Russian planes, part of Moscow’s small air group in Syria, returning home to bases in the Russian Federation’s Southwest. Mission (truly) accomplished.

THE SAKER CHRONICLES
Deciphering the syntax of disinformation, manufactured wars, and russophobia

Vladimir Putin has just ordered the withdrawal of the Russian forces in Syria:

The key issue here is what criteria to use to measure “success”. And that, in turns, begs the question of what the Russians had hoped to achieve with their intervention in the first place. It turns out that Putin clearly and officially spelled out what the purpose of the Russian intervention was. On October 11th, he declared the following in an interview with Vladimir Soloviev on the TV channel Russia 1:

Our objective is to stabilize the legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise…

That’s it. He did not say that Russia would single-handedly change the course of the war, much less so win the war. And while some saw the Russian intervention as a total “game changer” which would mark the end of Daesh, I never believed that. Here is what I wrote exactly one day before Putin make the statement above:
…
Make no mistake here, the Russian force in Syria is a small one, at least for the time being, and it does not even remotely resemble what the rumors had predicted (…) There is no way that the very limited Russian intervention can really change the tide of the war, at least not by itself. Yes, I do insist that the Russian intervention is a very limited one. 12 SU-24M, 12 SU-25SM, 6 SU-34 and 4 SU-30SM are not a big force, not even backed by helicopters and cruise missiles. Yes, the Russian force has been very effective to relieve the pressure on the northwestern front and to allow for a Syrian Army counter-offensive, but that will not, by itself, end the war.

I was harshly criticized at that time for “minimizing” the scope and potential of the Russian operation, but I chose to ignore these criticisms since I knew that time would prove me right. Today’s declaration finally puts to rest the “most anticipated showdown” and other “game changer” theories.  At least I hope so 🙂

Виктор Бондарев Colonel General Viktor Bondarev, C-in-C of the Russian Aerospace Forces

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Russian intervention is a stunning success, that is indisputable.  Vladimir Putin and the Russian military ought to be particularly praised for having set goals fully commensurate with their real capabilities.  The Russians went in with a small force and they achieved limited goals: the legitimate authority of the Syrian government has been stabilized and the conditions for a political compromise have been created.  That is not an opinion, but the facts on the ground.  Not even the worst Putin-haters can dispute that.  Today’s declaration shows that the Russians are also sticking to their initial exit strategy and are now confident enough to withdraw their forces.  That is nothing short of superb (when is the last time the USA did that?).

Still, this leaves many unanswered questions.

A partition of Syria?

By withdrawing their forces the Russians could be giving the signal to the USA that they are free to have their “little victorious war” against Daesh.  But this could also be a trap.  If you consider the complete failure of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq, you could wonder why they would suddenly do so much better in Syria, especially considering that besides Daesh they might also come face to face with Iranians and Hezbollah fighters.  Furthermore, unlike the Russian Aerospace forces, the Americans will be committing ground forces and these have a much bigger tendency to get bogged down in long counter-insurgency operations.  If I was a US military advisor I would caution my commanders against a ground operation in Syria even if the Russians are gone.

SIDEBAR
BELOW: Some of Russia’s military assets deployed in Syria. It’s really a tiny force by US standards, but, grounded in great intel, extremely effective.
(CLICK ON IMAGES FOR BEST RESOLUTION.)

The Moskva missile cruiser, patrolling the Mediterranean within striking distance of Syrian battlefields.

Su-34, advanced tactical fighter/bomber.

Maintenance by the Russian support crews and pilots at Hmeimim air force base, near Latakia, the main hub for all major air strikes in the region.

A bombing run by the air force group.

The Moskva, a missile cruiser, is patrolling the Mediterranean within striking distance of Syrian battlefields.

Russia is using advanced weapons like the Pantsir-S1, a combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system which represents the latest air defence technology via phased array radars for both target acquisition and tracking.

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]till, what if the Americans are successful?  After all, Daesh has taken a bad beating and maybe they can be at least pushed out of Raqqa?  Maybe.  But if that happens then the question will become whether the Americans will try to achieve a de facto partition of Syria (de jure they cannot, since a UNSC Resolution specifically called for a unitary state).

Partitioning Syria has been, and still is, the longterm Israeli goal.  Considering the immense power of the Neocons today (nevermind a Hillary Presidency!) the chances that the US will be trying to partition Syria are immense.

And what if the Americans either fail or don’t even take the bait and stay out of Syria?  Does the Russian withdrawal not risk leaving eastern Syria in Daesh hands?  Would that not be just another de facto partition of the country?  Maybe.  Again, this is a real risk.

Finally, if the Turks and their Saudi allies do invade, that would almost certainly result in a partition of Syria as it is doubtful that the Syrian government could take on Daesh and Turkey and the Saudis at the same time.  Iran, of course, might, but this would result in a major escalation threatening the entire region.

