"Brexit Shatters EU and Its Washington Bond FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

| 26.06.2016 | OPINION

The British rejection of European Union membership came like a brick slamming into a pane of glass. The impact has stunned observers, radiated shockwaves and suddenly thrown up an arresting vista of cracks and jagged shards.

A crestfallen British Prime Minister David Cameron handed in his resignation only hours after the result showing the majority of Britons had voted for their nation to leave the EU – after 43 years of membership.

The victory for the «Leave» campaign was decisive. Some 52 per cent of British citizens voted against 48 per cent who wanted to «Remain» within the 28-nation bloc. Conservative Party premier Cameron and the leaders of the other main political parties – Labour, Scottish Nationalists, Liberal Democrats – had joined ranks to campaign for Britain to stay in the EU.

But in the end the popular vote rejected their pleas and instead backed the anti-EU stance of Boris Johnston, the former mayor of London who led Conservatives opposed to membership, in league with the more stridently Eurosceptic and anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage. The flamboyant Johnson is now tipped to take over as leader of the Conservatives and maybe future prime minister.

The repercussions of the so-called Brexit are multifaceted. British and international reactions struggled to assimilate the ramifications. This is partly due to a sense of astonishment that the United Kingdom had actually voted to leave. Not only did the result defy all the main political parties, it also repudiated a massive campaign endorsing continued EU membership, with what Leave campaigners decried as a «project of fear».

Cameron’s government had issued dire warnings of economic and financial mayhem if the country opted out of the EU. That call was backed by top British companies, City of London financial executives, and an array of international institutions, including the IMF and OECD. Days before the referendum was held, billionaire financial speculator George Soros predicted disaster for the British economy in the event of a Brexit.

European governments openly urged a Remain vote, while American President Barack Obama said that Britain would no longer be given «special rights» as a trading partner if it left the EU.

In the same week of the referendum, the US-led NATO military alliance also weighed in with grave warnings of increased security risks for Britain if it quit the European bloc.

In spite of this wall of pressure, if not blatant intimidation, the British electorate rejected EU membership. And in the early media coverage of the result, there was a palpable sense of disbelief among the chattering classes that the ordinary British people had gone their own way.

Apart from Cameron tendering his resignation, other British constitutional cracks split wide open on news of the Brexit.

The Leave result was driven mainly by English and Welsh voters, in contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, where a majority had voted to remain within the EU, the nationalist dominated regional assembly led by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon vowed that a second independence referendum was now on the table. In the previous independence plebiscite, in September 2014, the Scots voted then to stay within the United Kingdom largely as a way of securing continued EU membership by remaining an integral part of the UK. And with most Scots wanting to remain within the EU, the likelihood is that they would now reject the union with a «Brexited» England.

Similarly, in Northern Ireland the EU Remain vote carried the day. Nationalist Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams said that London had hence lost its mandate to rule Northern Ireland, and he called for a referendum on Irish unity, which could lead to Britain relinquishing its centuries-old jurisdiction on the island of Ireland.

In short, the Brexit vote has not only severed Britain’s union with the rest of Europe, it has also unleashed secessionist forces presaging the dissolution of the United Kingdom’s own internal union.

Across Europe, the stunning British vote to leave was met with euphoric applause from similar anti-EU movements. In France, the National Front leader Marine Le Pen hailed the result as a «blow for freedom» and she demanded that the French nation be immediately given the right to have a referendum on EU membership.

Le Pen’s declaration for an EU referendum was echoed in Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Several recent polls in these countries have shown growing – if not majority – support for a similar Brexit-style rejection of the EU. That is certainly alarming for the incumbent governments given that these countries represent founding members of the European project, which began nearly 70 years ago following the Second World War.

The EU establishment, represented by the Brussels administrative centre and pro-EU governments, is reeling from the Brexit shock.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly held emergency meetings with European Parliament leader Martin Schulz and European Council chief Donald Tusk; while EU foreign ministers convened in Berlin to discuss the permutations and how to stabilize the remaining 27-member bloc. Britain is the second biggest economy in the EU after Germany, so its negotiated departure over the next two years is a formidable challenge.

Over the next days, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is to hold crisis talks with French President Francois Hollande and Italian premier Matteo Renzi.

