Wednesday, November 25, 2015

As long as you are not touched by the war....Poem by: Lyudmila Lozovaya

FRONT NOVOROSSIA / RUSSIAN WORLD 


As long as you are not touched by the war, you will sit and be silent...

As if the soul of the country is not sick, as if you don't care. You walk out, smile to friends and to buy bread around the corner, Till there were bombing a kindergarten and a temple, and someone's parent's house...
 
As long as you are not touched by the war, do you believe blank news, Where lies woven by innocent wine, and odes sung to the authorities... But this is at our house not threw a projectile attack... And the fear of a terrible serpent under the skin climbed up, hearing the baby cry.
 
As long as you are not touched by the war, not appreciate...Yet... I don't know what life price, because your pulse beating at his temple. 

As long as you are not touched by the war, tell their friends - everyone lives, not seven, and one... not book their Places in Paradise. Held at gunpoint soldiers countryman and fraternal lunging string... But don't realize it, until you've been touched by war...

Lyudmila Lozovaya

New York Times called out again for its misleading coverage of Russian issues

The NY Times is Lying (Again) about Russian Fighter Jet Shoot-Down

An analysis of the Times' onging neocon obsession with always painting Russia as the bad guy
 MEDIAWATCH 3 minutes ago | 23 10

The deception is deliberate and extraordinary
If one measures lying by quantity of people misled, their relative importance as decision-makers and influencers, and gravity of the deception, then the NYT is the biggest liar of them all, and their track record on Russia over the past couple of years, since the Ukraine crisis got going, has been nothing less than extraordinary.
Our analyst Jacob Dreizin digs into this week's juicy offering.

This is not the first time that RI has called out the New York Times for its amateurish, misleading coverage of Russia among other issues, and it won’t be the last.
Most of you readers know that since the dawn of the Internet and particularly since the post-2007 ad revenue depression, the Times and other Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets have been on a steep downward slope.  
Quality has gone down the tubes as capable editors and hardboiled journalists are fired and replaced with a smaller number of recent college grads, many of them not even on the payroll (i.e., contract freelancers.)
Naturally, most of these folks have little real-world experience, few contacts, no language skills or cultural knowledge, etc., and are thus easy targets for “stories” fed to them by the Government and other vested interests, as well as social media memes and other nonsense.  Incapable of real journalism, they repeat whatever the Power Structure wants the public to “know.”  And nowhere has this been more evident than with regard to foreign policy, where the propaganda machine is at its finest.
Issues that Uncle Sam doesn’t want the press digging into—e.g., the CIA’s Libya-Syria arms funnel which culminated in the Benghazi disaster, or the massive CIA training-and-arming operation and “joint command center” for Syrian rebels in Jordan—are left untouched.  They are taboo.  The MSM has neither the resources nor the organizational cojones to piss off Uncle Sam by “going there.”
But where the New York Times leaves the pack and really distinguishes itself is in its ability to spring into action immediately as a slavish “amen” chorus for the Establishment, seemingly at the Establishment’s beck-and call, with shockingly amateurish, low-quality, misleading or simply fraudulent content.
We saw this in the spring of 2014, when the Times carried almost without question the State Department's ridiculous claims of Russian Special Forces involvement in the opening weeks of the Donbass war, which I have previously recounted in greater detail.  The Times did it again with the October 2015 bad joke linked at the start of this piece, among many other instances.
And now, when the Establishment sees even Matt Drudge giving voice to Moscow’s position on the current Turkish drama, with the majority of online talkbacks across the English-speaking world either expressing sympathy for Russia or full-on taking Russia’s side, it sees a screaming need for something, anything to support the “Russia Bad” narrative.  The alarm bells are going off, and you know the Times is the man to call.
Sounds reasonable enough, right?  Fair and balanced.  Except that after a few sentences and maps on “What Turkey Says” and “What Russia Says”, we fall into some kind of wormhole and proceed to the inexplicable meat of the piece, which is headlined, “Russia’s Pattern of Confrontation.”
In this section, completely ignoring Turkey’s well-known “Pattern of Confrontation” with regard to crossing international borders to bomb uppity Kurds, theTimes rehashes the long-running, popular myth of Russian military aircraft intruding on innocent NATO countries’ airspace.
It starts off talking about “a series of air encounters between Russia and the West” whereby “Russian military planes fly near, or into, the airspace of other nations.”
Now here is the truth of it:  Since Vladimir Putin came to power, barring the ongoing Turkish drama, neither the U.S. nor any NATO government has even once claimed that a Russian military aircraft has flown without permission over its sovereign territory or territorial waters.  Likewise, Putin's Russia has not once accused the U.S. or NATO of violating its sovereign airspace (though it was Uncle Sam who wrote the Cold War book on airspace violations—check out the U-2 Incident and Project Dark Gene for starters.)
At most, there have been intrusions into “Air Defense Exclusion Zones”, “Areas of Interest”, or other such arbitrary formulations, which—as with the U.S. and UK—can extend hundreds of miles beyond a nation’s coasts, and which have no weight under international law.
So to imply that there has been an ongoing “series” of Russian violations of Western “airspace”, is either speaking from careless ignorance, or a deliberate abuse of popular ignorance or assumptions as to the meaning of “airspace.”
However, this is just peanuts.  It gets worse.
After setting up Russia as the sole guilty party for these types of “encounters” and “incidents”, the Times offers several maps (see this and this), probably sourced from the Pentagon or some thinktank, pinpointing Russia’s alleged hostile acts in the air.
Incredibly, nowhere is there so much as a hint that some points on these maps represent U.S. or other NATO aircraft coming near Russia’s shores.
Nay, the way the Times sets it up, by way of the language I've mentioned and other language you can read for yourself, every point on these maps is an instance of Russian aggression.