I think that the risk of a partition of Syria is, alas, very real.  However, that being said, I would like to remind everybody that Russia does not have any moral or legal obligation to single-handedly preserve the territorial integrity of Syria.  In purely legal terms, this is an obligation of every single country on earth (because of the UN Charter and the recent UNSC Resolution) and in moral terms, this is first and foremost the obligation of the Syrian people themselves.  I think that it would be praiseworthy for Russia to do everything she can to prevent a partition of Syria,and I am confident that Russia will do her utmost, but that does not mean that this is a Russian obligation.

Future Russian options and operations?

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] want to draw your attention to the following words by Putin: “I consider the objectives that have been set for the Defense Ministry to be generally accomplished“.  For those unfamiliar with the context (evaluation of a military operation) this might sound like a total approval.  It is not.  In Russian military terminology “generally accomplished” is better than “satisfactory” and roughly equivalent to “good” but not “excellent”.  Putin is not saying that the performance of the Russian forces was less than perfect, but what he is saying is that the goals set out initially have not been fully/perfectly reached.  In other words, this leaves the door open for a “objectives completion” operation.

The second interesting moment in today’s statement is that Putin added that “to control the observation of ceasefire agreements in the region, Moscow will keep its Khmeimim airbase in Latakia province and a base at the port of Tartus“.

To me the combination of these two statements points to the high probability that the Russians are keeping their options open.  First, they will continue to supply the Syrians with hardware, training, intelligence and special operations and, second, they will retain the option of using military power if/when needed.  Not only will Russia retain the capability to strike from the Caspian, the Mediterranean or with her long-range bombers, but she is likely to leave enough pre-positioned supplies and personnel in Tartus, Khmeimim and elsewhere in Syria to be ready to intervene at very short notice (say in case of a Turkish attack towards Latakia, for example).

Finally, I am confident that when speaking to the (newly created) “moderate opposition” the Russians will carefully but regularly drop hints about the need to achieve a negotiated agreement with the Syrian government “lest the war resume again with a new intensity” (or something along these lines).  Keep in mind that, unlike their US counterparts, the Russian diplomats and intelligence officers truly understand their counterparts, not only because they are fluent in the local languages and understand the culture, but because the single important quality expected from a Russian diplomat or intelligence officer is the ability to understand the real, profound, motives of the person you are speaking to, to put yourself into his/her shoes.  I have had enough personal experience with Russian diplomats and intelligence officers to be sure that they are already patiently talking to all the key figures in positions of power inside the so-called “moderate resistance” to maximize the stake each one of them might have in a negotiated solution.  Oh sure, there will be beautiful speeches in the plenary meetings and conferences, but they key effort will be made in informal conversations happening in restaurants, back-rooms and various hotels where the Russians will make darn sure they convey to their interlocutors that he/she have a very personal interest in a successful negotiation.  There will be a lot of bargaining involving promises and hinted threats and while some will, of course, resist such “gentle pressures”, the cumulative effect of such informal meetings will be crucial.  And if that means preparing 500 different approaches and negotiation techniques for 500 different contacts, the Russians will put the manpower, time and effort to make it happen.

SIDEBAR 2

Washington has gone all out to slander Russia’s air campaign in Syria, but this time the Big Lie may backfire

EDITOR'S COMMENT ON WASHINGTON'S DISINFORMATION AGAINST RUSSIA—CLICK HERE

The campaign to defame the Russian intervention—painting it as a ruthless and criminal attack not just on ISIS, but on the non-existent "moderate Jihadis", and naturally the usual innocent civilians caught in the crossfire (not forgetting the demolition of priceless archaeological treasures that dot the Middle East), has reached new heights of hypocrisy, even by Washington's sociopathic standards.

---

All the photographs included in this section have one thing in common: they come from suspect sources (at best, i.e., the "White Hats") and are all intended to besmirch the name of Russia and her allies.

Although Palmyra has been in ISIS hands for almost two years, and these lunatics have systematically destroyed much of the treasures in the city, the photo below (without direct attribution) is being circulated to insinuate it was the Russians who did most of the damage.

The propaganda is professional grade. The pictures always assume an air of impartial authoritativeness. The official caption for this one is typical: "This image taken on Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2015 posted on the Twitter account of the Syria Civil Defence, also known as the White Helmets, a volunteer search and rescue group, shows the aftermath of an airstrike in Talbiseh, Syria. Russia on Wednesday carried out its first airstrikes in Syria in what President Vladimir Putin called a pre-emptive strike against the militants. Khaled Khoja, head of the Syrian National Council opposition group, said at the U.N. that Russian airstrikes in four areas, including Talbiseh, killed dozens of civilians, with children among the dead. (Syria Civil Defence via AP)." The caption does not warn the readers that the White Helmets is a propaganda shill created with funding from George Soros and the usual hidden sources. Plus the organization's name, the Syrian Civil Defence, makes it sound as something like the Red Cross or a respectable state or international agency. It is neither.

The classical heart-tugger: the children victims. They certainly exist, by the tens of thousands, and the pictures are eloquent, but the fate of these children was sealed by Washington's pathological criminality and not the Russian intervention to stop the insanity.