What these leaders fear most is that the Brexit will unleash a «domino effect» right across the whole of Europe. In virtually every country, including the foundational members, anti-EU parties are on the rise and flourishing. There is a veritable popular revolt against the EU establishment, which has come to be seen as undemocratic, autocratic and unresponsive to pressing social needs of employment, public services and general civic welfare.

European governments have got no-one else to blame but themselves. Whether they are nominally right, left or center, all conventional political parties – and the EU establishment that reflects them – have become ossified and inflexibly subordinate to neoliberal capitalist dictate. This has, in turn, engendered widespread poverty, unemployment and economic austerity, while the profits accrue to a tiny elite. The EU has become a cage of locked-in capitalist globalization, seemingly with no escape, as with much of the Westernized world.

Alternative opposition parties may not always express critique in such an anti-capitalist way, but they are united in their repudiation of what they see as a centralized oligarchy that operates out of Brussels. This has led to a counter-movement towards nationally controlled economies, as opposed to globalized form.

It is doubtful that many of the anti-EU parties can deliver remedial policies to what is the stagnancy of capitalist economics in the 21st Century. But one thing is sure: their supporters want to reject the failures of the status quo that is embodied in the contemporary EU.

An equally important form of inflexibility seen in the EU bloc is in foreign policy. The EU seems to have become a passive replica of the US-led NATO military alliance and under the thumb of Washington’s decree. Granted, most of the membership overlaps between the two organizations. But for many of the EU’s 500 million citizens, the EU’s lack of independence in foreign policy from Washington is a source of consternation.

The dangerous and economically damaging stand-off between Europe and Russia, largely at the behest of Washington, is a classic illustration of the problem.

The kowtowing by European governments and the Brussels administration to Washington’s policy of hostility towards Moscow is emblematic of the unaccountable and undemocratic nature of the EU bloc.

So too is the refugee crisis assailing European countries, which can be traced directly back to criminal US-led wars in North Africa and the Middle East, which the EU has colluded in or acquiesced to. And now is bearing the brunt of due to its servility towards Washington.

The popular revolt against the EU is far from homogenous. Some elements are impelled by reactionary, xenophobic nationalism. Some by chauvinism and romanticized notions of «traditional capitalism». Among some elements, there may even be fervent support for NATO militarism and pro-American hostility towards Russia.

But with Britain’s departure from the EU, Washington and the NATO alliance has lost one its most ardent supporters within the bloc. The Cameron government, after all, was the major proponent of tough sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine crisis, and London’s Atlanticist bias had preponderant leverage on the overall EU foreign policy position.

Britain leaving the EU can be seen as a blow to undermine the sway of Washington and NATO over Europe. And this progressive end was also a factor in support for the Brexit, as it is in the wider social revolt across Europe. The European revolt is not all about rightwing reactionaries; it is also about creating more democratic, independent European states, even if that necessitates the seemingly retrograde step of breaking up the EU under its present form.

The Brexit thus heralds much more than the shattering of the EU. On a national level, the United Kingdom is also prone to fracturing, while at the international level the Atlanticist bond with which Washington has dominated the EU is another fracture point.

Like the proverbial pane of glass, inflexible structures are always susceptible – at some stage – to fragmentation. The EU appears to have reached that critical pressure point.

source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/26/brexit-shatters-eu-its-washington-bond.html

