's own strength. For almost three years, the opposition and the local rebels had failed to provide any semblance of civil administration or public services to the vast areas they controlled. This lawless chaos added to the people's misery, already exacerbated by the horrors of war. In the end, they rallied around the only group that managed to give them what they wanted: the State Islamic. But now, it seems a new fear is rising among the people: the specter of war against IS, a war they feel threatens not only their lives, but also their livelihoods and the tenuous normality they've grown accustomed to. "

Dark concludes that the most effective of all bad alternatives to defeat IS, which is the US priority in Syria, might be for the United States to reach a tactical understanding with the Syrian government: "The only alternative then appears to be unpalatable and an unholy with the Syrian alliance regime, the only force on the ground right now capable of taking on and defeating IS with any degree of success, "writes Dark.

Kerry says role for Iran in battle with IS While the Obama administration has ruled out an alliance with Syria, Iran could be a bridge to Damascus within an international coalition against IS and in a subsequent political transition in Syria. Of US State Secretary John Kerry, chairing a UN Security Council meeting on Iraq Sept. 19, said, "The coalition required to eliminate [IS] is not only, or even primarily, military in nature. It must be comprehensive and include close collaboration multiple lines of across effort. ... There is a role for nearly every country in the world to play, including Iran. "

This column suggested in February that Iran and Saudi Arabia could join a new alliance among regional counterterrorism Syria and its neighbors, and in May proposed that the United States should test Iran on its declared willingness to battle extremists in Syria.

Ali Hashem reports this week that Iran has a vital interest in defeating IS, whatever the United States decides to do. "Iran's problem is not related to how and where to fight IS, but rather over the conflict between its national security and its regional security , "Hashim writes. "IS has had a base in Iraq - Jalawla - as address address address close e-ee-as 38 kilometers (23.6 miles) from the Iranian border, and Iran wants to get rid of the self-styled IS at any price. It does not matter if this happens with the help of the Iraqi army, the Shiite militias, Lebanese Hezbollah, the Kurdish peshmerga or the United States, as long as there are results on the ground. Good example is A the breaking of the siege around the town of Amirli in northeast Iraq. The operation was the result of US-Iranian indirect cooperation that ended with an obvious success. On the ground, pro-Iranian Shiite militias along with the Iraqi army advanced US fighter jets while the IS bombed posts. "

States States Foreign Minister Deputy Iranian Hossein Amir-Abdollahian Hashim told that Iran is not "interested in taking part in any show-off conferences that claim to combat terrorism." "They [US officials] want to build an Iraqi army, train fighters and Syrian on whether they decide are going to strike inside Syria or not; meanwhile, Iran is fighting the war helping its allies, clear on the general strategy, and we know in'll win we the end, "said Abdollahian. SRF opposition forces still battling IS Khatieb al-Mohammed, reporting from Marea, outside Aleppo, on the front lines between Syrian Revolutionary Forces (SRF) under the command of Jamal Maarouf and IS, reports that the refuted SRF had signed a nonaggression pact with IS.

Observed firsthand the Khatieb deployment of hundreds of SRF SRF interviewed fighters and military commanders on their ongoing operations against IS. Syrian government forces attempted to assassinate Maarouf, who is backed by Saudi Arabia, on Sept. 17, killing his daughter in the operation. Khatieb Writes, "The attempt on Maarouf's life is a message from the regime to the United States that it will not hesitate to target US allies, after Washington snubbed the regime by deciding to fund the Syrian rebels in the fight against IS. "

Syrian Kurds under siege by IS One of the most effective Syrian armed groups, the Syrian People's Protection Units (YPG), is losing ground in the battle with IS forces in the Ain al-Arab (Kobani in Kurdish) region of Syria, the military arm of the Democratic Union party (PYD), forcing thousands of Syrian Kurds to flee into Turkey.