---

 

BELOW: Pieces of anti-Russian/pro-West cartoons and "activist art" like this abound in the Western mainstream and social media. Their origin is murky. This poster directly supports the US State Department's line —parroted by the media—that the Russians, for unfathomable and perverse reasons, are bent NOT on bombing ISIS, but supposedly "moderate" fighters and the usual gaggle of clueless innocents.

Q.E.D.

---

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]onnoisseurs of US-style propaganda will easily recognize the trademark memes by which Washington casts its nefarious spell on unsuspecting minds: the chorus of many voices giving credibility by sheer weight of numbers and repetition to outrageous accusations; the shots of demolished buildings, streets and entire towns making the region look like a pile of bloodstained rubble (which it has become in far too many places); and, the piece de resistance in any effort of this kind—the heart-tugging, inevitable pictures of children and women killed by the cruel bombs.

---

These are real tragedies (regardless of where the images were photographed or staged), and decent people are correct in being moved. Yet they are being manipulated, victims of a colossal imposture, a normative imposture without which the American plutocratic order would quickly begin to unravel. That's why in this and many other cases, the gross indecency rests with Washington's disinformers and presstitutes and their squalid puppet masters, the folks who make the wounds, the puny minority, the trillionaires—what is it really, 0.00001%?—who have no qualms using the suffering so wantonly created to advance their own insatiable self-serving agenda. Out of this pathetic spectacle, one thing emerges with blinding clarity: that never is the Big Lie more nauseating than when it wraps itself in the mantle of sanctimonious hypocrisy, and that is indeed the signature of US propaganda.

---

When the American disinformation machine is in high gear, working hard to deploy its enormous "soft power" across the globe, the hypocrisy drenches the consumer from every angle, and yet even a minimum of focused attention can rip it apart, revealing the truth. The key is always to look for the missing context.

---

In Syria, as is the case with all international war crimes, the most serious offense is what the Nuremberg tribunal found to merit the death penalty: the cold-blooded plotting and prosecution of manufactured wars, the so-called "wars of choice" concocted by America's leaders, of which the most disgusting example in recent memory is the assault on Iraq, waged by the Bush-Cheney regime, and since continued and expanded by the Obama team, as infected by the neocon imperialist vermin as the previous administrations. So the critical, contextual question passed over  or muddled up by all these putative journalists is this: Who, what forces started the Syrian civil war and why? Who benefits? Who sowed the wind for years until a fierce whirlwind broke out that now threatens to engulf much of humanity? The answer is as clear as it is irrefutable: The US plutocracy and their accomplices in the Gulf, Turkey, and the EU. That's who. And although the truth and the supporting evidence is so thick as to constitute by now a glut, until the counter-propagnda narrative gets the attention of at least 20% of the American people, the lies will go on and so will the industrial-scale murder project that passes for foreign policy in our thoroughly benighted America.—P. Greanville

Evaluation

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is way too early right now to give a categorical evaluation of the timing and consequences of the Russian withdrawal from Syria.  Let us also keep in mind that there is a lot we don’t know.  What we do know is that Sergei Lavrov has had an absolutely crazy schedule over the past month or so and that Russian diplomats have been holding intense negotiations with all the regional powers.  I am confident that the Russians planned their withdrawal at least as carefully as they planned their intervention and that they have left as many open options as possible.  By the way, the big advantage of a unilateral decision is that, unlike one taken as part of an agreement with other parties, it can be unilaterally rescinded too.  It took the Russians just days to launch their initial operation even though they had to execute it all in difficult conditions and under the cloak of secrecy.  How long would it take them to move back into Syria if needed?

When all is said and done, I simply trust Vladimir Putin.  No, no just because I am a Putin fanboy (which, of course, I am!), but because of his record of being right and taking difficult, even risky, decisions which eventually yielded Russia yet another unforeseen success.

Like any good chess player, Putin knows that one of the key factors in any war is timing and so far Putin has timed every move superbly.  Yes, there were times in the past when I got really worried about what looked to me as either too much waiting or as dangerous risk-taking, but every single time my fears ended up being unfounded.  And yes, I can easily muster up a long list of potentially catastrophic scenarios for Syria, but I think that this would only make sense if Putin had, like Obama, a long and impressive list of failures, disasters, miscalculations, [betrayals], and embarrassing defeats on his record.  But he does not.  In fact, what I see is an amazing list of successes achieved against very difficult odds.  And they key to Putin’s success might well be that he is a hardcore realist.

Russia is still weak.  Yes, she is stronger than in the past and she is rising up very fast, but she still is weak, especially in comparison to the still immense AngloZionist Empire whose resources simply dwarf Russia’s in most categories.  However, this comparative weakness also forces the Kremlin to be very careful.  When an empire is rich and powerful being arrogant and over-estimating your own capabilities is not nearly as bad as when a much weaker country does it.  Just look at the USA under Obama: they went from one humiliating and costly defeat to another – yet they are still here and still powerful, almost as powerful as they used to be 10 years ago.  While in the long run the kind of hubris and gross incompetence we nowadays observe in US decision-makers will result in the inevitable collapse of the Empire, in the medium to short term there is no truly painful price to pay for failure.  Just one example: just think of the US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They are absolute and total failures, abject disasters of incalculable magnitude.  They will go down in history as amongst the worst foreign policy failures ever.  And yet, walking around in downtown New York or San Fransisco you would never think that you are visiting a country which just lost two major and long wars.

