Friday, February 19, 2016

Why Do Western ‘News’ Media Ignore Many Important News-Events?

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 19.02.2016 | 23:22
On 12 February 2016, the much-maligned-in-the-West Mr. Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, was interviewed by Agence France-Presse — a reportorial coup, of which AFP were justifiably proud, because their 26 numbered questions to him (and the follow-ups) were substantive and were focused on providing to the publics in Western nations the perspective by Assad (which one might thus characterize as his “defense” case), against the virtually uniform chorus of condemnation of Assad by Western governments, which governments demand his overthrow and support the tens of thousands of foreign jihadists who have been flocking into Syria to provide the “boots on the ground” to achieve such an overthrow, of him — overthrow of the President of the sovereign nation of Syria — overthrow of him by these foreign fighters. (It’s an invasion of Syria, but the Western press don’t report its being that.)
Only two news-sites published in English this widely-distributed-to-the-press news-item: AFP itself, and France24 News. All of the ’news’ media in other countries ignored it — didn’t publish it, nor even quote from it — though, as you will see here, they shouldn’t have: they should have published it, or at least quoted extensively from it (as will be done here). Mr. Assad is accused by Western governments of numerous heinous crimes, some of which are demonstrably lies against him that Western ‘news’ media and Western politicians nonetheless repeat interminably, as if they weren’t already exposed to be hoaxes from his enemies, and based on frauds that were set up by the very same governments that are trying to overthrow him. (The link that was just provided here brings a reader to the evidence, just in case the reader might happen never to have seen the evidence on the given matter: the charge that Assad’s forces, instead of the U.S. government, was behind the notorious sarin gas attack in Ghouta Syria on 21 August 2013. Anyone who is closed-minded to the actual evidence regarding that matter should cease reading right here, because no such reader will be able open-mindedly to read AFP’s interview of Assad; it would just be a waste of such a person’s time.)
Here are some highlights of their interview, courtesy of AFP:
Question 1: How do you feel when you see tens of thousands of your citizens starving, running away from hunger, from their areas which are being shelled by your Russian allies, and trying to cross the borders to Turkey? And how do you feel when you see the pictures of them drowning in their attempt to cross the seas?
President Assad: If we talk about emotions, I belong to this people; and it is self-evident that I have the same feelings my people have. Any scene of suffering is painful to all of us as Syrians. But as an official, the question for me is less about emotions than about what I, as an official, should do, being responsible before my people.
However, when the cause of this suffering is the terrorists, not the Russian shelling as claimed by Western media, and when one cause for migration is the almost five-year-old embargo against the Syrian people, naturally my, and every Syrian official’s first task is to fight terrorism essentially using Syrian capabilities, but also using our friends’ support in the fight against terrorism. That’s why I say the problem of Syrian refugees abroad, as well as the problem of hunger inside Syria, as you referred to it, is a problem caused by terrorism, Western policies, and the embargo imposed on the Syrian people.
Question 2: Mr. President, can we talk about the possibility of putting an end to shelling civilian populations and also lifting the blockade imposed on certain areas?
President Assad: The conflict has been, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, about who wins the support of the people in Syria. Consequently, it doesn’t make sense for us to shell civilians if we want to win them to our side. This is in theory. Practically, while moving around in Syria, you will find that in any area under the control of the state, all sections of Syrian society, including the families of the militants, are being cared for by the state. What is more is that in a city like Raqa, which is under the full control of Daesh (ISIS), the state continues to pay the salaries of employees and send vaccines for children. So it doesn’t make sense for the state to shell civilians while doing all the above, unless we are talking about mistakes which happen in every battle. …
Question 5: Do you think, Mr. President, that you can regain control over all Syrian territory?
… [The West’s] continuing supplies to terrorists through Turkey, Jordan, and partly from Iraq – because Daesh (ISIS) exists in Iraq with Saudi, Turkish, and Qatari support -– naturally means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price. So it is difficult to give a precise answer about the timeframe.
Question 6: Can’t you say precisely how many years you need to restore peace to Syria?
President Assad: The question is: for how many years will Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorism? That is the question. And when will the West put pressure on these countries to stop supporting terrorism?
Question 7: Who is your main enemy? Is it the so-called moderate opposition and the Islamists, or is it Daesh (ISIS)?