Amberin Zaman reports that US and international support for the PYD and YPG, which has support among Syrian Kurds, who number at least 10% of Syria's population of 23 million, has lagged because of the group's affiliation with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) of Turkey. The United States considers the PKK a terrorist group, and Turkey has been unwilling to grant the PKK an edge in either its peace negotiations with the PKK or in Syria. However, Zaman writes, "The PKK and the PYD / YPG are continuing their battle for global acceptance. In a move apparently calculated to provide the Obama administration with a fig leaf for future cooperation, the YPG recently sealed an anti-IS alliance with various affiliated with the groups Free Syrian Army (FSA), founding what they call Joint Action Center the. Its purported goal is to liberate all territories held by IS in Syria. "IS has reportedly taken 40 villages from YPG forces in recent fighting.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-isis-srf-iran-russia-unga.html#ixzz3mPfRfCEU 

Analyst: Russian Federation chose a good time to return the status of Moscow and Syria

Analyst: Russian Federation chose a good time to return the status of Moscow and Syria 

Syria became a diplomatic factor that the world community needs to consider, and the actions of the Russian President Vladimir Putin "to make it into the initiator processes in the international arena," says Israeli columnist Amit Leventhal. This writes the agency Sputnik. In his article, he wrote that the Russian leader has something to celebrate in terms of its objectives for the return of Russia the status of a diplomatic superpower and the growing influence in the international arena.

Leventhal stressed that this is largely due to the continued support of Moscow on with respect to the Syrian government, including the supply of modern weapons to Damascus. "From a strategic point of view currently selected appropriate - on the eve of the 70th UN General Assembly session. When the end of the month the heads of state from around the world will come to New York. On the agenda will be a war in the Middle East and African migration crisis provoked by them (the West), "- notes the analyst. 

He went on to say that Vladimir Putin after a ten-year absence from the General Assembly's" will come not with empty hands. " "He outlined his proposals to resolve the crisis in Syria, including proposals for the organization of a dialogue between Assad and the so-called healthy opposition, that is, the Free Syrian Army and the moderate opposition. He will propose the formation of a coalition to combat the LIH, but in a format that will suit Russia "- says the browser. In this way, according to Leventhal, Moscow's support for al-Assad in the Syrian conflict has turned to Russia" in a diplomatic factor that the United Nations will have to be taken into account. 

This is a great success for Putin, who turns his country into the initiator processes in the international arena. " "Slowly but surely, Putin is using the confusion of the West and isolationist US efforts to strengthen the position of Russia," - says the browser. In addition, the position of Russia as a whole is oriented to a larger part in shaping the agenda in the Middle East, said Leventhal, as evidenced by the fact including a rapprochement of Russia and Egypt. 

RIA Novosti

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Russian President #Putin understands the #ISIS threat and what is needed to confront it...

Russia Understands How to Defeat U.S. ISIL In Syria.

obama isis ebola
A former CIA officer while explaining why Russia supports the Syrian President point out that Putin understands the threat and the ways to fight the [U.S./Israeli] ISIL whereas the US has been [portends to be the] “fool” supporting ineffective policy that leaded to the terrorist group’ strength.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Russia is providing military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because Moscow understands what it takes to defeat the [U.S.] ISIL while US policy continues to fuel [mercenary] extremism, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told Sputnik.
Obama Dancing With CIA ISIS Jihadists.
Obama Dancing With CIA ISIS Mercenaries.
“I personally am glad that Russia is taking these steps,” Johnson said on Monday when asked about a private sector intelligence firm claiming it has satellite imagery showing Russia is ramping up military operations in Syria. “At least Russian President Vladimir Putin understands the threat and understands what is needed to confront it and defeat it.”
The United States has persistently called for Assad to step down[for Rothschild’s NWO banking cabal], arguing that regime change is the only viable political solution, while Russia has assisted the Syrian government in its fight against the [U.S.] ISIL.
“The West, and the United States in particular, have been complete fools in backing a policy that has strengthened and enabled Islamic extremists,” Johnson claimed.
On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia would continue the delivery of defense equipment to the Syrian government to use in its counter-terrorism efforts.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow appreciates Athens’ position on flights of Russian aircraft with humanitarian aid to Syria through the Greek airspace.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
On Sunday, Lavrov said he questioned Washington’s commitment to defeating the Islamic State after a colleague from the anti-ISIL coalition informed him thatUS commanders have called off airstrikes against the terrorist group positions.
State Department spokesperson John Kirby said on Monday that he had not seen any indications the US military held up airstrikes against the ISIL.
The United States is leading a 62-nation coalition against the [CIA/Mossad] ISIL whose objective is to eliminate the terrorist group. In nearly two years, the ISIL [ISIS, moniker off The Muslim Brotherhood] has occupied vast territories in Syria and Iraq, proclaiming a [Rothschild] caliphate there.
The coalition has conducted more than 6,500 airstrikes against the ISIL since August 2014. US intelligence has estimated that the military campaign against the terrorist group has eliminated 10,000 of its fighters.
isis obama
Autumn Viking gif
Related Articles:

Monday, September 14, 2015

#Obama's Personal hate for #Putin puts the #EU and #MiddleEast in harm's way...Why ?