Russia does not have such a “luxury of power”, she has to make every bit count and she has to plan each move with utmost precision.  Just like a tightrope walker with no safety harness, Putin knows that a single misstep can have catastrophic consequences.

To withdraw the bulk of the Russian military task force in Syria right now is a gutsy and potentially risky move for sure, but I am confident that it is also the right one.  But only time will tell if my confidence is warranted or not.

APPENDIX
WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIAN MILITARY: SOUTHFRONT REPORT

RECOMMENDED

The Saker (2015-11-17). THE ESSENTIAL SAKER: from the trenches of the  emerging multipolar world (Kindle Locations 11542-11557). Nimble Books LLC. Kindle Edition.

Theme photo: After a battle, Soviet soldiers inspect Nazi weapons and artifacts in 1941. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

—DISPATCHES FROM ERIC ZUESSE—

Eva Bartlett, an independent journalist who is the first Western reporter who has travelled through the areas of Syria that have been freed from jihadist control by the Syrian government with Russian air-support, is reporting, at the sott.net website, that everyone she speaks with has stories of horror to tell, and that in many instances the jihadists who were inflicting the horrors were U.S.-armed and backed, basically supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey — often “al-Nusra,” the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. As Seymour Hersh and others have reported, the U.S. has worked with the Sauds, Qatar, and Turkey, to get men and weapons to al-Nusra.

 

Christians were caught and killed by ISIS in Libya. They have done the same in Iraq and Syria to any and all creeds, except Sunnis, and many of those were murdered for failing to pass the “purity test.” The ISIS lunatics are ruthless killers. This is the horrible Frankenstein created by Washington and its accomplices in the region.

“The terrorists attacked us, terrorists from Turkey, from Chechnya, and from Arab and other foreign countries. They had tanks and guns, like an army, just like an army. [The Sauds had bought those from the U.S.; the equipment is sent into Syria via Turkey.] For 73 days we were surrounded in the citadel of Harem. They hit us with all kinds of weapons. We had women and children with us. They showed no mercy. When they caught any of us, they slaughtered him, and then send his head back to us. They killed over 100 people, and kidnapped around 150… children, civilians, soldiers. Until now, we don’t know what’s happened to them,” he said.

---

 

ISIS terrorist (of the real kind) beheading a prisoner. A trail of unmatched horrors.

ISIS mass execution of Syrian soldiers at Palmyra. One of the many ghastly crimes committed by this revolting entity.

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

By Prof. Tim Anderson
It should be clear by now that every single anti-government armed group in Syria has been created by Washington and its allies. Several senior US officials have admitted the fact. Regime change has always been the goal.

Anderson

The Geneva process over Syria is in many respects different, because it is a charade. The NATO and Gulf monarchy sponsors pretend to support Syrian ‘opposition’ groups and pretend to fight the same extremist groups they created.

Yet the dangers are very real because the Saudis and Turkey might react unpredictably, faced with the failure of their five year project to carve up Syria. Both countries have threatened to invade Syria, to defend their ‘assets’ from inevitable defeat from the powerful alliance Syria has forged with Russia, Iran, Iraq and the better party of Lebanon.

It should be clear by now that every single anti-government armed group in Syria has been created by Washington and its allies. Several senior US officials have admitted the fact. Regime change has always been the goal. Nevertheless, the charade of a ‘War on ISIS’ goes on, with a compliant western media unwilling to point out that ‘the emperor has no clothes’.

Geneva 3 has actually brought some results. First, none of the NATO-backed ‘opposition’ groups managed to show a credible face. Second, and more importantly, the US and Russia kept talking and actually developed another de-escalation plan. It is not conclusive but it is encouraging.

The ‘moderate rebel’ masks are down, we now know who they are: the internationally proscribed terrorist group Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and its long term Salafist allies Jaysh al Islam (the Army of Islam) and Ahrar as Sham. The latter two are the remnants of the Syrian Salafist groups. In northern Syria they are also welded together by Turkey and the Saudis into the very non-moderate-sounding Jaysh al Fatah (the Army of Conquest).

These extremist groups represent very few in Syria, as MINT Press journalist Mnar Muhawesh pointed out in her editorial piece ‘The Syrian Opposition’s NATO Sponsored Apocalyptic Vision For Syria’: In ideology they are no different to ISIS.

(See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvq0JmzqR_8).

It may be stating the obvious to say that al Qaeda groups have poor negotiating skills. In any event, they proved it in Geneva. Losing on the battlefield they demanded capitulation in Geneva, then stormed out.