President Assad: I don’t think that the term “opposition” can be used, in France or anywhere else in the world, to describe somebody carrying a weapon. Opposition is a political act. Suppose that you mean to say “moderate terrorists”, this is a different term. Saying that, you mean that they do not belong to Daesh (ISIS), Al-Nusra, or to these extremist groups. … The moderate opposition is a fantasy. … Most of the militants belong to extremist groups, such as Daesh (ISIS), Al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others. So, my answer is that every terrorist is an enemy. We respect every political opposition; and we do have political opposition inside Syria. They adopt tough positions against the state, and we are not attacking them. … The state will confront all those who carry weapons. It will not ask them about their ideology. But the difference is that the extremist groups refuse to have any dialogue with the state. They believe that they will fight, die, and go to heaven. This is their doctrine. …
Question 9: Mr. President, what do you think of Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham? They did negotiate with you, and went to Geneva.
President Assad: They went as part of the opposition formed by Saudi Arabia, because it is Saudi Arabia which supports terrorism worldwide. So it is only natural for the representatives of Saudi Arabia to be terrorists, not politicians.
Question 10: So you will not negotiate with those?
President Assad: In principle, direct negotiations were not supposed to take place in Geneva 3. They were supposed to take place through de Mistura [of the UN]. And here we should be precise: we are not negotiating with Syrians, but with representatives of Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and others. So, if you mean Syrian-Syrian dialogue, the answer is naturally no. Dialogue with these people is not a Syrian-Syrian dialogue at all. …
Question 11: All those who went to Geneva were based outside Syria. Can you explain?
President Assad: No, some of them are based inside Syria, and some live outside Syria but they are involved in politics and have supporters in Syria. I’m not talking only about terrorists, I’m talking about people who have been formed in a foreign state and act on behalf of a foreign state.
Question 12: Don’t you think that had you been more tolerant in dealing with this opposition in the past, you would have avoided this conflict? Don’t you bear part of the responsibility?
President Assad: We do not claim that we did not make mistakes in Syria. This is natural in any state. And we do not claim that we, in the Middle East, have reached a stage of significant political openness. We were moving in that direction, not very quickly, and maybe slowly. Back to your question, the more radical segments of the opposition inside Syria, which attack the state, have not been imprisoned or prosecuted by the state, neither before or after the crisis. So, I don’t know what is meant by tolerance in this case.
Question 13: Maybe it was difficult for the opposition inside Syria before. Maybe they did not have a margin for movement?
President Assad: You are talking about a general condition in the Middle East. … The question is: what is the institutional action that we should take in order to move forward. This has legal, social, or cultural aspects, because democracy is more of a culture than a law. You cannot proceed with laws while remaining culturally in your place.
Question 14: Mr. President, do you think that there might be a Turkish intervention in Syria now? And do you think the Saudi threats are serious?
President Assad: Logically, intervention is not possible, but sometimes reality is at odds with logic, particularly when there are irrational people leading a certain state. That’s why I don’t rule that out for a simple reason: Erdogan is a fanatical person with Muslim Brotherhood inclinations. He is living the Ottoman dream. … He believes that he has an Islamist mission in our region. The same applies to Saudi Arabia. The collapse of the terrorists in Syria is a collapse of their policies. I tell you that this process is surely not going to be easy for them, and we will certainly confront it.
Question 15: Mr. President, are you prepared to give northern Syria to the Kurds for self-rule after the crisis?
President Assad: This question is directly related to the Syrian constitution; and as you know, the constitution is not given by the government, all sections of Syrian society have a say in it, and it is put to public referendum. That’s why this should be a national question, not a question put to any Syrian official, whether it has to do with self-rule, federalism, decentralisation, or any similar thing. All these things are part of the political dialogue in the future; but I would like to stress that the Kurds are a Syrian national group.
Question 16: Is it true that the Russians tried to persuade you to step down? Don’t you fear a Russian-American deal on this issue?
President Assad: If we look at Russian policies and Russian officials in the same way we look at unprincipled Western officials and policies, this is a possibility. But the fact is the exact opposite, for a simple reason: the Russians treat us with great respect. They do not treat us as a superpower dealing with a minor state, but as a sovereign state dealing with a sovereign state. That’s why this issue has not been raised at all in any shape or form.
Question 17: Mr. President, are you prepared to give Russia and Iran permanent bases on your territory? Do you fear that Syria will become a satellite to these powers?