Vladimir Putin’s Foreign-Policy Objectives, & His Desire for U.S. to Be an Ally
Eric ZUESSE 14.09.2015 00:02
On September 4th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin restated, as he has many times before, that he seeks a U.S.- Russian alliance to overcome the global Islamic jihad movement, in Syria, Iraq, and everywhere.
Then, on Tuesday September 8th, Yahoo News bannered, “Austria joins growing voices that say Assad must be part of Syrian solution,” and reported that Austria’s Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said: “In my opinion the priority is the fight against terror. This will not be possible without powers such as Russia and Iran.” German Economic News noted then that, “Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo had already called on Monday for negotiations with Assad to end the war.”
However, the U.S. government is strongly opposed to accepting Putin’s offer of an alliance to overcome Islamic jihad.
Putin’s foreign-policy objectives are consistent; and his latest turn fits with all that has preceded, which has been his single-minded focus, ever since he first became Russia’s leader in 2000: to defeat the global threat of Islamic jihad, which has been the chief military concern for Russia itself, ever since the First Chechen War, during 1994-96, radicalized the predominantly Sunni (Saudi-based) Muslim Chechen Republic, to separate themselves from the predominantly Orthodox Catholic Russia. By the time of Putin’s contest for the Presidency in 2000, Putin’s hard line against religious separatism became a leading factor in his electoral victory.
On 11 February 2004, this is how the pro-Western Moscow Times, which wikipedia refers to as “the first Western daily to be published in Russia," described “Putin and the Chechen War: Together Forever”
In the summer of 1999, the ruling elite was at a loss. Boris Yeltsin was clearly not up to running the country, but no suitable successor could be found. The obvious candidates — Sergei Stepashin, Nikolai Bordyuzha and Sergei Kiriyenko — weren't presidential material. But then Chechen separatists staged a raid into neighboring Dagestan. Putin directed the operation that drove the fighters from Dagestan, and after two apartment buildings were blown up in Moscow [which some accounts say was secretly planned by Putin himself], Putin launched an "anti-terrorist operation" in Chechnya. Suddenly Putin was the No. 1 politician in the country. …
The Chechen fighters were operating on the assumption that the Kremlin would not tolerate substantial losses on the eve of the election. This is why Chechen detachments flouted military logic and remained in Grozny after it was surrounded, continuing to offer fierce resistance.
Putin's campaign managers also assumed that heavy Russian losses would hurt his chances at the polls. As the fighting in Grozny took its toll, they feared that by election day in June 2000 Putin's support would have evaporated. This concern probably explains Yeltsin's decision to step down early, bringing the election forward by several months.
As we now know, those fears were groundless. Heavy Russian losses had no impact on Putin's poll numbers. The four years of Putin's first term, during which the war raged on unabated, have made clear that Russian voters are prepared to endure endless lies from their leaders about the latest "phase" of the "operation" in Chechnya, as well as a staggering number of Russian dead.
[Alexander Golts] doubt that any Russian politician today would have the nerve to remind Putin of the promises he made back in 2000. He vowed "to crush the terrorist scum’.”
However, Simon Shuster, who likewise is anti-Putin, had this to say about Chechnya, in the cover story of TIME, eleven years later, on 22 June 2015:
Chechnya has undergone a striking transformation. Its cities have been rebuilt with money from Moscow. All traces of its separatist rebellion have been suppressed. And most importantly, a new generation has been raised to respect—at times even to worship—the Russian leader and his local proxies. With no clear memories of the wars for independence, the young people of Chechnya are now the best guarantee that Russia’s hold over the region will persist.
Putin might not have “crushed the terrorist scum,” but he has held it at bay for long enough a time to reestablish relative peace in Chechnya, along with a previously unparallelled degree of prosperity.
The International Crisis Group, a pro-Western and anti-Russian NGO, and an affiliate of NATO’s Atlantic Council, vigorously criticizes the authoritarianism and cult of personality that Putin has imposed in Chechnya, even while reluctantly acknowledging that:
The number of Chechens in the insurgency has been steadily decreasing. With their centuries-long record of being ready to die for their independence, Chechens do not seem very susceptible to the suicidal ideology of a global jihad. Many who are have joined the conflict in Syria, which has significantly drained the human resources of the North Caucasus insurgency overall, but especially in Chechnya. A Chechen interior ministry source estimated in 2013 that 200-500 Chechens were fighting in Syria.
The Islamic jihadists are more comfortable in, and more accepted by the residents of, the anti-Assad, pro-Sunni, areas of Syria, doing war against Shiia Muslims, and against the Russian-supported secular Shiia President Assad, than they are back home in their native land (Chechnya in Russia). Even Putin’s enemies acknowledge Putin’s successes against the Saudi-based Sunni international Islamic jihad movement. Putin has become an experienced specialist in the war against Islamic terrorism.
Whereas the United States simply spreads Islamic jihad, even while bombing jihadists and creating more martyrs for “the cause” of jihad, Russia has found ways instead to push back effectively against the Saudi-originated movement of Islamic jihad, and to develop, during decades, a peaceful regional diversity, which can encompass even areas where (as in Chechnya) Islamic or sharia law is imposed, and do this even within a predominantly Christian-majority nation (such as Russia, but this also describes the United States).
The U.S. never had to deal with the challenge that Russia has, of containing within itself a majority-Muslim state, and especially not containing a state whose majority are Sunni Muslim, the variant of Islam that (unlike Shiia Islam) produces jihadists, people with suicide-belts etc., who seek to impose a global Caliphate, a worldwide regime that imposes strict Islamic law. 
The ICG report on Chechnya criticizes today’s Chechnya, by saying that, “Much of the population lives off pensions and welfare payments,” and that corruption and clan-rule are the norm, but all that’s really new in this is actually the peace, and the pensions: corruption and clan-rule have been the rule in Chechnya for centuries, at the very least.
Simon Shuster’s video at TIME, about today’s Chechnya, opens:
The kids growing up in Chechnya these days are a lot luckier than their parents and their grandparents. At least the youngest ones have only known their homeland to be a peaceful and even quite beautiful place, full of enormous mosques, and skyscrapers, and shopping districts, and fast-food joints.
Shuster then refers to the civil war, but he says, “Today, Chechnya is a very different place,” and he acknowledges that the adults there, who remember the wars, are much happier now, that the jihadists are gone, or dead.
Al Jazeera television, which is controlled by gas-rich Qatar’s anti-Russian Sunni royal family, the Thanis, has criticized Putin for his placing in control of Chechnya the anti-jihadist Chechen Muslim, Ramzan Kadyrov. Thanis are also the chief financial backers for the Muslim Brotherhood, and, along with the Saud family (the main financial backers of Al Qaeda), are also among the main financial backers of the Syrian warriors who are fighting to replace the secular Shiite leader, Assad, by a sectarian Sunni Islamic regime in Syria. 
The anti-Russian American newspaper, New York Times, headlined on 1 July 2004,“Qatar Court Convicts 2 Russians in Top Chechen's Death,” and reported:
The trial has provided an international stage for both sides to air their grievances about Russia's war in Chechnya and debate the question of whether the fight against terrorism justified such extreme measures. Among those in the courtroom on Wednesday was Akhmed Zakayev, a leader of Chechnya's separatist movement, who has successfully challenged efforts by Russia to extradite him. Mr. Zakayev said in a telephone interview that the killing of Mr. Yandarbiyev showed that Russia under Mr. Putin had reverted to the darkest tactics of its Soviet past, when K.G.B. agents tracked down enemies of the state overseas. 
In U.S.-allied nations generally, anti-Russian jihadists have, to a large extent, been sympathetically received, and favorably reported (as in that cited NYT article).
So: Regardless of Putin’s success at dealing with Islamic jihadists, his invitation to the United States to work together to defeat the Sunni, and mainly Saudi and Thani-funded, international movement for Islamic jihad for a global Caliphate, will probably continue to meet only America’s cold shoulder. The United States opposes Islamic jihad, but it opposes Russia more.
Or, at least, the U.S. Government does. Obama primarily seeks to defeat Russia, not to ally with it — not even against Islamic jihad.