Foreign backed terrorists aside, who are the real Syrian opposition?

Firstly, they are the groups that created the 2005 Damascus Declaration but who sided with the state and the army in early 2011, when the Salafist insurrection hijacked the reform demonstrations.

Some of them like Haytham Manna and former minister Qadri Jamil appeared in Geneva. Others like the powerful Syrian Social National Party (SSNP) backed Bashar al Assad’s government, back in 2011.

Still others sat on the sidelines, frustrated at the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent hijacking of the reform movement. Sharmine Narwani’s piece at RT ‘Will Geneva talks lead right back to Assad’s 2011 reforms?’ illustrates this very well. As the Damascus Declaration made plain, most of the Syrian opposition rejected both foreign sponsorship and violent attacks on the state.

Second are the Syrian Kurds, who were open to foreign assistance but rejected attacks on the Syrian Army and state. They have received most of their arms from Damascus. Preferring to side with the Syrian Army than the Salafists, their presence in Geneva was not tolerated by Erdogan or his clients.

Jihadist with powerful anti-tank rocket launcher almost certainly procured by the CIA on the international arms market. (The M79 OSA is an effective anti-armor rocket system manufactured in the former Yugoslavia.) Washington and its allies have been channeling weapons to the lunatics and insurgents for years, primarily via Turkey and Jordan.

That left Russia and the USA to discuss their supposed common goals (destroying terrorists) while Erdogan and the Saudis seethed. The aims of the two big powers are worlds apart. Hat difference is seen in the loss of Washington’s proxies in Syria in face of the rise of the 4+1 (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah).

That shift, in turn, threatens to derail the Bush plan for a ‘New Middle East’. The US wanted to control the entire region, now it faces losing it all.

Russia for its part has pursued its own interests in the region, backing its allies in accordance with international law. Its use of air power in Syria followed the Syria-Iran-Iraq-Hezbollah accord on ground power forces. That is the force currently prevailing on Syrian soil.

The good news is that, despite these widely differing aims, Washington and Moscow have kept talking and managed a provisional agreement at Geneva, with three heads.

The first agreement is over humanitarian aid, which faces serious obstacles due to the series of sieges taking place. Some of these are al Qaeda groups’ sieges, such as that on Foua and Kafraya in the north; but increasingly they are becoming Syrian Army sieges on al Qaeda fighters who hole up in towns and cities, such as Madaya and Eastern Aleppo. Most ground aid is going in through the Government-supervised Syria Arab Red Crescent, but air drops are being organised for Deir eZorr, and some other places.

Second, there is a political process which (it has been agreed) must be exclusively between Syrians, unconditional and inclusive. Contrary to many outside reports, there is not yet any framework for this, nor plans for early elections. The Syrian position, backed by Russia, is that the Syrian constitution (and the legally mandated schedule of elections) prevails until the Syrian people vote to change it.

Finally the agreement on ‘cessation of hostilities’, due almost immediately, has a task force to oversee the details. This ceasefire does not apply to any group identified by the UN Security Council as a terrorist group. That immediately rules out ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra. The major obstacle here is that Russia wants Jaysh al Islam and Ahrar as Sham (which have both collaborated with al Nusra for many years) added to the UNSC list. If Washington agrees to this, they will virtually abandon their ‘moderate rebel’ option. There is no other force of substance on the ground. The Saudis and Erdogan would be furious.

How will the US manage these tensions? The Obama administration has always approached the Syrian conflict in an arms-length way, reminiscent of the CIA’s ‘plausible deniability’ over its death squads in Latin America. But credibility problems have grown and Washington does seem more concerned at finding a way out rather than risking a new desperate gambit. That would certainly lead to serious escalation, and without any guarantee of success.

Would Washington allow Erdogan and the Saudis to initiate a major escalation, without US approval? I think not. Obama resisted Saudi and Israeli provocations, when the Iran deal was imminent. Even Bush could not be provoked into a confrontation with Russia, when invited by Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili.

For its part, Russia is well prepared for a provocation across the Turkish border. Logic suggests that the losers must lose. But this is a dangerous time.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof. Tim Anderson, Global Research, 2016

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

By Gilbert Doctorow
Simulpost with The Russophile

Yesterday’s evening news in Russia was dominated by one story: the announcement by Vladimir Putin on national television that the United and Russia had concluded an agreement to facilitate the start and supervise the implementation of a ceasefire in Syria between government and opposition forces, set to begin on 27 February. The agreement was sealed by a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama that took place shortly before the broadcast. Putin’s televised address was less than 10 minutes long and it has been rebroadcast in entirety on state television at hourly intervals. Understandably, it has been the number one topic in the Russian print media this morning.

Since political correctness in Russia barred mention of the President’s demeanor in his broadcast, I will say what went unsaid: Putin looked stressed, downcast, without his characteristic buoyancy.