President Assad: Having military bases for any country in Syria does not mean that Syria will become a satellite state to these countries. They do not interfere in issues related to the law, the constitution, nor to politics. In any case, the Russian base exists already, while the Iranians have not asked to have one. But in principle, we do not have a problem.
Question 18: So if the Iranians raise this possibility, will you accept?
President Assad: The issue hasn’t been raised, and consequently this is hypothetical. But as I said, when we accept it in the case of Russia, it means the principle is acceptable. But this also depends on the capabilities of every state and their role on the regional and international arena.
Question 19: Has Russia asked your permission to build new bases on your territory?
President Assad: No. …
Question 21: Mr. President, do you intend to be a president for life? And if you don’t, are you in the process of grooming a successor, perhaps one of your sons?
President Assad: First, the presidency is not a hobby that we enjoy. It is a responsibility, particularly in these circumstances. As to my selecting a successor, this country is neither a farm nor a company. If I want to remain president, that should be dependent on two factors: first, my desire to be president, and second, the desire of the people. When the next elections come and I feel that the people don’t want me, I shall not stand. That’s why it’s too early to talk about this. We still have years before the next elections. …
Question 22: Mr. President, you know that there have been many accusations made about your government and you personally, most recently by the UN investigation committee which accused you of genocide, which is a crime against humanity. Aren’t you concerned that you will one day face an international court?
President Assad: … What refutes the reports of these organisations is that, first, they do not provide any evidence, and this is the case in general. Second, there is a logic for things: if Western states and rich Gulf states are against an individual, and this individual is killing his people, how would he withstand for five years in these circumstances? That’s why I’m not concerned about these threats or these allegations.
Question 23: But don’t you believe that these reports are correct? There are eyewitnesses in this case.
President Assad: No, there is a difference between individual crimes having been committed and having a state policy of systematic killing. I said that innocent people die in the war. That is true, but war crimes are committed when orders are given to follow a policy of committing massacres for certain purposes. Had this been true, people would have fled from state-controlled areas to the areas controlled by armed groups. What is happening is the exact opposite — everybody moves to the state-controlled areas.
Question 24: Mr. President, how do you think you will figure in history: as a man who saved Syria or a man who destroyed it?
President Assad: This depends on who will write the history. If it is the West, it will give me all the bad attributes. What’s important is how I think. Certainly, and self-evidently, I will seek, and that is what I’m doing now, to protect Syria, not to protect the chair I’m sitting on.
Repeated Western polling of the Syrian population shows that overwhelmingly they would elect Assad in any free and fair internationally monitored election, and that they despise ISIS and blame the U.S. Government for it. This makes clear why (until recently at least) U.S. President Obama has insisted that Assad must be overthrown before there are any elections in Syria (and Hillary Clinton still does insist upon that): it’s the only way for the West’s tyrants to get rid of him, so as to serve their own financial backers.
The reason why Western ‘news’ media ignore many important news-events (such as the AFP’s superb interview of the man whom the U.S. aristocracy and its allied aristocracies are determined to overthrow) is that informing the public truthfully so that voters will be able to vote on the basis of truths instead of on the basis of delusions that are inculcated into them by the media, isn’t actually their purpose, at all — especially not when the topic is international relations. Those delusions of the public are placed into the public’s mind, by the profession that knows how to do that. It’s what the aristocracy hires them to do. That’s the way to succeed in this profession. Specifically, in the present instance: any news-editor who would have decided to accept and publish this AFP article (and none did) would risk his career by that.
Tags: BBC CNN Middle East Syria US

Iran’s Defense Chief Visits Moscow: Another Step to Boost Cooperation Amid Growing Tensions

Peter KORZUN | 19.02.2016 | 14:00

On February 15-16, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan was on an official visit to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin, as well as his Russian counterpart Sergey Shoigu, Russian presidential aide Vladimir Kozhin and Deputy Premier Dmitry Rogozin.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said Moscow and Tehran were ready to step up their military cooperation. The two countries are also «ready to coordinate their approaches on a large number of global and regional issues», he added, speaking in the context of the growing crisis in the Middle East.
The parley agenda included global security, the situation in Syria and in the Middle East as well as specific issues related to the military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran.
On November 23, 2015, Moscow lifted a ban on nuclear cooperation with Iran after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s leader Hassan Rouhani. Iran and Russia, long-time allies of Syria, have also reinforced their military and nuclear cooperation since the signing in July of a historic accord between Tehran and the world powers on the Iranian nuclear program.