Tags: European Union  UK  Cameron 

Putin Calls Out NATO’s ‘Insecurity Agenda’ By Finian Cunningham

June 24, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "RT" - Russia’s repeated – and rebuffed – calls for security cooperation proves it is not Russia, but NATO which is the source of Europe’s instability and geopolitical tension.  Not for the first time, President Putin this week sought to allay fears that Russia presents a security threat to Europe and the US. He was speaking on the 75th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Putin boldly referred to historical similarities. He pointed to how the US-led NATO military alliance is increasingly aggressive towards Russia, with the stinging implication this development by the supposedly “freedom and democracy promoting” alliance takes its precedence from the Third Reich and Operation Barbarossa. The fact that NATO just completed its biggest-ever maneuvers in Poland this month – Operation Anaconda involved 31,000 troops – simulating an attack on Russia is not without dark historical resonance. Putin also said the serious security threat posed by terrorism required a collective, international response. But he added that Russia’s repeated calls for collective action have been rebuffed by Western countries. He lamented the Western attitude of maintaining “bloc-like” security policies – as manifested in the form of NATO – instead of forming an international security body. And Putin compared the complacency of Western nations today on the question of cooperating in the defeat of terrorism to a similar indifference among Western states during the 1930s towards the rise of Nazi Germany. The Russian leader told lawmakers in the State Duma: “NATO is stepping up its aggressive rhetoric and its aggressive actions close to our borders… In these conditions we are obliged to dedicate special attention to resolving tasks connected with heightening the defense capabilities of our country.” While Russia is beefing up its defense capabilities, Moscow’s emphasis is unmistakably on diplomacy, dialogue and cooperation – not as a partner with NATO but as a member of a genuinely multilateral security organization. The world needs a “modern, non-bloc collective security system,” said Putin. “Russia is open to discuss this crucial issue and has more than once shown its readiness for dialogue, but, just as it happened on the eve of World War Two, we do not see a positive reaction in response.” So, if the United States and its European allies are decidedly reluctant to refashion a new international security arrangement, what does that mean? The obvious conclusion is that the proponents of NATO are not primarily motivated by maintaining security through cooperation. NATO proponents are more interested in perpetuating Cold War ideological divisions in the world that revolve around a mentality of “us and them”. Anaconda bridge: NATO troops build floating rig over Polish river in war games (VIDEO)https://t.co/RGqrks78IGpic.twitter.com/AIiPyrNu79 — RT (@RT_com) 9 июня 2016 г. The creation of blocs, camps, demarcations and divisions is connected to the necessity of certain nations being compelled to dominate others and to exercise hegemony. Let’s cut to the chase: that power mindset most fittingly describes the United States which sees itself as the exceptional, superpower that must not brook any ‘rival’, meaning equal. But, surely, equality is the essence of democracy and universal human rights? That the rulers in Washington do not fundamentally share those values is the key to understanding the source of much dysfunction in international relations and rule of law. The NATO-bloc approach to international relations, also by necessity, creates external enemies when such enemies do not actually exist. At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum last week, President Putin concisely captured the nefarious logic: “NATO needs a foreign enemy; otherwise it would have no reason for the organization’s existence.” Of course, the 28 members of NATO do have real enemies or security problems, such as jihadist terror groups and mass migration. But why NATO does not address these problems more effectively – by forming a collective, international security organization, as Russia proposes – is because the NATO leadership under the United States is much more concerned about maintaining its hegemony through carving out global divisions. Unfortunately for Russia, it is the “foreign enemy” the US and its NATO advocates require in order to perpetuate divisions, insecurities and the very existence of NATO itself. The tremendous paradox of this is that NATO is far from serving as the architecture for security in the North Atlantic and Europe that it purports to be. It is the source of instability and insecurity. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week admonished NATO for “saber-rattling” and “warmongering” with its “provocative” military exercises in Poland towards Russia. He instead called for “more dialogue and cooperation with Moscow.” It was a remarkably refreshing admission of reality by a senior NATO member. And it is notable how this “outburst” of sanity has since been ignored by other NATO states and the Western media. Steinmeier’s comments corroborate what Russia has long been saying; that NATO’s activities and build-up across Eastern Europe is the provocation, not alleged Russian malfeasance. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also attempted to break through the illusory NATO narrative when he said recently: “Every serious and honest politician is well aware that Russia will never invade any NATO member.” Russia’s envoy to NATO, Aleksandr Grushko, said constant NATO declarations about defending Baltic States and Poland from Russian aggression are “completely absurd because they are discussing a non-existent problem.” It is absurd, but from NATO’s point of view it is completely logical. For in that logic, there resides the rationale for massive military spending that props up the US economy; the continued domineering political control by Washington over European affairs; and the rewarding American patronage for European politicians who conform to the NATO agenda. #Putin: Romania ‘in crosshairs’ after opening NATO missile defense basehttps://t.co/hLGo2J5o3Rpic.twitter.com/6O65eXIFIF — RT (@RT_com) 28 мая 2016 г. One such politician is the former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who became NATO’s civilian titular head in 2014. He is one of the mantra-like voices warning about Russia’s threat to Europe and the need for NATO strength. One wonders what kind of salary Stoltenberg would obtain if he hadn’t the NATO gig? Ahead of the British referendum this week on whether to stay or leave the European Union, Stoltenbergweighed in with a vigorous plea for a Remain vote. His line of argument was that Britain is an important member of NATO and the EU, and that “strength and unity” are vital for security. Closer to the truth is that NATO’s “strength and unity” is the source of much of Europe’s insecurity. Not only has it driven Europe’s refugee crisis by its members interfering unlawfully in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq; the military organization has cynically driven a dangerous and totally unnecessary cleavage between Europe and Russia. Putin’s inference of NATO as representing a modern-day threat following in the historical tank tracks of Nazi Germany is appropriate. NATO’s record of propagating instability and insecurity is patent. When one considers the real, ulterior purpose of NATO at its founding in 1949 – “to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the Americans in” – this baleful legacy should not be surprising. But the proof of the argument follows Russia’s proposal for a new collective, international security cooperation. NATO’s refusal to meet this reasonable proposal betrays its real agenda of confrontation and insecurity. In that way, Vladimir Putin succeeded in calling out the true nature of NATO. Unwillingness speaks volumes. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44966.htm