Indeed there can be no doubt that many Russians were less than delighted by this news, which interrupts the dramatic winning streak of the Syrian Army under the protection of Russian airpower, and likely brings their ground operations to a halt before they complete the liberation of Aleppo, the second largest city in the country which would give Bashar al-Assad control of most of the population of his country even if large swathes of territory to the east in the direction of Iraq remain in jihadist hands. Moreover, Aleppo, with its northern suburbs, is key to sealing the paths of incursion into Syria from neighboring Turkey and cutting off the jihadists from their main bases of supply.

However, one would be seriously mistaken in reading disappointment into Vladimir Putin’s facial expressions last night.  They may be attributed to something quite different: what must have been his first experiment with delivery of a talk using a teleprompter.  In fact, Putin has always spoken either from a written text that he holds before himself at the lectern or he has spoken extemporaneously.   It will take some practice before he attains the unaffected radiance of a Barack Obama before the cameras when reading from a teleprompter.

Be that as it may, Putin’s address carried several important points. He described in some detail the architecture of the ceasefire agreed with the Americans. The deal foresees liaison of US-Russian military forces to determine where the opposing forces that are clients of the two countries are located on the ground as of the ceasefire’s coming into force, this to prevent any abuse that would give one or another side the possibility of gaining unilateral advantage, and also to ensure that Russia’s continued bombing raids against the Islamic State, allowed under the agreement, do not run afoul of American-protected forces. It also foresees a hot line between the brokers of this ceasefire to deal with problems as they occur.  In fact, these were Russian proposals presented to the US-led coalition in Syria from the very start of the Russian air intervention at the end of September, proposals that were either ignored or ridiculed by the United States and its allies ever since.

This important news has been met with an astonishing blackout by some of the leading media in the US and Germany.

Putin also used the speech to drive home a core message from his vision of international relations: that this agreement in Syria, which enjoys the full backing of the United Nations and adheres to the terms of the UN Charter, should be seen as a model for settlement of the kinds of conflicts that for the past two decades have been tackled by (US-led) coalitions acting outside the rules of international law and in contravention of the UN Charter. He named in particular, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan.

It stands to reason that the US-Russian agreement announced in a joint communique yesterday and which was the subject of Vladimir Putin’s televised address would be considered ‘breaking news’ by all major news organizations globally given the way eighty or more countries have been drawn into the Syrian civil war in one way or another.  In the short survey of the press which follows, let us see to what extent this simple journalistic rule has been followed in Europe and America.

As of 9.00 am Central European Time today, 23 February, not one of the U.S. newspapers of record makes any mention in its online editions of the US-Russian communique on a ceasefire in Syria: not The New York Times, not The Washington Post, not The Wall Street Journal.  And even a leader in instant, 24-hour global communications like Bloomberg.com is totally silent about the deal.

A couple of tentative working explanations may be put forward. First, the time difference between Russia and the U.S. East Coast might be thought to play a role.  But in this case, the U.S. journalists and their editors had 6 hours more than their European peers to get their arms around the story. Yet, almost all leading European press nonetheless did find the time and the space to post articles on the agreement, as we shall see.

When I say ‘almost’ about the European print media, I have in mind one very significant exception that matches the U.S. 1:1, namely Germany. This morning there was absolutely no mention of the US-Russian deal on Syria in Die Welt, Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Nothing.

As a working hypothesis, I suggest the explanation that has been appropriate in similar cases of news blackouts that I have monitored. In particular, there was no news in US media for several days following the Russian Ministry of Defense’s news conference  at the start of December 2015 when the Russians set out unwelcome and inconvenient proofs of Turkish involvement in financing ISIL through its massive illicit oil purchases.  That news like this news of the US-Russian agreement was at odds with the official type-casting of Russia as the enemy and with Vladimir Putin regularly vilified in vicious personal attacks. For these reasons, the media waits for signals from on high before reacting.

“The speed and depth of Wintour’s article, written and posted within a few hours of Putin’s televised address shows that the real issue driving mainstream news coverage in the USA and in Europe has been journalistic independence or the absence of it.”

As a puppet of Washington, Germany’s Merkel has shown herself to be a treacherous and dangerous politician. [CC BY by indeedous]

In Germany today, news of the Russian-American deal is unwelcome because it challenges directly the entire recent stance of Chancellor Angela Merkel with respect to Russia, with respect to the migrant crisis that is threatening her hold on power.  In recent weeks Merkel has denounced Russia for being the cause of the mass migration of refugees from Syria to Europe due to its support from al-Assad in his civil war and due to the recent bombing campaign. She has insisted that Turkey is the cure for as opposed to the source of the crisis, siding with Turkish President Erdogan against Russia ever since the downing of the Russian military jet by Turkish forces. Moreover, she has been pressing her EU colleagues to extend large financial grants to Turkey to create conditions that keep the Syrian refugees on its soil, rather than on the move to Europe.  This is a policy which ignores who is on the move and why. And the countdown is underway for key state elections in mid-March that may bear on the viability of the coalition government Merkel heads.  News commentary on the pending ceasefire brokered jointly by the U.S. and Russia will unavoidably be construed in Germany as politically motivated by one or another of the parties standing for imminent elections.Even Poland, which has no fondness for Russia, saw fit to do better than the Germans.  The Gazeta Wyborcza this morning splashed across its home page a picture of Lech Walesa and the revelations of how the former president was likely a police informer for much of his life. And yet the paper also posted a small notice on the home page about Vladimir Putin’s televised address which takes you to an ‘inside’ article on the pending ceasefire in Syria. The report is dry but informative.