A military cooperation agreement was signed between the two countries in Tehran in January 2015. Now Iranian military officials say Iran is willing to buy Russian weapons worth $8 billion.
Moscow and Tehran are also in talks on the procurement of a wide range of weapons and military hardware, including Bastion coastal defense systems with Yakhont anti-ship missiles, Yak-130 jet fighters, Mi-8/17 helicopters as well as diesel-electric submarines, frigates and T-90 battle tanks.
The parties agreed that S-300 PMU-2 long-range air defense systems would be delivered to Iran this year, according to the deal concluded before. The price tag for two S-300 PMU-2 units will be over $1 billion. 80 Iranian air defense servicemen will undergo a four months training course in Russia this year. According to Dehghan, Tehran is eyeing S-400 air defense system to enhance its air defense capabilities.
Iran wants to procure Su-30SM Flanker multirole jet fighters. A deal is expected to be inked this year.
The defense chiefs agreed that in future the focus in Russia-Iran military cooperation will be moved to joint projects with part of the production in Iran. Armored vehicles and naval weapons systems are on the priorities list.
The parties see eye-to-eye on the events in Syria closely coordinating their activities there. For instance, before the visit, Iran had opened its air space for the flight to Syria of Russian Tu-214R, an advanced newly-developed surveillance aircraft equipped with all-weather radar systems and sensor packages to perform both electronic and signal intelligence. The aircraft followed the eastern corridor from Russia to the Caspian Sea and flew onward to Syria via the Iranian territory.
The current visit has a symbolic significance as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have said they will deploy troops in Syria as part of the US-led effort against the Islamic State (IS). It seems that some kind of Gulf deployment will really take place in Syria.  
Russia and Iran see eye-to-eye on the threat posed by Turkey and its Sunni allies. On February 4, Russian Ministry of Defense provided evidence to the fact that Turkey was preparing to invade Syria.
A senior Iranian commander warned Saudi Arabia on February 14 against sending troops to Syria after the kingdom deployed combat aircraft to Turkey, Iran’s state media reported. «We definitely won't let the situation in Syria to go forward the way rebel countries want... We will take necessary actions in due time», deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri told Iran's Arabic-language Al-Aalam television.
At the Munich security conference Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev told German media that sending foreign troops into Syria could unleash «yet another war on Earth».
The warning follows increasingly aggressive statements made by Saudi Arabia and Turkey amid Bashar Assad’s gains in Aleppo.
Former Head of Russia’s Federal Security Service, Nikolay Kovalyov, a member of the State Duma’s security and anti-corruption committee, warned Turkey and Saudi Arabia against sending ground troops to Syria, saying that Russian warplanes are likely to launch airstrikes on their positions if they deploy in the war-torn country. «If the Saudi and Turkish ground forces enter Syria, they cannot be distinguished from the terrorists and Russia will act upon the demand of the legal Syrian government», he added.
The Russia-Iran agenda goes much farther than the cooperation in finding ways to settle the Syrian crisis.
Russia has been a driving force in reaching a decision on the Iran nuclear deal. During his visit to Iran last November, Vladimir Putin said that both countries would intensify industrial cooperation, for which Russia was ready to grant a $5 billion government export loan. Russia and Iran have selected 35 priority projects for cooperation in power engineering, construction, sea terminals and railroads. After all, Iran has the fourth largest economy in the Islamic world. It is an economic leader in the region with large oil and natural gas reserves. New prospects for cooperation opened in mid-January when the EU and the US lifted the economic sanctions imposed on Iran after the International Atomic Energy Agency verified Tehran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement.
Obviously the rivalry among Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia for leadership in the Middle East and the Islamic world will intensify. Growing cooperation with Russia will strengthen Tehran’s stand. Among other things, Russia enjoys a unique position to serve as an intermediary to resolve the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
It would be propitious to remember that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hosted both Saudi Arabian and Iranian foreign chiefs last August in the capacity of a mediator to make the parties discuss the Syrian crisis.
Speaking at a round table at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies in Moscow, Ali Akbar Velayati, a foreign policy adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that «Iran and Russia as neighboring countries have a long history and relations that are more than 500 years old and can be instrumental for creating peace, stability and tranquility in the world and on the regional level». Ali Akbar Velayati noted that «today we are witnessing valuable cooperation in the Middle East, western Asia, in Syria in combating terrorism».
While Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some other countries seek to create tensions, Russia and Iran work together to stabilize the situation and to combat international terrorism. Together the two countries constitute a pole in the multipolar world, a counterweight to the West and extremist forces in the Middle East. The visit of the Iranian Defense Minister to Russia is a milestone in development of the relationship between the two friendly nations united by common goals.
Tags: Iran Middle East Russia Shoigu

Russia Lances The Poison in Syria by Finian Cunningham

| 18.02.2016 | 08:00 Less than five months after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered military intervention in Syria, the five-year war has been completely transformed. Peace is far from certain as a tentative truce this week will attest. The conflict may even escalate. But what Russia’s intervention has certainly achieved is to squeeze out into the open the poisonous forces of regime change that have brought Syria to its dire condition.
Not only is the Syrian state pulled back from the brink of collapse into a terrorist-run failed entity, as befell «NATO liberated» Libya, but the Russian air strikes like a surgical operation have lanced the noxious inflammation festering in Syria. All sorts of poisons are now oozing and being exposed, primarily the nefarious roles played by Western powers, their regional allies, and the toxic lies propounded by the Western news media to cover for crimes against peace.
If it were not for the gravity of human suffering, the situation could be seen as almost comical, owing to the Western contortions to hide reality. Western governments and their servile media are falling over themselves with ever-changing stories and spin, accusing Russian military operations of all sorts of crimes: killing civilians, hitting hospitals, exacerbating the refugee crisis, targeting «moderate rebels», or «propping up a dictator».
This week, the Western media rushed to implicate Russia or the allied Syrian army in striking hospitals and schools in Azaz and Maarat al-Numan near the Turkish border. Some 11 people were killed at the latter facility, which is supported by the French medical group Doctors Without Borders (DWB). No evidence was presented to support the high-flown claims in the Western media accusing Russia. Russia denied any involvement, while the Syrian government said that the US-led forces carried out the attacks. Meanwhile, all week Turkish military were launching hundreds of artillery volleys across the border into the very area around Azaz where the hospitals were hit. But Western media did not question Turkey about its violation of Syrian sovereignty or the possibility that the errant strikes could have been inflicted by Turkish forces, perhaps even as a false flag to impute Russia.
Last week, the US military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren blamed Russia for air strikes on two hospitals in Aleppo City. Russian defense ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov responded by saying that Russian aircraft were not active in the city that day, Wednesday, and that Russian surveillance data in fact showed that two US warplanes had bombed Aleppo.
It is not clear who did strike the DWB-supported hospital in this week. But one established relevant fact is that it was the Americans who bombed a DWB hospital in Afghanistan last October, killing some 30 staff and patients. Also, in Yemen, the US-backed Saudi bombing coalition striking that country have routinely hit DWB and other hospitals on numerous dates over recent months, as even confirmed by DWB.
One other feat of narrative-contortion was given by US envoy to Syria Brett McGurk, who told Congressional lawmakers last week that Russia was «directly helping Islamic State terrorists» from its military intervention in Syria. Another warped spiel was that of US government-owned outlet Voice of America which claimed that Russia’s air strikes were pushing moderate rebels to join the ranks of extremist militia.
Any and all narratives are hastily churned out, it seems, to avoid the obvious, real story: Russia has saved Syria from a covert war of aggression waged by foreign powers who have been using terrorist proxies for the objective of regime change.
That’s it in a nutshell. Russia should be commended, if objective analysis were to prevail. But objective analysis must not prevail in Western media narratives because that would expose the toxic role of their governments and their own criminal complicity in distorting the conflict in Syria.
In a recent «backgrounder» on the Syrian war, here is how the British state-owned BBC «explained» what’s happening: «More than 250,000 Syrians have lost their lives in four-and-a-half years of armed conflict, which began with anti-government protests before escalating into a full-scale civil war. More than 11 million others have been forced from their homes as forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those opposed to his rule battle each other – as well as jihadist militants from so-called Islamic State».
The BBC tells it like a guileless fairytale, which in its simplistic telling is itself guileful. Note how in the BBC narrative the «jihadist militants» appear from nowhere as if they are an accidental walk-on sideshow; and how, as if by magic, «anti-government protests escalated into a full-scale civil war».
This is the kind of toxic nonsense that Western governments and their evidently dutiful news media have been pumping into the consciousness of their public’s minds for the past five years.
But now that Russia has entered the fray, the poison is oozing out from the Syrian wound.
The Turkish state of Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week is shelling Syrian territory in what any fair-minded person would describe as an act of aggression towards a sovereign country. Ankara is claiming it is attacking «terrorist» Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG. Not unrelated is the fact that the YPG last week inflicted heavy losses on the jihadist mercenaries that Ankara has been supporting, when the Kurds took over Menagh airbase.
NATO member Turkey has reportedly hit Kurdish villages in Aleppo Province causing civilian casualties, as well as Syrian army positions and Russia’s airbase in Latakia, whom the Kurdish YPG have been liaising with.
Saudi Arabia is sending fighter jets to the NATO airbase at Incirlik in Turkey’s Adana Province, allegedly to begin combat operations against the Islamic State terror group in Syria. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are readying a ground invasion of Syria, with the approval of the Pentagon.
If we step back from the commotion, it is patent that what is unfolding here is flagrant aggression, which the Syrian government has protested to the United Nations Security Council. But with the US, Britain and France – executive powers in the regime-change war on Syria – the UNSC will simply bury the legitimate protests from Damascus.

The unavoidable conclusion is that NATO – the US-led military alliance supposedly maintaining global security – has openly become a belligerent in the Syrian war. The obvious factor is that Russia’s intervention has cut off the Turkish-Saudi-NATO channels to the regime-change terrorist brigades inside Syria. Turkey’s murderous shoot-down of a Russian bomber jet last November – with apologetics from Washington and other NATO members – was the initial, desperate response to Russian success in thwarting the covert war.
The severance of the NATO mercenaries in Aleppo from their lifeline in Turkey is further evidence of Russia’s deep incision into the poison. Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s war mobilization and their tortuous pretexts is straining credulity and straining Western media efforts at trying to sanitize what is going on.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter may have publicly endorsed the plan for Saudi and Turkish military intervention in Syria under the laughable guise of «fighting terrorism». But it is also clear that Washington has become unnerved by the runaway train wreck it is riding with these two rogue states. France and Germany are also calling for Turkey to cease its cross-border shelling of Syria.
US Vice President Joe Biden, who only weeks ago was in Ankara chumming it up with the Erdogan regime, reportedly phoned Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu last weekend urging him to call off the artillery fire into Syria.
Voice of America reported: «US officials say there is little to be done to counter militarily the Russian-backed Assad offensive and they argue the vicious five-year-long Syrian civil war that has left upwards of 250,000 dead won’t be resolved by the clash of arms but through a negotiated political settlement».
US Secretary of State John Kerry desperately wants «peace talks» in Geneva because he knows the covert war is on a losing streak. Peace talk is just a cover for political wrangling for regime change. But the Russians are having none of it. Moscow is going to wipe out the foreign-backed mercenaries and stick to the principle of Syrian sovereignty for mapping the country’s political future. The US State Department is in a bind. It has backed a loser, but the impetuous, irrational Erdogan and Saudi clients are not giving up on their regime change fantasies.
Washington is being ensnared in its own toxic contradictions. It has led the criminal scheme for regime change in Syria, instrumented by Turkey and Saudi Arabia in weaponizing radical jihadist mercenaries. As the New York Times recently admitted: «The Russians have cut off may of the pathways the CIA has been using for a not-very-secret effort to arm rebel [that is, terrorist] groups».
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told the Munich Security Conference last weekend that Syria was in danger of escalating into all-out international war. His warnings were scoffed by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir as being alarmist – this from an advocate of foreign aggression on Syria!
Medvedev’s warnings are not at all alarmist. They are realist. Frighteningly realist. Russia’s intervention in Syria is demonstrating the complete lawlessness of Washington and its NATO and regional allies. Syria is not in the grip of a «civil war» as the Western media fabricate. Syria is in the crosshairs of foreign powers and their criminal project to destroy a country for their twisted geopolitical ambitions.
Before Russia’s operation, Syria was a shackled patient being amputated upon, injected with all kinds of poisons and generally being violated. The Western media were the orderlies who pulled a screen across this obscenity so that the public would not know. This vile charade can no longer be concealed. The US-led NATO, Arab, terrorist covert war on Syria is there for all to see, and it is largely down to Russia for exposing the despicable crime.
The truth is no guarantee of peace. But in order to eventually arrive at a peace, we at least need to learn of truth.

Günter Meyer auf 3sat aktuell zu Syrien - moderate Stimme