Syria: Aleppo Doctor Demolishes Propaganda and Media Warmongering:

"President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years"

Dr Antaki reinforces that President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years ago and he deconstructs much of the propaganda upon which the US and NATO base their interventionist, neo-colonialist policies.
By Vanessa Beeley

The following is the transcript of an interview given to Be Curious TV by Dr Nabil Antaki, a doctor based in the Syrian government held western sectors of Aleppo. In this interview, given during his recent trip to France, Dr Antaki once more observes that Western media has been misleading and obscurantist in their reporting of events in Syria.  Dr Antaki reinforces that President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years ago and he deconstructs much of the propaganda upon which the US and NATO base their interventionist, neo-colonialist policies. Translation of interview by Vanessa Beeley.

 June 20, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "21stcenturywire" - “Welcome Nabil Antaki.  Please would you let us know what is happening in Aleppo and Syria. You are briefly in Europe.  You are Syrian, born in Syria and residing in Aleppo. You are a doctor at the St Louis hospital in western Aleppo, the area under “regime control”. People living in the west who are are not aware of what is happening in Syria might ask which is worse, the Syrian regime violence or that of the terrorists or the “rebels”. This antagonism is reflected at the heart of our media where on one side we find those who affirm that Bashar al Assad’s “regime” is terrorising his own people and on the other side are those who claim that Assad’s forces are defending their people against armed Jihadists”

Dr Antaki: “Firstly I would like to clarify..you have mentioned several times, Assad’s “regime” and Assad’s “army and its a confusion that we dont appreciate in Syria..when we read in all the media about Bashar’s airforce, Bashar’s army.  In fact, it is the Syrian army, the army of the State of Syria and when you mentioned that I live in western Aleppo which is under “regime” control, no, it is under the control of the Syrian state. Our people are not afraid of the Syrian army because it is an army that defends all of Syria against armed terrorists who have invaded Syria in order to establish their Islamic state. Therefore we should never say at all that the Syrian people are afraid of the Syrian army because it is not a “regime” army as described by the media, people are, in reality very grateful for the presence of the Syrian army. 
Let me give you an example. A few months ago the Syrian army launched an offensive to bring some relief to Aleppo which has been surrounded or besieged [by terrorists] for the last 3 years.  According to the western media the Syrian army was imposing a siege upon the Syrian people in Aleppo when in fact the opposite was true and the Syrian army was trying to break the three year terrorist siege of Aleppo. Therefore, no, the people are not afraid of the Syrian army, they are afraid of the terrorists. 
BCT: “So just to be clear, the western media is not reporting accurately what you are living through in Aleppo?”
NA: “Exactly. Western media only reports on events in eastern Aleppo. Since 2012, Aleppo has been cut in two. Three hundred thousand people live in the zones controlled by the terrorists in the east but the remaining three quarters of Aleppo inhabitants, around 1.5 million people, live in western areas controlled by the Syrian state.  So, when we hear from the western media about what is happening in Aleppo they focus only on the eastern areas.
When we issue a cry for help for Aleppo, it is transformed into a cry only for eastern Aleppo.  When the media announced that the last pediatrician in Aleppo had been killed, it is not true because in western Aleppo we have around 100 pediatricians. Perhaps its the last pediatrician killed on the other side, I have no idea, I have no information, but what I do know is that the inhabitants of the eastern sector living under terrorist control are Aleppans like us but chance dictated that they were living in areas invaded by terrorists.
BCT: “They didnt flee the area..?”
NA: “From the beginning over half a million people fled towards western Aleppo because they were afraid of the terrorists but there are some people who were afraid to leave, perhaps without the means to leave, afraid to lose what they had amassed during their entire life, their little appartment, their TV. They thought that if they left they might lose it all, so they decided to stay not for any ideological reasons but because materially they prefered to stay where they were.
BCT: “You have just been describing eastern Aleppo to us which is under terrorist control.  Please would you differentiate for us between terrorist and “rebel”. 
NA: “At the beginning of the war in Syria there were multiple groups among which there were a very small percentage of democratic opposition to the Syrian “regime” but the majority were terrorist groups intent upon establishing an Islamic state. Over time these democratic groups were absorbed into the terrorist groups and currently these terrorist groups represent more than 95% of the hundred or so armed opposition groups on the ground in Syria. 
Therefore the Free Syrian Army and the opposition who are not terrorists but are nevertheless armed represent no more than 5% of the armed groups, the rest are all terrorists. 
The principal terrorist groups are DAESH [ISIS] and Al Nusra. These two groups have been added to the “terrorist” list by the United States and Russia so everyone has the right to target them with air-strikes. However there are other groups which emanate from Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate, which are not yet considered to be terrorists. Among these are three principal groups, Jaish al Islam [Army of Islam], Ahrar al Sham [Free of Damascus] and Jaish al Fatah [Army of Conquest/Liberation].  These three groups were created by Al Nusra to escape being put on the terrorist list but nevertheless have their origins in Al Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria.
So when these three groups are added to the terrorist list which will enable them to be neutralised, there will remain only those armed groups that are not terrorists with whom we could negotiate and achieve a political compromise.”
BCT: “What about the refugees?  The 12 million migrants seeking refuge.” 
NA: “Half the Syrian population is displaced. There are 23 million people in Syria and 12 million people have been driven from their homes. 3.5 million are refugees outside Syria in neighbouring countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. There are 8 million internally displaced people who have not left Syria but have been forced to leave their homes. This is a very serious situation and these people need assistance just as much as those who have left Syria. 
The United Nations agencies focus only on the people living in the camps external to Syria. All these people are not fleeing the actions of the Assad “regime” or Assad’s army as described in the media.  These people are fleeing neither Assad’s government nor the Syrian army, nor the hypothetical actions of either of these groups.  These people are either fleeing from combat zones or they are fleeing misery.  The majority of the Syrian people are now living below the poverty line. 
80% of Aleppo’s population are dependent upon NGO food parcels. People are impoverished. They have exhausted their savings, those who had work lost it, those who had an asset, a workshop or a factory, a shop, have lost everything.  People are destitute, they are fleeing this misery or they are fleeing the combat zones. They are also considering their children, they endured 2, 3, even 4 years but the war has continued into 5 years and they want to assure their children of a future so they take the decision to uproot and to seek a future somewhere else, to start a new life. 
BCT: ” How do you and the Syrian people feel about the sanctions and economic embargoes imposed by western governments since the beginning of the war?”
NA: “We are disgusted by these sanctions because these sanctions and these embargoes have not been implemented against the Syrian government but against the Syrian people, all the Syrian people. For example, me personally, as person x, living in Syria, does not have the right to conduct the smallest transaction. If I wanted to send $ 1000 to my children, I am unable to do so. I can neither import or export anything. This is crippling.  I am a doctor, I wanted to replace one part of a piece of medical equipment.  Normally this would take one week, it took a year and a half to get hold of the part because we couldnt import it from Japan as it was a multi-national company. 
So these sanctions penalise the Syrian people and at a certain moment the EU lifted the sanctions but only for the people living in the terrorist controlled zones. Those people living in areas under the control of the Syrian state could do nothing. Contrary to their claims, this does not penalise the “regime”, it punishes the Syrian people.
BCT: “You are a Christian. A middle east Christian. If someone were to question your objectivity what would be your response?”
NA: “I dont speak to you as Nabil Antaki the Christian, I speak as Nabil Antaki the Syrian who has witnessed his country being attacked and destroyed. It is not about being Christian or Muslim, Syria is an ethnic and religious mosaic.  There are eleven different Christian churches and as many different Muslim sects, its not about the Syrian government protecting the minorities and that is why we support the Syrian government.  No, the government is secular, it protects everyone, whether a minority or a majority, everyone is respected inside Syria. It is a secular “regime”.  Unlike the Islamic state that absolutely does not respect the minorities. 
If the Christians are pro-government or pro the Syrian state it is because from the beginning they have supported a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state. 
The current President is very popular. I am actually not a fan of the President, I defend Syria not the President. But viewing it objectively we cannot deny his popularity and in my opinion, if tomorrow, we have free elections under international law, giving all Syrians the right to vote, even those in diaspora, we would see our President re-elected.
The west has not understood this fact.  Assad’s was popular at the beginning of the war against Syria, his support is even stronger now, not because he defends the minorities which is what the media would like you to believe but because he defends all Syrians. Christians are about 8% of the Syrian population so when they say Assad is popular because he defends the Christians and that is why the Christians support Assad, its a joke.  If we are with him or against him, it has no effect upon his popularity. We have neither soldiers nor arms, we are 8%.
Assad is popular with all groups and sectors of our Syrian society so if we want this war to end we have to stop demanding that Assad steps down as one of the conditions, we have to negotiate with him, conduct free elections and work towards democracy.
BCT: “Let me just come back to some of the points you made.  You speak of Assad’s huge popularity but was this the case in the beginning, in 2011?”
NA: “This is my point! When the troubles started, there were anti Bashar demonstrations, 10,000 or 15,000 people maximum. These demonstrations were televised and the figures were hugely exaggerated up to one or two hundred thousand.  On the other hand, massive spontaneous demonstrations poured onto the streets in support of the Assad government, in Aleppo, in Damascus, all the big towns and cities. Over a million people supporting Bashar. Nobody filmed these demonstrations or perhaps I should say nobody televised them in the west.  So, organic demonstrations of millions of people were ignored while the few thousand that marched against Bashar were blown out of all proportion and highly exaggerated. 
So there was a huge amount of bias, partisan reporting and partiality from the media from the beginning. Assad was always popular and this has not changed. He is perhaps even more popular now than in the last few years before the war.  He had enormously liberalised both the political and the economic sectors so people were happy, even though they knew there were still things that needed improving.
 
Life was not perfect but nobody wanted war, they wanted reform. Even the most outspoken enemies of the government did not want war, and certainly not this war.  They wanted reforms and they wanted democracy but nobody wanted to kill Syria to improve Syria.
BCT: “We have two coalitions on the ground in Syria, according to you what is their efficacy?”
NA: “In my opinion the Western international coalition is not effective because you cannot combine two opposing sides. You have a coalition of the US and Europe with Turkey and the Gulf States and at the same time we know that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia finance the Jihadists, finance Daesh, finance Al Nusra. On the one hand they want to fight against the terrorists, on the other they are helping them. That is completely abhorrent. 
Additionally, there are the Kurds in Syria who have also taken up arms against DAESH.  The US has found its allies in the Kurds to fight against DAESH. However Turkey is completely against the arming of the Kurds so Turkey combats the Kurds.  So, we have two countries who are allied, the US and Turkey but one is allied with the Kurds and the other is against them so how can this ever work.  There are too many contradictions within the Western coalition and that is why it has achieved nothing.
Before the Russian intervention, the coalition air-strikes were cosmetic strikes.  They would carry out a hundred or so strikes in the desert and that was the extent of their campaign.  They only became effective after Russia intervened.
From our perspective the Russian intervention was extremely beneficial and they have the full support of the Syrian people which contradicts the western narrative.  The west accuses Russia of targeting not only the terrorist groups but also the “moderate rebels”. Russia has been very succesful in bombing the Islamic State groups so the West is trying to slow their progress by claiming they are targeting the non terrorist groups and accusing Russia of aiding Bashar instead of targeting DAESH.  Of course this is not true, when the West want to bomb its ok but when Russia wants to bomb, they dont do it right.
BCT: “How do you think the Western media portray the reality on the ground in Syria?”
NA: “Western media is not objective. They are partisan, they are against the Syrian state.  They are supporters of the terrorist-rebels, so the Syrian people is fed up with their portrayal of events in Syria. We dont ask that they are pro or anti “regime”, we simply ask them to be objective.
 
BCT: “What might you like to say from a personal point of view?”
NA: “All that I want to say to the West is please be more objective, educate yourselves, dont accept disinformation, put pressure upon your governments because Syria is a country that desires its freedom, prosperity and democracy. 
The war has destroyed us, we have had enough, we want it to stop!