Meanwhile, In France both leading centrist, Le Monde and Le Figaro, presented  articles on the ceasefire announcement in their morning editions. They are factual and almost impartial. They do not go into the question of the basis for American-Russian cooperation. Instead, they weigh the possibilities of the deal’s working given the failure of the latest conference of the International Syrian Support Group in Munich to produce results on the ground.

In the United Kingdom, the Times of London and the tabloid Daily Mirror both had no coverage and The Financial Times had coverage similar in nature to the French dailies. Meanwhile, The Guardian was odd man out with an in-depth article by Patrick Wintour, their Diplomatic Editor, posted today at 1.00 am British time.

Wintour stresses the key role of the United States and Russia as brokers and guarantors of the pending ceasefire, which he expects will make all the difference in its viability. He describes in full the implementation arrangements agreed between them.

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne interesting feature of the Wintour’s article is that it is accompanied by a click-on one minute video excerpt from Vladimir Putin’s televised address with English subtitles. The editors have cleverly chosen precisely the most meaty section of Putin’s presentation, his description of the architecture of implementation agreed with the Americans.

The second remarkable point in Wintour is his choice of words to describe what has just transpired:  an “agreement brokered between the two superpowers….”   In his many recent public appearances, Vladimir Putin has explicitly denied Russia’s aspirations to be reckoned as a superpower.  However, the reality of the present situation in Syria speaks for itself to savvy observers.

The speed and depth of Wintour’s article, written and posted within a few hours of Putin’s televised address shows that the real issue driving mainstream news coverage in the USA and in Europe has been journalistic independence or the absence of it.

In this regard, it bears mention that The Guardian has had above-average volume of coverage of Russia-related issues ever since the start of the West-Russia confrontation two years ago. Its reporters and reports have never fit a clear mold as regards blame allocated to the parties in conflict.

Its greater claim to attention in this period came from its defense of Edward Snowden and participation in the publication of his trove of documents on US intelligence abuses. As Wikipedia notes, “The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the 2014 British Press Awards, for its reporting on government surveillance.”

The Guardian had a long tradition as the favorite read of British educators and intellectuals in its former incarnation as The Manchester Guardian. Its independence and daring is partly explained by its financing from a trust. Today it is one of the few major world newspapers to provide unlimited unpaid access to its news and features. This may explain why The Guardian was cited in October 2014 as having the fifth most widely read online edition in the world, with 42.6 million readers.

---

G. Doctorow is the European Coordinator, American Committee for East West Accord, Ltd. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

THE WEST’S GREAT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA
Syria, the Ukraine, and other battlefields are just proxy conflicts. The object is the defeat and destruction of Russia as an independent world power.

 SIMULTANEOUSLY ON TGP, UNZ REVIEW AND THE SAKER

The recent agreement between the USA and Russia really solves nothing, it does not even end the war, and both sides are expressing a great deal of caution about its future implementation. And yet, this is a huge victory for Russia. While it is too early to say that “the Russians won in Syria”, I think that it is now fair to say that the Russian position on Syria has won. Here is why:

First: nobody is suggesting anymore that Assad will be ousted or Damascus taken. That, in turn, means that everybody has now recognized that the Syrian Arab Republic, backed by Russia, has successfully repelled the aggression of the huge coalition the AngloZionists built to overthrow Assad.

Second: Russia has forced the UNSC and the USA to admit that the vast majority of those who fight Assad today are terrorists. Of course, this is not how this was declared, but if you look at the organizations which the UNSC has already declared as ‘terrorists’ then you already have an absolute majority of the anti-Assad forces. This means that the moral and legal legitimacy of the anti-Assad forces lies in tatters.

Third: regardless of what Erdogan does actually try to do next, there are now clear signs that neither NATO, nor the EU nor even the Turkish high military command want a war with Russia. And that means that Erdogan’s gamble has not paid off and that his entire Syria policy is now comprehensively dead. Keep in mind that following the treacherous attack on the Russian Su-24 the Kremlin made it a policy goal to “Saakashvilize” Erdogan. This goal is now almost reached and Erdogan’s future looks very, very bleak: everybody ( except maybe the Saudis) is sick and tired of this maniac. The best thing that could happen to Turkey now would be for the military to get rid of Erdogan and to replace him with somebody willing to repair all the damage he did.

Russian diplomacy is once again supported by unsurpassed strategic power. The rebirth of Russia’s highly creative aerospace industry in record time is one of the great achievements of this extraordinary nation.