There is just no way that a simple reader coming at this material could see it in any other light.
But how can it be that the red spot off the coast of Russia’s Far East is an act of Russian aggression?
You see, this red spot was formed when Russia intercepted an American spy plane in the Sea of Okhotsk, roughly 800 miles from the nearest U.S. dependency (Japan) and pretty damn far from Kansas, if you ask me. 
What the hell was Uncle Sam doing there?  The Sea of Okhotsk is bordered by Russia on three sides.  For the U.S. military to be there is akin to the Russians flying into Hudson Bay, Canada, or possibly the Gulf of Mexico—which they have never done.
Oh, and how about those dots in the Black Sea?  At least one (and probably all) of them was a U.S. spy plane being intercepted nor too far from Russian territory.
Now look at all these incidents in the Baltic Sea.  You would think that Russia was going crazy off the coast of Estonia, Latvia, etc., wouldn’t you?
Except that some—we don’t know how many, but probably a lot—of these incidents involved Russian aircraft intercepting U.S. or NATO spy planes or other planes near Russian shores (i.e. near Leningrad or Kaliningrad), not the other way around!
Check out this and this for a recent sample.
May I ask, what the hell are Uncle Sam’s spy planes doing in the Baltic Sea?  Does America have a Baltic coastline?  Did we lose one of our states in the Baltic somewhere?  And is Russia invariably the aggressor here?
There is only one reason for U.S. military surveillance aircraft to be in the eastern portion of the Baltic Sea, and that is to spy on and/or to intimidate Russia.
Period.
And if that’s not enough, here’s Bloomberg for you:
“Russian fighters flew more than 300 missions in response to NATO and other foreign military aircraft approaching the country’s borders this year, he[Lieutenant-General Mikhail Mizintsev] said.
 …The number of flights by NATO’s tactical aircraft close to the borders of Russia and Belarus doubled to about 3,000 this year, according to Mizintsev.”
 And for those who thought only Russia “dangerously” buzzes U.S. aircraft, judging by all the “why us?” and “we're lodging a protest!” whining from the Pentagon, consider this:
 “Mizintsev said Russia registered 55 cases of foreign jets flying in “dangerous proximity” to its long-range military aircraft, at a distance of less than 100 meters, in 2013-14.”
 OK, so Uncle Sam and his NATO vassals are routinely pushing the envelope and forcing Russia to scramble its air defenses, the same thing Russia is doing to Uncle Sam and his vassals.  But this is Russian aggression?
Yet there are even more interesting moments, such as Uncle Sam’s recent military parade through the Estonian City of Narva, which is located smack dab on Russia’s border, about 60 miles from Russia’s second largest city of Saint Petersburg, and whose residents are about 90 percent Russian.  How’s that for “outrageous provocation?”
So why do we only ever hear half the story?
And why is the New York Times aggressively—I would say, deliberately—mispresenting maps of Russia-NATO air incidents as an encyclopedia of Russian aggression, rather than a two-way street in which each side routinely tests the other, as was done in the Cold War?
Again, there is absolutely no way that Joe Sixpack with no background in this issue could possibly interpret the Times’ context for these maps as anything other than pure Russian aggression.  The way the Times frames it, every single dot on these maps is “Russia bad.
This is a pure hit piece from the Times, coming at a point when the Establishment is desperate to remind everyone that Russia is the bad guy, despite the fact that “unnamed U.S. government officials” are now saying that Russia’s SU-24 was, in fact, shot down over Syria, just as Mr. Putin has claimed.
So let’s be clear:  The New York Times has become trash.  This is not the newspaper I grew up reading in the 1990s, which helped motivate and direct me towards politics and foreign affairs.  If it is still my country’s “Newspaper of Record”, we are all screwed.
Stay tuned for more.

Why the West Should Now See the Sense in Russia's Mideast Policies


PUTIN ASSAD

globalaffairs
MOSCOW -- Although it will take time to truly evaluate the consequences of the Nov. 13 massacre in Paris for the French, European and world politics, some conclusions can be made now.
The attacks will almost inevitably lead to an escalation of war in Iraq and Syria, as well as to changes in the balance of forces in the Middle East as a whole. The French government has been challenged with such audacity that it does not have the right not to respond; Paris has found itself in the same position as Washington after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The millions marching for solidarity in January after the killings at the office of the Charlie Hebdo magazine might have mimicked national mobilization, but the government this time also cannot avoid launching a major retribution. It might include more intensive attacks on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and a clearer and more coordinated allied strategy will certainly replace the rather haphazard attacks.
It is time the U.S., despite Obama's reluctance to get drawn into any military action, showed proper leadership and the ability to provide effective and strong support to its allies.
Since France is unlikely to rally enough capabilities, even with the help of major European countries, for an effective response, Europe is likely to appeal to the United States, which has so far preferred to distance itself from the Middle East developments -- or, more precisely, minimized its involvement or limited it to anti-ISIS rhetoric.
It is now time the United States, despite President Obama's reluctance to get drawn into any military action, showed proper leadership and the ability to provide effective and strong support to its allies. It is essential for its own sake, if not so much for relations with Europe -- perhaps, primarily for maintaining its reputation in Asia, where it is gradually creating a pattern of competition with China -- but also to confirm its own capabilities and reliability to its partners in the region.
Alignment of Force in Mideast Could Change
The alignment of forces in the Middle East may change. The Gulf monarchies actually seem to believe that Iran's expansion and stronger foothold are more dangerous than the success of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Until recently, the Syrian conflict largely revolved around the fate of Bashar al-Assad, which meant that his opponents were fixated on regime change in Syria, giving it priority above anything else. At a time when leading Western countries start seeing ISIS as an even more dangerous threat, Saudi Arabia and its allies might be growing increasingly at odds with this belief.
Clearly a new round of the "big game" in the Middle East is inevitable, and if France tried to avoid it, the country would simply lose its reputation in that critical part of the world, probably along with Europe losing its influence there altogether.
As for Europe, it is likely to do a U-turn in its attitude to the refugees and further strengthen its commitment to a police-dominated handling of migration issues; a rise of right-wing sentiment can be expected there.
refugee france
French gendarmes stand guard as dozens of people gather for a demonstration in support of migrants in Paris amid a ban on public gatherings. LOIC VENANCE/AFP/Getty Images.

It so happened that I left Paris on the afternoon of Nov. 13, after asking everyone there on the previous day at informal meetings the same question I had been asking them over the last three years -- whether Marine Le Pen could become president. Until then, the answer was always no, no matter how high her popularity. The pragmatic French were unlikely to support her at the elections. This was the first time I heard: "Yes, it is possible." The carnage unleashed the next day will most likely increase this possibility.
The focus of migration policy will now shift to concern about a significant number of active or latent Islamists potentially present in the current flow of refugees wishing to move to Europe -- a concern voiced even at the beginning of their flight. Until now, that concern was pushed to the sidelines of public debate and mainly interested the security services. Now the public sentiment can change appreciably. Germany will have to change its approach most dramatically after Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed an open-door policy back in the late summer and early fall. The country gradually began shifting away from it several weeks ago, but the Paris tragedy will certainly speed up the revision of this view dramatically. Even if far-right parties do not see a qualitative rise in popularity in leading European countries, mainstream politicians will have to adopt a large part of their slogans to retain the loyalty of terrified voters.
In general, we can say that, firstly, Europe continues to be faced with signs of a systemic crisis of their institutional and political model, and the need for transformation has become ever more obvious. Secondly, the largely familiar concept of "European security" in the OSCE's interpretation is becoming completely meaningless. European security is now inseparable from the crumbling Middle East developments, something that poses problems and dictates actions, something almost impossible to control.
Russia's Plan Now Makes Sense
For Russia, it may mean that its operation in Syria, if not a new model to follow, will make much more sense to many in the West. Its impact on the political and diplomatic process around Syria is difficult to predict, but if the United States, France and other participants try to step up the fighting, Russia's logic of choosing a partner on land and joining the fight against their enemies begins to make more sense as well. Until recently, strikes by the Washington-led coalition were not intended to dramatically change the situation in the theater of war, but were rather intended to assert its presence. If they decide to deal a crushing blow to ISIS, they would need to reduce the pressure on Assad, actually acknowledging the fact that the coalition is fighting on his side. Moreover, they would need to involve the "moderate opposition." How this can be done given the resistance of the hardline anti-Assad countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey is difficult to say, but the pressure on them will grow. Among Western countries, France is most implacable in its resentment of Assad, but some changes are possible now.
Moscow, at least, has the right to tell the rest of its partners in the Syrian process that the events have confirmed that its priorities are correct.
Moscow, at least, has the right to tell the rest of its partners in the Syrian process that the events have confirmed that its priorities are correct. Being the most capable foreign military force in the region, Russia is also quite able to convert that capacity into political influence. Ukraine, until now a major irritant in relations between Russia and Europe/the West, is gradually taking a backseat.
The Paris events will further tighten the Middle East knot, but an attempt to sever it in one powerful stroke, like the one the United States made in 2001 after 9/11, is likely to have the same "success" as that one. The masterminds of the Paris attacks will be rubbing their hands, as bin Laden once was, watching the stone they threw cause an uncontrollable avalanche.


Has Membership in NATO become a path for Lawlessness ?

Has Membership in NATO become a path for Lawlessness ?

Turkey possesses the second largest army in NATO  November 25, 2015, 16:45
Photo: Fatih Saribas/Reuters
Text: Anton Krylov

NATO is not the arbitral Tribunal, and a military Alliance, so we should not be surprised that in fact the tragedy of our su-24 in the skies over Syria, he sided with Turkey. But you know in NATO, which thereby give its members a license to lawlessness that the number of such episodes may increase, and now that it comes to tragedy on a much wider scale?

A day after the attack on the Russian plane the rhetoric of the Turkish authorities has changed a bit. President Erdogan said that the Turkish air force at the time of the shooting at the su-24 did not knowthat he is Russian. This despite the fact that immediately after the destruction of the aircraft, the Turks (vying with some of the Russian liberals) were screaming about the fact that Ankara has repeatedly warned Moscow about the impermissibility of the air raids of the Turkomans, and the Russians did not listen, then, are to blame.

"In 2014 it was recorded 1269 airspace violations of Greece by Turkish military aircraft, and in current – 1233"
Russian HQs if guilty of anything, in excessive credulity, which is not the first and likely not the last time sums up our country. This, incidentally, applies not only to the military, just military this is manifested most clearly – century after century.Could anyone else on Tuesday morning to suggest that the country is a NATO member, participant of the antiterrorist coalition, a reliable economic partner of Russia will strike on the Russian plane? We are too accustomed to the fact that our, and NATO planes escorted each other on neutral territory. We've learned that European countries and the USA have protested when a Russian bomber or fighter was too close to their ship, and our diplomats have released similar statements, when the Americans or the British fly up close to our borders. It is this and not shooting to kill is a common international practice, therefore, hit by the su-24 has not waited.
Alas, the Turks are official candidates for EU membership, are not Europeans. Impact on Russian aircraft confirmed this much more clearly than what Brussels carefully tighten the entry of Turkey into the "single European family", has long been promised her. In Europe it is not customary to shoot down aircraft in the country, with the President where you a week ago, hugged and agreed to an emergency meeting and deepen cooperation. However, to state this with absolute certainty now is also impossible. The statements of official representatives of NATO and member States of NATO testify to the attempts to justify not only Turkey, but also shot a defenseless pilot fighters.
Recall that said the official U.S. state Department spokesman mark Toner, who called for all to remember the Director of the Department of information and press of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova.

"If the Turkmen forces were attacked by Russian air strikes, they can defend themselves," said Toner, and when asked about whether self-defense in shooting the unarmed pilots on parachutes, he replied that "there is no clear understanding what actually happened". If someone thinks that the translation is inaccurate, it may translate independently.By the way, even before to justify the murder of a Russian pilot, Toner stated that, despite the absence at the White house confirm that the plane was shot down over Turkish territory, the Americans will still support Turkey as a NATO ally.
It is not surprising that against this background, Europe has picked up all of Russophobic forces in the first place in Ukraine. The initiator of the war in the Donbass Oleksandr Turchynov stated that his country "in the case of violations of their airspace by the military aircraft will act the same as the Turkish air force". So far, among the Ukrainian "success" downed over the Black sea Russian passenger plane, which killed 78 people, mostly Israelis. Suspicion of involvement in the death of a Malaysian "Boeing" in Ukraine is also not yet fully withdrawn, and that the official results of the investigation after nearly a year and a half after the disaster and declared that strengthens them.
Odessa Governor Mikhail Saakashvili also expressed full support for Turkey, duplicating your post on Facebook in Turkish, Ukrainian, Russian and Georgian languages and illustratingphotographywhere Erdogan skeptically looking at the magazine in front of him obligingly opened former colleague.
Another thing is that NATO lacks the unity, what I would like Erdogan or official Washington. The statement of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the information about the incident plane of Russia's other allies like coincides with data of Turkey, it was subsequently referred to as his private opinion.
It is significant that the European media and their readers are not rushing to support Turkey. British The Independent published an article with the title compound: "for years Turkey has allowed jihadist groups to flourish, so beware of the real reasons why she has shot down a Russian plane". More than 12 thousand reposts in social networks, hundreds of comments in support of Russia. Sharply condemned the incident Greece with its historically cautious attitude towards the Turks. The Greek media are also reminded that in 2014 it was recorded 1269 unpunished violations of the airspace of Greece by Turkish military aircraft, and in current – 1233.

Even in articles in which the authors attempt to justify Turkey, most commentators assess the behavior of the Turkish air force negatively.However, the response of the media, and outraged citizens of countries – members of NATO, and even friendly towards Russia politicianshave no special significance in the case against Turkey will not follow any sanctions from the leadership of the Alliance.
Russia will never let Turkey this aggressive act is clear. But if NATO will pretend that nothing terrible has happened, that it was a "misunderstanding" regarding Russia and Turkey, we cannot rule out the possibility that the next time blow politisk too close to the border of the Russian aircraft decide to put, for example, one of the Baltic States. Or Poland, many members of the political elite which are paranoid to believe that their presidential Tu-154 near Smolensk was deliberately destroyed on the personal orders of Putin.
Turkey in this situation acted like a bully, bullied passers-by, knowing that behind him is an adult company that will not give offense. And if NATO will not shorten Ankara, among new and potential members of the Alliance will be a lot of wishing to receive a similar indulgence on the outrage – and immediately to use it.
Only here, unlike the situation with street mugger, the stakes in this game are too high

President Erdogan knew what he was doing, giving orders to his fighter jets

PLATO BESEDIN: Turkey is kaput!

PLATON BESEDIN: Turkey kaput!
If Turkish fighters had not shot down a Russian bomber and instead, for example, an American one, the star-spangled missiles by now would have destroyed Istanbul and Ankara. Two minutes would not have passed, and Turkey would be was washed with blood. But as it was a Russian bomber, this is definitely not going to happen.
This is largely due to the fact that Russians not only know mercy, but also use common sense. Ankara with its own ignorant careless methods mean to draw us into a Third world war with NATO, of which Turkey is a member. So stupidly are those who demands from President Putin blood. But, of course, with all this was Ankara to respond needlessly and decisively. When you consider that the Russian SU-24 bomber was shot down not due to the fact that it crossed the Turkish border as is certainly was not that. Also no ten warnings to leave the airspace were given, as supposedly they claim to have sent. All this makes this unnecessary aggression a lot deeper and much sadder.
Turkey has always been an American Outpost in the middle East. From here rose the star-spangled bombers to destroy Iraq during the elimination of Saddam Hussein. It was here that they made and implemented the decision to block the delivery of Iraqi oil, thus depriving Baghdad of material resources. And this is just one example of America's political influence on Ankara.


In addition, it is Turkey, claiming the title of the core countries of Islamic civilization, has long been a platform for spreading ideas of radical Islam. Ankara, and this is confirmed by numerous data, finances IG. Everything is logical, because Erdogan's priority today is to destroy the government of Bashar al-Assad and become the hegemon in the middle East, awakening to life the shadow of the great Ottoman Empire. Turkey itself has become a hotbed of terrorist organizations, a training center radical fighters, many of them, after completing the training are sent to fight in Syria or to prepare terrorist attacks in the Crimea and the Caucasus.
About the history of the Russo-Turkish strife, I think, reminding for most it's not necessary. In recent times, Ankara stubbornly went on the conflict with Moscow, threatening, in particular, tear gas agreements. Thus, the downed Russian bomber is really a deliberate sneaky stab in the back, whose main goal is provocation, heavily on civilizational conflict. Not answer, as already mentioned, in this case does not. Adequate impact measure would be the economic noose around Turkey's neck. Let me remind you that Turkey is the most visited holiday destination for Russians. Now this tourist flow could be shut off.
Here I will afford personal attitude: if Turkey was interesting, for its history (primarily associated with Byzantium). Travel there to swim, sunbathe, dance, drink vodka personally, I have always caused misunderstanding. Now it is much better to rest in their native land. In the Crimea, not less rich in historic places.
Turkey now needs to be forgotten and banished from the Russian consciousness. Cash flows there must be overlap at all levels, including giving a red light to Turkish companies in Russia. 


President Erdogan knew what he was doing, giving orders to his fighters. Now he that is called, should drink a Cup to the bottom. And no two opinions on this matter.
"Turkey is kaput!" – here is the Russian response to the destruction of our plane. So begins a new campaign against Constantinople. The winning campaign.

Plato Bessedin

Sunday, November 15, 2015

The Paris Attacks, the War on Syria, and the West's Collaboration with Terrorism

The Paris Attacks, the War on Syria, and the West's Collaboration with Terrorism

Image
Eric Draitser appears on Press TV (Nov. 13, 2015) in the hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris to provide his commentary on the latest developments, and what it means for Syria and the Western agenda in the Middle East. Draitser notes the importance of questioning the role of Western intelligence agencies and their documented collaboration with terrorists around the world. Draitser appears alongside author and journalist Pepe Escobar.

US insists that Assad, whom Syrian citizens want as President must go, Syria peace talks doomed

U.S. demands there be no democracy in Syria

© REUTERS/ Baz Ratner
All of the available polling that has been done by Western polling firms in Syria has indicated strongly that the current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, would easily win any free and fair election in that country. In fact when the question was directly put to Syrians by a Western polling organization, Assad got 55%, which wouldn't leave much for each of the opposing candidates in any election, the candidates who would be splitting the residual 45%. And this poll was taken shortly after the Arab Spring demonstrations against him — those demonstrators actually possessed little support from most Syrians.

So, the United States Government demands that Assad be simply removed from office, and not allowed on the ballot, if an election for President is to be held at all in Syria.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly stated that the ouster of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is a prerequisite for stopping the invasion of Syria by U.S. bombers, and by other forces from the U.S. coalition. That's a coalition of (besides the U.S.) Sunni Islamic regimes (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) that are likewise demanding removal of the Shiite President Assad of Syria, before they will cease their invasions of Syrian territory, and their supplies of weapons to the jihadist fighters who are trying to take over Syria.

Agence France Presse reported, on Thursday November 12th, that, though 'peace' talks about Syria, between the U.S.-allied nations and the Russia-allied nations, were planned to occur on November 14th,"the US warned a deal is unlikely without agreement over the fate of President Bashar al-Assad." In other words: a "deal" must be reached to remove Assad, before the various invasions of Syria will stop. 

AFP then noted that, "Moscow has put forward a peace proposal for the talks, which calls for elections after an 18-month constitutional reform process, but Western officials have dismissed the plan as it does not ensure that Assad will be removed from power."


Comment:

In other words: the United States government demands its right to veto, from any elections, the participation of the candidate that the polls clearly show the majority of Syrian citizens want to be their President.

The anti-Russian propaganda site, Vox, headlined regarding this matter, on November 13th, "The very simple reason why Syria peace talks are probably doomed", and Max Fisher laid out "the very simple reason," by implicitly and unquestioningly accepting as true U.S. government lies that Syria instead of U.S.-backed forces perpetrated the August 2013 sarin gas attack (which Fisher referred to as "chemical weapons"), which attack the U.S. President, Mr. Obama, has since used as his excuse for invading Syria. Fisher said:
Syria's opposition, after years of enduring Assad's barrel bombs and chemical weapons, and the forced disappearances and torture chambers before them, have said over and over they could never accept that Assad stay in office.

The US, too, has repeatedly insisted that Assad must go, correctly concluding that Assad and his policies are such a driver of sectarianism that he makes the country ungovernable and that peace is simply impossible while he remains in office. Sunni states in the region that fund the opposition, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, would also require that Assad leave power.

The two big question marks, then, are Russia and Iran, Assad's two foreign backers who are deeply involved in the war and who would thus need to agree to any peace deal in order for it to work. It is just not clear that they would be willing to part with him.
He blames Russia and Iran as being the reason why the talks would be "doomed." However, if the Syrian people do not want to part with Assad, then why should Russia and Iran not also support his being on the ballot? If that's what the Syrian people want (as polls indicate they clearly do), then why should the United States have any right or authority, at all, to block it from happening?

Instead of Vox being truthful to say that "Assad and his policies are ... a driver of sectarianism," the opposite has actually been the case: the secularism of Assad's government, and its clear wall of separation between church and state, has been what held off sectarian conflict in that nation as long as it did, which was until the Arab Spring 2011 'democracy' demonstrations, which, in Syria, were largely Sunni Islamic state proponents trying to bring down the government of Syria's secular Shiite President and replace it with a Sunni Islamic government and constitution — not any sort of 'democracy.'

The United States government insists upon overthrowing Syria's existing non-sectarian government and replacing it by its opponents, virtually all of whom are actually supporters of a Sunni Islamic state.

Though the Vox report said that, "Syria's opposition ... have said over and over they could never accept that Assad stay in office," the question will arise in the mind of any intelligent reader: why is the United States government automatically taking their side in this, since those people are only such a small minority of Syrians? Mr. Fisher blames Assad as being "such a driver of sectarianism that he makes the country ungovernable," but Assad was actually the exact opposite of that. Assad's adamant non-sectarianism is what had been holding the entire country together. Yet, the United States is determined to end it.

Though the United States is taking the side of some Sunnis in Syria, those happen to be Sunnis who seek an Islamic constitution for Syria, to replace the existing non-religious constitution. However, it is not clear, based upon existing polling, that those Syrian Sunnis, the Islamists, constitute even a majority of the Sunnis in Syria — they certainly do not constitute the majority of Syrians, which is the reason why all existing polling shows that Assad would likely win any free and fair election in Syria. But that's likewise the reason why the United States government is so determined that there be no democracy in Syria. If there is to be democracy in Syria, then the United States would lose that election. 

If there were any doubt about this before, there couldn't be any doubt about it after a Gallup-affiliated British polling organization, ORB International, found in July 2015 that 82% of Syrians agree with the statement that "IS [Islamic State] is a US and foreign made group," and only 22% agree with the statement that "IS is a positive influence," and only 21% agree with the statement that they "prefer life now than under Assad." 

In other words: The U.S. and other invaders of Syria are decidedly unwelcomed by the vast majority of Syrians; and yet, the United States government, which the vast majority of Syrians blame for ISIS there, insists that it has some right to dictate who must not be on the ballot in a Syrian Presidential election — and that person turns out to be the very same person whom the vast majority of Syrians in any free and fair election there would be voting for to be their President.

It would seem that any remaining respect for the United States government as being a supporter of democracy, will have to be qualified by the proviso: if, and only if, the U.S. government happens to favor the person who will win. Because, otherwise, the evidence is clear that the U.S. will instead assert its supposed right to prevent that person from being on the ballot in such a 'democratic' election.

The old ideological view, that the U.S. supports democracy, and that its opponents do not, seems to have been turned upside-down, today. It's the exact opposite of the truth.

Perhaps, now that the Soviet Union has ended, in 1991, the United States, 24 years later, has taken its place. Certainly, there are now many indications that the U.S. is a dictatorship; but few if any appear to be as glaring as is U.S. policy toward Syria, in 2015.

—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.