Fourth: all the threats to impose a no-fly zone or to occupy Syria have now been invalidated by an agreement which basically declares that anybody not respecting the cease-fire is a legitimate target for engagement and destruction.

Fifth: the USA had to accept the humiliation of having to agree to all of the Russian terms for the current ceasefire. Yes, of course, the USA can, and probably will, try renege on part, or all, of this agreement, but the precedent has been set and it will be very hard, if not impossible, for the USA to openly return to the pre-2016 policies.

Sixth: does anybody still remember the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton about Syria and Russia? Her position was crystal xclear: Assad must go and those who support him “punished”. Even after the Russian military offensive began, the US refused to tell the Russians where the “good terrorists” were and where the “bad terrorists” were. No exchange of information with Russians was acceptable. Now the Americans had to agree to work with the Russians on a map of Syria designating where the participants of the ceasefire were and where those who were not included in the ceasefire were deployed. In other words, the US will now have to share with Russia all the info it previously refused to share and work with the Russians on a daily basis.

“A tiny Russian military contingent has basically completely neutralized the plans of an entire worldwide Empire. That, in itself, is an amazing achievement…”

Seventh: Russia has basically co-opted the so-called “Free Syrian Army”. How? By basically forcing every single faction in Syria to choose between one of two possible statuses: being a ‘terrorist’ (and a fair target for destruction) or being a participant in a political process entirely designed by Russia. The Russians are now even opening a “Truce Center” at the Khmeimin airbase near Latakia which will now “render assistance” to all the parties to the ceasefire.

Russian airmen in Syria: Never so few.

 

This is, for the time being, mainly a diplomatic victory, of course, but a Russian diplomatic victory made possible by a Russian military victory. A tiny Russian military contingent has basically completely neutralized the plans of an entire worldwide Empire. That, in itself, is an amazing achievement.

The other big winners here are, in my opinion, the Kurds who, according to British officials, appear to be coordinating their military operations with the Syrian army and the Russian Aerospace Forces and who now might well even achieve their dreams of joining the Iraqi and Syria regions of Kurdistan. Which is just about the worst nightmare for the Turks come true, hence the still remaining risk of a Turkish military operation ostensibly to create a ‘buffer zone’ but really to save face. That kind of intervention will remain a possibility for as long as the Turks can continue to hope to commit aggression against their neighbors under the protection of NATO and the USA. And that ain’t gonna change anytime in the future.

And then there are the Saudis. They are very, very angry. They are angry to the point of making not so subtle threats about using nuclear weapons to deal with their adversaries. See for yourself:

Actually, since Pakistan got The Bomb, I would not dismiss any Saudi claims of having a number of nuclear devices. But what does that really mean?

Absolutely nothing.

It is quite possible that the Saudis have the know-how for a nuclear device. And it is quite possible that they even got their hands on enough nuclear materials for a few bombs. They might even have succeeded in purchasing a few nuclear devices from the Pakistanis or Israelis. But even if that is true, the reality is that the Saudis don’t even have the military capability to deal with the poorest Arab country on the planet (Yemen) and that they most definitely don’t have the military capability to engage their nuclear devices in a way which would allow them to achieve any kind of military advantage. After all, what are we talking about here? Using nuclear weapons against the Syrian military? Against Iran? Against Russia? This is absolutely ridiculous. The reality is that whatever nuclear capabilities the Saudis might or might not have, the fact that they would make nuclear threats is just a sign of weakness and fear, not a sign of strength. This is why nobody is impressed by these statement, least of all the intended targets of such threats.

S-300 battery. Russia’s advances in weaponized rocketry have allowed for a neutralization of the West’s accustomed air superiority.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hile it is quite true that the latest agreement between the USA and Russia does not mark the end of the war in Syria, it is a turning point, a kind of a Minsk-2 Agreement which nobody really wants to comply with, but which seals the defeat of the AngloZionist plans in Syria as much as Minsk-2 meant the defeat of the Ukronazi dream.

Time is now on the Russian/Syrian side. With each passing day the Russian task force in Syria will become more powerful, as will the Syrian Armed Forces. That, by itself, will not be enough to defeat Daesh, and we can expect a stiff resistance from the Takfiri crazies, but the writing is on the wall for all to see: the more the Russians and the Americans become directly and jointly involved, the less Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be able to determine the outcome of the war. In other words, while this is far from being the end of Daesh, it is the beginning of the end for Daesh in Syria.

Yet again the nay-sayers and Putin-haters have been proven wrong. To be honest, so have I: I would never have guessed that the Russians could have achieved so much with so little and yet they did pull off this extremely dangerous gamble and they won. Only an extremely skillful combination of military, economic, diplomatic and political means could have yielded such a remarkable result but Putin, apparently, found this perfect mix. The path ahead remains extremely dangerous, for sure, but the outcome of the 20 week Russian military intervention in Syria is nothing short of remarkable.

RECOMMENDED:
 THE ESSENTIAL SAKER: from the trenches of the  emerging multipolar world (Kindle Locations 11542-11557). Nimble Books LLC. Kindle Edition.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable