It’s Cameron, not Corbyn, who is the terrorist appeaser

=By= SIMON JENKINS
SPOTTER: MIKE FAUKNER

“If the prime minister were really concerned about Isis, he’d come up with a coherent military strategy…”

Cameron spreading his special brand of manure. The man is compelled to burnish his NATO criminal credentials.

Prime minister David Cameron’s argument in the Commons for permission to bomb Syria was not based on any new or coherent strategy. As he himself pointed out, it merely follows the logic of a previous vote to bomb Iraq. Even so, like Tony Blair before the Iraq invasion of 2003, he had to rely on abusing his opponents, scaring the public and disseminating dubious intelligence.

Nothing so undermined the prime minister’s plausibility yesterday as his refusal simply and briskly to withdraw the smear that his opponents were “terrorist sympathisers”. It suggested a man so nervous of his case as to be unable to give any quarter. It also opened him to the counter-smear, that his own relentless deployment of the politics of fear makes him terrorism’s “useful idiot”.

Cameron’s case for dropping bombs on Syria – it hardly constitutes “going to war” – emerges from two previous decisions. The first was the invasion of Iraq and the failure to install stability and democracy in the aftermath. American and British policy at the time contributed directly to the rise of Islamic State, by disbanding the Republican Guard and then humiliating the Sunni population. That guard now supplies Isis with the effective core of its army, the same troops who under Saddam would have kept Isis ruthlessly in check.

The second decision was last year to join a raggle-taggle coalition of the half-willing in bombing Isis targets in northern Iraq. The strongest part of Cameron’s argument was that the Commons overwhelmingly backed that coalition. Now [that] the targets had spread into Syria it made no sense to stop at the border. Britain was already supplying intelligence and drone bombing in Syria; a few more sorties by the RAF to placate our French allies would hardly make much difference.

UK parliament votes 397-223 to support airstrikes in Syria

[dropcap]Y[/dropcap]et the objection to those decisions remains with equal force today. Cameron yesterday point-blank refused to accept the logic of what he claims to be doing, which is “defeating Isis”. Britain will bomb Isis in Syria, but will not support the only factor that every military expert agrees can make such bombing effective. That is to be in support of a specific ground offensive over the territory bombed.

The government’s Joint Intelligence Committee claims to have mustered an army of “70,000 moderates … based on detailed analysis updated daily”. The attempt of the deputy chief of the defence staff, General Messenger, to substantiate that army before the Commons defence committee on Tuesday was embarrassing. The phantom army sounds like another “dodgy dossier” from the same people that brought us Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Sir John Chilcot might perhaps like to stall his Iraq inquiry to embrace its reprise in Syria.

Speaker after speaker in the Commons yesterday asked how bombing Syria would make Britain’s streets one jot safer. The opposite has to be the case. The thesis is an insult to the intelligence.

The role of airstrikes in modern war has barely advanced since the days of Bomber Harris. Bombs destroy buildings and equipment and kill people. They cannot take or hold territory. They cannot secure victory, let alone peace and prosperity.

Air power can be effective in battlefield support for determined ground troops. This may have been the case in Libya and in aiding the Kurdish cause against Isis in Iraq at present. It may have helped contain Isis from straying into non-Sunni territory round Baghdad. But in general it is pointless if not followed up on the ground. Whatever is “degraded” can always be regraded, as Britain showed after the Blitz.

Cameron has no ground troops in Syria – his own or anyone else’s. He has been captivated, like so many prime ministers before him, by the glamour of the air lobby, for whom ground troops are an embarrassing side issue.

The trouble for Cameron in Syria is that the only ground troops worth the name belong not to the joint intelligence committee’s phantom army but to President Assad, whom Cameron wants to topple. In support of Assad are Iran and Russia, from whom Cameron does everything to distance himself.

In other words, the key component of British strategy lies with three potential allies who are anathema. In the light of this we are surely entitled to ask: just how serious is Cameron in wanting to defeat Isis and remove the “existential” threat to Britain? Cameron emerges not as a terrorist sympathiser, but certainly as a terrorist appeaser.

In the three wars fought this century by British governments against Muslim states – Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – the goals were to topple incumbents or to eradicate supposed threats to Britain. In each of these cases the resulting wars were disastrous for the countries concerned.

A threat of a terrorist incident is not an existential threat to a state. The relentless “nationalisation” of criminal acts, however motivated and however appalling, does not constitute a cause for war. To do so degrades the language of war and aids the terrorist enemy.

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]ameron, if he really believes the threat to Britain’s “values and way of life” is as serious as he says, owes it to the British people to defend them against it. But where are the marines, the Grenadiers, the Blues and Royals? Where are the billions spent each year on defence? Where is the leadership to deploy this awesome power when the threat is so grave?

In the Commons yesterday Cameron admitted that his strategy is “a long-term objective”. He implied he just wants to be seen helping the Americans and the French. He wants to be seen doing something. His speech was pure mission creep: “Oh well, we are doing what we are doing already, so let’s do a bit more.”

Isis will one day disintegrate, as the Taliban would have disintegrated had they been left alone in 2001. It will disintegrate through attrition on the ground, from local forces fighting it to a standstill. That day will only be postponed by its being cast as the global champion of militant Islam.

The British government’s strategy is both incoherent and inconsistent with the declared threat to the British people. So it does what it always does when it can’t think what to do. It bombs.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard and chaired the National Trust. His recent books include England's Hundred Best Views, and Mission Accomplished? The Crisis of International Intervention.

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?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

The Islamic State: Is History Rhyming?

By Felix Imonti
Geopolitical Monitor | First iteration: November 26, 2014

ISIS fighters in a well circulated photo.

ISIS fighters in a well circulated propaganda photo.

The Islamic State has a library of ancient myths and prophecies it uses to lure warriors in a march towards the thirteenth century, where they will defeat the infidels in a great final battle in northern Syria. Whether they die and are rewarded with paradise or survive to enjoy the coming Utopia under divine rule, they will be the victors; and this is the appeal of the Islamic State.

On the 4th of July, Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri, alias Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi took center stage in the Grand Mosque in Mosul for the first time as Caliph Ibrahim, the Emir of the Faithful in the Islamic State. He wore the black robes of the Abbasids Caliphate that reigned from 750 to 1258.

Muslims throughout the world were commanded to move to the caliphate and pledge their allegiance to Caliph Ibrahim. He had been appointed by the Shura Council that established the caliphate and had acceded to their wishes to assume the role of the Successor of Mohammad.

Abu Mohammed Adnani, a spokesman for Islamic State, announced to Muslims worldwide in a commentary titled “The Promise of God” that other organizations would have to acknowledge the supremacy of Caliph Ibrahim or face the wrath of the IS. Caliph Ibrahim declared that the Islamic State would encompass in five years the lands from India to Southern Europe. That would include Mullah Omar’s caliphate in Afghanistan, which has links to Al-Qaeda. Neither organization has pledged its allegiance to Abu Bakr Baghdadi. The head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and many other Islamic scholars are also rejecting the demands of Abu Bakr Baghdadi to acknowledge his supremacy, but not the Islamic principles being promoted and not the idea of a caliphate.

The Dictates of History

Caliph Ibrahim (above) offers believers a journey back eight centuries to the time of the Abbasids Caliphate when Islam was spreading far afield. It is that lost glory that he is trying to resurrect and impose upon the world. In keeping with the principles of that distant time, Christians and Jews are to be given the opportunity to convert, flee, or to pay a tax and live as second class citizens. All others are to be put to the sword, their property seized, and their wives and daughters violated and forced into slavery. Everything is spelled out clearly in the Quran and in the “Majmu’ al-Fatawa” that was written by Sheikh Taqi ibn Taymiyyah after the fall of the Abbisids Caliphate. It is this doctrine that Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri studied as a doctoral student in Islamic studies at the Islamic University in Baghdad. The doctrine is a part of the curriculum at Saudi-financed, Salafi-oriented madrasas.

This is why the Islamic State does not hesitate to display the mass killing of prisoners or speak openly of enslaving Yazidi women and others. Their practices were approved thirteen centuries ago and are supported by other Salafists. Time has not modified those ancient teachings.

Believers are being offered a Utopian promise and the opportunity to reap revenge upon all of those infidels and false Muslims who have suppressed righteous Muslims throughout the world and over the centuries. “Revenge, revenge, revenge,” is the battle cry; and it has all been heard before.

Sheikh Wahhab Is Still Speaking

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]y whatever name we call him, the words of the new self-proclaimed caliph are taken straight out of the mouth of Shaikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who walked this road of revolution and reform through much of the eighteenth century. Because Caliph Ibrahim draws upon historical sources, he can be replaced with another candidate by the Shura Council if the need arises, thus representing an institutionalized succession procedure.

Sheikh Wahhab was a fundamentalist that rejected what he saw as the corrupting of the Faith. The practices of many Bedouins of praying to saints, giving a spiritual meaning to particular places, celebrating the birthday of Muhammad, and constructing monuments were all viewed as idolatry. True believers accept only God and his word.

The Sheikh invoked the practice of Takfir. The rule states that any Muslim who fails to uphold the Faith should be put to the sword, his property seized, and his wives and daughters violated. Under this practice, Shia and Sufis were not considered to be Muslims and not deserving of life.

The Turks and Egyptians who came on their pilgrimages to Mecca were considered to be particularly abhorrent. They traveled in luxury, smoked, and were declared to be Muslim pretenders. The sect substituted for nationalism and was directed against the foreign corrupt rulers before pan-Arab identity began to unite the tribes.

Ibn Saud, the leader of a minor tribal group in the Nejd saw in the sect a vehicle that could be used to forward his ambitions. Banditry could be transformed into jihad; and the defeated tribes could be given the choice of converting to the sect and to benefit in the spoils or die. If they died in battle, they would enjoy a direct move into paradise.

“The Sheikh [Wahhab] invoked the practice of Takfir. The rule states that any Muslim who fails to uphold the Faith should be put to the sword, his property seized, and his wives and daughters violated. Under this practice, Shia and Sufis were not considered to be Muslims and not deserving of life…”

What the Wahhabi Sect added to Islamic practice and what appealed to Ibn Saud was the requirement of the followers to give absolute loyalty to the political leader. To question the teaching or to fail submitting to the leader was cause for execution with the loss of property and the violation of wives and daughters.

By the end of the eighteenth century, the success of Saud was evident with much of the Arabian Peninsula under his control. His raid upon the important Shia center of Karbala in 1801 saw an estimated five thousand Shia slaughtered and their religious sites destroyed. That was followed two years later by the capture of Mecca and later Medina. [The House of Saud, so esteemed by Washington, was born in self-serving, brutal and cunning medievalism.—Eds]

The Ottomans could no longer ignore the carving up of their colonial territory by a desert tribe. An army of Egyptian troops was sent to settle the matter. The Wahhabi capital of Dariyah was seized and destroyed in 1818. Wahhabism receded into the Arabian Desert.

Yet it did not disappear. It remained the core philosophy of the Saud tribe and would become the core belief of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from where it began to spread throughout the Middle East.

FILE – In this Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2015, file mage released by Saudi Press Agency, SPA, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, 2nd right first row, poses with Shura members at consultative Shura Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s new monarch isn’t wasting time. Since assuming the throne Jan. 23, King Salman has elevated some of his closest relatives and sidelined previous power-brokers, tightened decision-making and promised lavish payouts designed to win early goodwill. (AP Photo/Saudi Press Agency, File)

Wahhabism arose at a time when the foreign Ottomans were enjoying the benefits of being colonial rulers, which left a religious and political vacuum that Wahhabism eventually filled. Exactly one century after it was defeated, it arose anew with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and its dismembering by the British and French.

The tribes went from one colonial rule to another without having any say in what form their lands would take or what type of government would rule. After World War II, the European rulers were replaced mainly by autocrats. Where oil was exploited, the autocrats had riches that gave little benefit to the masses.

The destruction of the Saddam regime and the dismantling of the state structure by the United States in 2003 created the next vacuum that would give a new reform movement the opportunity to grow.

Revenge and Utopia

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he strength of the Islamic State is that it gives the millions of impoverished people who see themselves as oppressed the opportunity to ride their 21st century tanks back to the promised Utopia, where the religious pure will reap all of the benefits and the disbelievers will receive their rewards at the end of a modern version of the sword.

If you believe, then all of the events that are converging in Syria were prophesized by Mohammad thirteen centuries ago, when he told the future generations that a great battle between Islam and the infidels would be fought out in northern Syria at the town of Dabiq near the Turkish border. That is where the old world will come to an end. It will precede the arrival of the Mahdi and the end of the world. Only the purest of the pure from the ranks of Muslims will enjoy the new state of peace and prosperity.

It has all been foretold, and the falling bombs on Islamic State positions in northern Syria are giving credibility to the ancient script for those who believe.

All that is needed to fulfill the prophecy is the arrival of an infidel army. The taunting of the United States by killing American citizens publically is intended to draw that army onto the battlefield to unite Muslims against the return of the Crusaders. If the United States rejects the challenge, it will be declared a coward and will confirm to followers of the Islamic State their strength. This is sure to give the movement even more appeal in the eyes of potential jihadists.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Felix Imonti studied international relations at UCLA, where he was in the African Studies Program. He focused as well upon South and East Asia. He has traveled widely and has lived in seven countries. Recently, he returned to Canada after living for ten years in Japan. While in Japan, he was the director of investment strategies for a private equity firm. He has published a history book, Violent Justice, and has published many articles in a wide variety of publications. He has been interviewed on radio stations in the U.S. and in Australia. You can reach him at feliximonti@gmail.com, and his blog can be found at: www.watchinggeopoliticalgames.wordpress.com.

SOURCE: GEOPOLITICAL MONITOR

SELECTED ORIGINAL VIEWS

Jim Fleetwood • a year ago

1. A very well written piece on the Wahabis and Saud. A there is a one significant hole in this that the authors should have taken more care to research. Violating enemy women is not spelled out in the Quran. It does allow them to be taken as maids, but that doesn’t translate to violation. Nor is this position unique to the Quran. Other religions also condoned this sort of behavior 2000 years ago. The bible also states ‘As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves’. The holy books at the time were taking the position of what was common practice in wars in that era.
Neither has a place in today’s society. But to imply that this is in the Quran and that ISIS is just
following whats written is no excuse for ISIS behavior. Had the Iraqi’s been not as corrupt and not spent the 7 years flushing out Sunnis out ofmilitary and not wasted my taxpayer $25BN that was used to train them, and stood their ground in Mosul against the 3,500 ISIS instead of
running away, we would not even know or care who ISIS is.
2. ISIS fighters are beasts: for every supposed compliant with Quran wishes to enslave infidel women, they have killed tens of thousands of muslims brutally in Syria and Iraq. The religion does not condone killing of other muslims. I state it to say the beasts are hypocrites and their behaviors have nothing to do with what their holy book says. They do as they wish, like any other savage group
- vinsin Jim Fleetwood • a year ago
  
  Let the Muslim decide whether they have to do with Quran or not. Currently a lot of Muslims around the world are supporting them, and if they grow many more will join them.
- Brian Jim Fleetwood • 10 months ago
  
  2000 year ago that is where the similarities end. If you are justifying an act because it happened 2000 years ago then you really have no base for argument. The Quran does state that if labeled an apostate then death is possible.
colleenclark • a year ago

I heard a young member of the Saudi government – not, I think, a member of the royal family – say at a ‘closed seminar’ at a university that the roots of ISIS reach back to the earliest days of Islam. I thought this was ironic because one of the ‘explanations’ for the rise of ISIS is promotion by Saudi Arabia. But now Saudi Arabia is concerned because, of course, he said, ISIS will eventually want the holy sites, which lie in the modern state of Saudi Arabia. Curiouser and curioser. Much is opaque to western eyes. As for the centrality of the modern state of Iraq, I remind outsiders that the Sunni-Shia split in Islam began in 680 AD in Kerbala, in southern Mesopotamia, now in Iraq.
capi_adonay • a year ago

Poverty, ignorance and smart or clever guys manipulating them. The history of humanity.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

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

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Hunt On For Tayyeep Bin Ardogan Over Fighter Shoot-Down And Bosphorus Blockade

=By= “B”
moon of alabama

Today the Russian President Putin gave his yearly address to the Russian Federal Assembly. In the context of terrorism and the shooting down of the Russian fighter in Syria he addressed some very harsh words to the Turkish President Erdogan:

[T]he Turkish people are kind, hardworking and talented. We have many good and reliable friends in Turkey. Allow me to emphasise that they should know that we do not equate them with the certain part of the current ruling establishment that is directly responsible for the deaths of our servicemen in Syria.

We will never forget their collusion with terrorists. We have always deemed betrayal the worst and most shameful thing to do, and that will never change. I would like them to remember this –those in Turkey who shot our pilots in the back, those hypocrites who tried to justify their actions and cover up for terrorists.

I don’t even understand why they did it. Any issues they might have had, any problems, any disagreements we knew nothing about could have been settled in a different way. Plus, we were ready to cooperate with Turkey on all the most sensitive issues it had; we were willing to go further, where its allies refused to go. Allah only knows, I suppose, why they did it. And probably, Allah has decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey by taking their mind and reason.

But, if they expected a nervous or hysterical reaction from us, if they wanted to see us become a danger to ourselves as much as to the world, they won’t get it. They won’t get any response meant for show or even for immediate political gain. They won’t get it.

Our actions will always be guided primarily by responsibility – to ourselves, to our country, to our people. We are not going to rattle the sabre. But, if someone thinks they can commit a heinous war crime, kill our people and get away with it, suffering nothing but a ban on tomato imports, or a few restrictions in construction or other industries, they’re delusional. We’ll remind them of what they did, more than once. They’ll regret it. We know what to do. [The full presidential address can be read also here.]

That was strong stuff from someone who usually stays very cool. These were not even threats but direct declarations that Russia will take revenge and will follow through.

Putin with his security council.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat are “all the most sensitive issues” Turkey had and on which Russia was ready to cooperate? What has enraged Putin so much to declare Erdogan out of “mind and reason”? Was it only the ambush of the fighter plane? Or was there another, deeper provocation?

At the end of last week there were some rumors that Russian ships crossing the Bosphorus between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea were unreasonably delayed. Someone claimed that Turkey was holding them up but the issue soon vanished again. I filed that under “false rumor” but I was wrong. It apparently happened:

Turkey is creating obstacles for Russian ships without technically violating the right of free passage through the Turkish Straits, the online newspaper Vzglyad reports.According to an online vessel tracking system, Russian ships moved in zigzags and circles on Nov. 29, waiting for hours for permission to enter the Bosphorus.

For instance, the Bratsk waited for permission from 10.00 to 19.00, and the Volgobalt from 3.00 to 17.00. However, as stated by the Ukrainian Center for Transport Policies, vessels belonging to the other countries passed through the straits without a delay on that day.

The Haberler.com news website reports that the transport ship Yauza was met by a Turkish submarine as it was passing through the Dardanelles on the morning of Nov. 30.

The Istanbul media reported the same day that at least two Turkish submarines were located in the vicinity of the Moskva missile cruiser (covering the Khmeimim Russian airbase in Syria).

Back in September Pat Lang posted this at his site:

[T]he Russians seem intent on reinforcing the Syrian government and the US is doing all it can to prevent this. The US has pressured governments seeking a denial of diplomatic overflight clearances for Russian cargo aircraft en route to Syria. It has also sought some means with which to deny Russian vessels passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

It seems that Obama administration had developed the idea to delay Russian ships without directly violating the Montreux Cenvention that covers free passage through the strait. Erdogan used the trick last week to put additional pressure on Russia. But there was nothing in the wider news about this standoff.

So did this really happen and how was this resolved? Joanne Leon asked that question today and two answers from knowledgeable people were offered:

Elijah J. Magnier ‏@EjmAlrai
Turkey mentioned it and sent 2 submarines. Russia said “Turkey can’t do it” and sent 2 submarines hunters

and

Dr Shahid @DR_SHAHID
Yup.
Russia Threatened To Nuke Ankara.
Problem Solved.

Hmm … I am not sure we know if the issue was really resolved with a nuclear threat or by some lesser means. But as no further ships were reported delayed the crisis seems to be over and Russia got its way.

To delay Russian ships by military means is rude behavior by Erdogan just short of openly declaring war. This and the fact that he ordered to ambush and shoot down a Russian jet likely incited Putin to use really harsh words today. Had Erdogan apologized and blamed some minions for the fighter jet shoot down the episode would have been forgotten by now.

But Erdogan escalated. Putin will now not rest until he has kicked that wannabe Sultan off his throne. My bet is that he will be more resourceful in his endeavor than Erdogan.

This for example is exceptional good trolling. Who arranged for this very intelligent hoax to appear in various U.S. media last night?

Pass the popcorn, please.

Posted by b on December 3, 2015 at 03:26 PM | Permalink

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

"B" is B, of course.

Putin marches to his own drummer.

appendix

BELOW WE REPRODUCE SELECT COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL THREAD

Yeah. Exceptional.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 3:35:48 PM | 1

Might be the information that was ‘not yet announced’ at the Russian presser on Turkey-oil-Da’esh? And I note that Tayyeep bin Ardogan, citizen of Qatar is rightly given second billing in the very droll troll. Da’esh=KSA=Da’esh.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 3:43:00 PM | 2

That last paragraph in President Putin’s statement is legit. Nice knowing you, Erdogan.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 3, 2015 4:00:25 PM | 3

I hope they catch this Ardogan guy. He’s a menace to humanity.

Posted by: dh | Dec 3, 2015 4:02:48 PM | 4

Putin is very discreet, but he is committed to winning the war in Syria.
He would not have exposed Erdogan’s oil business if Erdogan had simply accepted the fact that the game is over. Instead, Erdogan decided to risk everything and shoot down the Russian bomber. Now his future is completely dependent on people in the west who secretly hate his guts.

Erdogan is a very capable politician who thinks he can maneuver his way out of any situation.
He will not escape Putin.

Posted by: plantman | Dec 3, 2015 4:04:28 PM | 5

The fighter plane incident was a culmination of a clear support for terrorism by Turkey over many years, for instance the ease with which terrorists could transit Turkey and the supply of weapons, the recent disclosure of which resulted in two prominent Turkish journalists being jailed for treason etc. The proven theft [pillage] of oil by ISIL and subsequent sale in Turkey [set out yesterday in the Russian military press conference] puts the top hat on it. Remember these oil transactions are with ‘bad’ terrorists rather than the so called ‘good terrorist’ as put about by the US. The NATO member state Turkey is and has for a long time been a state supporter of terrorism, not only aimed initially at Russia’s ally Syria, but Russia’s vital interests in its underbelly the Caucasus. The wider war between Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah and Russia as well as being existential, will decide who controls the middle east, that is why the stakes are so high for the US and its satraps in the GCC states. In my opinion the ‘arc of resistance’ will win.

Posted by: harry law | Dec 3, 2015 4:05:03 PM | 6

Hey, great story! Damn you 🙂
I’ll post a link to mine when it runs tomorrow morning.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 4:34:03 PM | 8

The “hoax” name was traced to a tweet by an LA times reporter (@RickSerranoLAT) who said he got it from local police. However, SBDO police later said they hadn’t released that name. Apparently it had been tweeted hours earlier by a random Tweep (@Veruca72) who likely got it from a police scanner.

At the start of the SBDO sheriffs 10pm press conference last night, he apologized for the delay in beginning the conf so late, and attributed it to the difficulty in trying to identify the woman’s correct name.

So, how did the police get the false name in the first place?

Posted by: Anon | Dec 3, 2015 4:34:28 PM | 9

and the video

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 4:40:16 PM | 10

Forgot to add this disturbing fact.. “Mr. Hakan Fidan, Turkish President’s staunchest ally, condemned Russian military intervention in Syria, accusing Moscow of trying to ‘smother’ Syria’s Islamist revolution and serious breach of United Nations law. Fidan further added that in order to deal with the vast number of foreign Jihadists craving to travel to Syria, it is imperative that ISIS must set up a consulate or at least a political office in Istanbul”.http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/turkish-intelligence-chief-isis-is.html What, no seat at the UN? Unbelievable.

Posted by: harry law | Dec 3, 2015 4:59:58 PM | 11

IMO , Turkey like Egypt will experience a period of disstability, will exprince various revolutionary stages and eventually become independent and out of NATO , unfortunately for that, like Iranians did, they the Turks will have to fight the westerns for many years to establish their I dependance. Is only then when they will gain legitimacy in Sunni streets to lead them.

Posted by: Kooshy | Dec 3, 2015 5:21:12 PM | 12

Cracking skulls 4 days a week in the ‘caliphate’…handful of executions…ah, sure…take a few days off in Antalya on the weekend…why not…? get some sun, have some banter with some western holiday makers…relax, recharge…back to work on Monday, mask on, knife in hand…

Posted by: MadMax2 | Dec 3, 2015 5:53:58 PM | 13

“Let’s be very clear: ISIS is not just a terrorist organization; it is a Sunni terrorist organization. That means it blocks and targets Shi’a. And that means it’s serving the interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia – even as it poses a threat to them.” – Retired Gen. Wesley Clark

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General and retired U.S. General Wesley Clark revealed inhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-03/general-wesley-clark-isis-serves-interests-us-allies-turkey-and-saudi-arabia

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 3, 2015 5:59:06 PM | 14

@12 ….have a few beers, ogle a few bikinis, send the bill to Qatar.

Posted by: dh | Dec 3, 2015 6:06:00 PM | 15

Shadyl @13

That is not entirely true. Gosh, I JUST wrote about this in the other thread today. It was Israel and Saudi Arabia that originally decided to use extremists as a weapon as described by Hersh’s “The Redirection” back in 2007.

Please don’t fall for simple explanations.

KSA needed Israel’s help. Israel needed KSA help. They both needed USA help to make the ‘arrangement’ work.

Israel wants to destroy Hezbollah, grab the Golan Heights, expel the Palestinians, etc. That they can ALSO paint Islam/Arabs as bloodthirsty maniacs is all the better.

This original alliance enticed other collaborators that saw opportunity for gains. For example: Erdogan had friendly relations with Assad before the Syrian Conflict and Western countries want to sell arms and get future reconstruction contracts; etc..

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 3, 2015 6:29:49 PM | 16

Awesome post, b.

Posted by: Guest77 | Dec 3, 2015 6:46:07 PM | 17

>> b’s original snap

>> Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 4:34:03 PM | 8jfl, your “snap” reminds me of a certain white Ford Bronco. Is that Al Cowlings driving Ardogan to the Mexican border?

Posted by: dumbass | Dec 3, 2015 7:04:39 PM | 18

Thanks b for two excellent commentaries, this one and the former on the San Bernardino shooting.

I seriously doubt Putin would have threatened to nuke Ankara, though I have no doubt he would do it if the situation demands, without a blink. Putin, however, is more subtle than that, and the alleged threat stands in contradiction with his statement on the address to the Russian Assembly,

Our actions will always be guided primarily by responsibility – to ourselves, to our country, to our people. We are not going to rattle the sabre.

There are many other weapons the Russians could have threatened Erdogan with, one of them is throttling the gas supply to Turkey. Erdogan’s macho-man braggadocio about Turks being “accustomed to suffering” and having lived without gas “until recently” won’t help keep Turkey warm this coming winter, and the “suffering” Erdogan wants to impose on them, contrary to his comfort, can easily be expressed in riots and general discontent.

Russia already shut down the TurkeyStream, and by blocking Erdogan’s pipe dream of cutting off a chunk of Syria, oil added, Russia significantly reduced Erdogan’s strategic options to very dangerous ones, that is, to continue to bark as loudly as he can as US/UK/NATO’s top dog in NATO’s southern flank.

Suddenly, Erdogan’s options have been reduced to enticing NATO to fight a war against Russia, one that will allow him to fulfill his ambition of providing Turkey with its own source of oil. Unfortunately, his strategic calculations were flawed from the beginning, his best bet would have been to support Assad’s “Four Seas Strategy” back in 2009. Now, Erdogan has made all his moves on the ME chessboard, the Russians put him on check, and Putin is in for the kill.

Guest77 @ #16 Agreed & suck up time for me too here.

Moon of Alabama for me is THE best blog out there covering geo-political events & the M.E. in general. There are other sources out there that are good but the speed at which “B” extensively covers every new significant event is second to none & astounds me as to how the phuk he does it. Also contributing in no small way to the blogs magnificence (Too much . . . . ?? – too bad!), is the comments section, with some very well articulated views & directions of thought, not to mention links to other lesser/little known sites & articles.

Real investigative journalism as it’s known no longer exists in the West. Or if it does, it never gets to print, yet Pulitzers are still handed for the limp impersonations of it. The prize should be going to people like “B” & if only say 10% of the English speaking world were to read this blog on a daily basis, for as little as a month or so, I believe there could be an awakening from the consumerist slumber that now engulfs much of mankind. The mankind that’s being bombed & driven from their homes on a daily basis have pretty much got the message that everything isn’t running as it should .

Again, well done & cheers

Chris in Ch-Ch

Posted by: Kiwicris | Dec 3, 2015 7:33:21 PM | 23

Haha, suck up time? (I was hoping no one would notice).

But yeah. MoA = b = MoA

Though i do enjoy my ride in the clown car

Posted by: Guest77 | Dec 3, 2015 7:53:45 PM | 24

It was said of the Yankees many years ago

“When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

That policy, and their inane blather about “Statecraft” were contradictory, to say the least, and were always destined to catch up with them. Russians, on the other hand, are beginning to look like the folks who wrote the book One Hundred and One Ways To Skin a Cat. Thus Russians always seems to have sufficient viable options to ensure that they make their own “luck”.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 3, 2015 7:58:02 PM | 25

Putin is in a bind and all he seems able to do about Erdogan is spout belligerent rhetoric for local consumption and impose sanctions that will raise prices for Russian consumers. The Turkish/Russian pipeline deal was already dead and the China gas deal seems stalled or stillborn. This means any curtailing or stopping of contracted gas to Turkey would be the end of Russia as a trusted supplier for anyone and there are other parties including Iran waiting to fill those needed supplies. Putin might be able to hurt Turkey by withholding gas but he would be destroying the Russian gas business.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Dec 3, 2015 7:58:28 PM | 26

Patrick Cockburn on 2 Dec 2015 says the Syrian army has so far suffered “47,000 dead”. That’s equivalent to an average of 32 soldiers dead per day in the four years since November 2011. He doesn’t say where he got the number from. It is quite possibly correct. I guess it’s an estimate. I believe it’s not far from the truth, if not the actual truth.

For comparison’s sake, in the four years of World War One, French armies suffered about 1.1 million soldier combat deaths and 1.4 million soldier deaths from all causes, which is around 800 dead soldiers per day. The population of France in 1914 was about 42 million, which is about twice the population of Syria in 2011. Thus the Syrian army combat deaths are more than ten times smaller than French WWI combat deaths, when reput to equalize overall population sizes.

I’ve now repeatedly come across a claim that the Syrian army after four years of war is “exhausted”, meaning tired and suffering from wear and tear. ‘B’ on this board is one who has claimed it, and commentator Alexander Mercouris is another example. I believe that’s ill-informed, presumptuous, and mistaken. For one thing, this has not been an intense war (see the death counts). For another thing, the Syrian army remains pretty well equipped for fighting: the army’s weaponry has not been bigly degraded (some degradation has occurred but it’s not big). For another thing, the soldiers’ belief in the worthiness of what they’re fighting for is undiminished, and the same goes for the spirit of the supporting civilian population. For another thing, they’ve a reasonable basis for thinking they’re eventually going to win. So to repeat, the army is far from being exhausted in soldier headcount, in weapons hardware, and in fighting spirit. It is a fact that the army has underperformed, i.e. has punched with less power than what was expected of them (less than what was expected by themselves and by their supporters, including me). They’ve adjusted to it by putting the forecasted eventual victory farther out into the future. A few years ago I used to come across commentators saying the Syrian army’s underperformance was attributable to the army being inexperienced with this kind of warfare. Today other commentators are saying the army’s underperformance is attributable to exhaustion today. Both are mistaken. There are also some who say the army hasn’t underperformed, which I say is another mistaken reading of the situation.

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Dec 3, 2015 8:07:55 PM | 27

Is Russia presenting their case against Turkey to the UN?

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Dec 3, 2015 8:12:32 PM | 28

Another defeat for the takfiris and their handlers: the pilgrimage of millions of Shiites to Karbala, Iraq, and Sayyeda Zainab Shrine, Damascus, for the celebration of Arbaeen, despite all the takfiri threats, is a powerful testimony of the successful 4+1 campaign, and the decreasing power of the takfiris both In Iraq and Syria.

Millions Defy Takfiri Threats, Throng Holy Karbala for Arbaeen

Sayyeda Zainab Shrine Stands Loftily in Damascus on Arbaeen Imam Hussein (P)

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 3, 2015 8:26:15 PM | 29

Putin said: “If they wanted to see us become a danger to ourselves as much as to the world, they won’t get it.” But Putin apparently contradicts that sentence in the very next paragraph when he talks about a lust for vengeance. Putin earlier said in his speech : “Allah decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey, by depriving it of any reason or logic.” I wish somebody would convince Putin that that’s punishment enough, and that Putin should just move on to more constructive things, and forget about the pain of this pinprick.

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Dec 3, 2015 8:39:38 PM | 30

#28 @Ghubar – It’s one thing to say an army has underperformed when it is fighting another army under normal conditions. Fighting experienced foreign guerrilla fighters on the type of hilly terrain to which they’re accustomed on a very widely spread battlefield with booby traps and TOW missiles that largely neutralize any armor advantage the SAA has is a tough challenge. Now that they have true air support they seem to be doing better but more numbers probably will still be needed considering the huge expanse they have to clear–although the most important remaining step is cutting off Daesh’s and Al-Nusra’s continual re-supply of men, weapons, ammo, and money coming across the Turkish border. The terrorists have been able to fill in any losses while the SAA hasn’t had that luxury as draftees don’t have the lure of money and virgins so beating a path for the border has seemed a saner option for many.

Posted by: WorldBLee | Dec 3, 2015 9:03:21 PM | 31

Iran and Syria are now under the S-300 umbrella of protection. When is Iraq going to break out from under the empire hold on its sovereignty, and join the Arc of Resistance fully?

Kremlin confirms Russia started supplying S-300 missile systems to Iran

Iranian ambassador to Russia Mehdi Sanai late last month said his country had received the first S-300 systems

MOSCOW, December 3. /TASS/. Russia has begun the supplies of S-300 air defense systems to Iran, Russian presidential aide for military-technical cooperation Vladimir Kozhin has told TASS.

“The contract is in action. They’ve begun,” Kozhin said in reply to a question. Iranian ambassador to Russia Mehdi Sanai late last month said his country had received the first S-300 systems […]

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 3, 2015 9:03:59 PM | 32

Mutual US failures in Ukraine and Turkey

Ironically the economic collapse of Ukraine this very cold winter may do the most damage to Turkey’s economy. Russia supplies about 58% of the natural gas (30 bcm) Turkey uses each year and Iran supplies another 20%. Breaking down the Russian gas supply to Turkey about 31% is imported via West Gas through Ukraine and the remaining 27% imported via the Black Sea Blue Stream pipelines.

While the Ukraine underground natural gas storage for transport to Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia) and Turkey is almost full, it cannot currently buy any more from Russia as it is officially bankrupt. Lack of coal purchases from Russia along with “General Winter” will lead to Ukraine stealing EU gas, especially that gas destined for Turkey.

Turkey cannot import more via Iran die to pipeline capacity issues. Turkey currently imports some LNG from Nigeria and Algeria (about 6.5 bcm), although the volumes are limited by a LNG terminal capacity of 14 bcm. These terminals are not equipped with the specialized equipment to handle LNG from Qatar or the US (several years until operational in US).
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/turkey-still-needs-russian-gas-via-ukraine.html

Besides, LNG is not competitive with Russian piped natural gas. This did not stop Poland from taking this uneconomic option and building a LNG terminal for Qatar LNG tankers.
http://russia-insider.com/en/tumbleweed-town-kiev-post-gas- transit/ri7635

The US didn’t think this through, what can you expect with Morningstar running the US pipeline geopolitics. Unless the EU provides a lot more aid to Ukraine and Turkey both cookie bitch projects will fail. From what I can see the EU needs trillions just to settle the refugees from the wars they supported. Payback is a bitch.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 3, 2015 9:25:38 PM | 34

It seems to me all that Putin needs to do to get even is continue to destroy all of the rest of the estimated 8500 oil tanker trucks Turkey uses to ship ISIS oil to Turkey.

Just use the satellites, air recon, and drones, and see the giant convoys coming across from Turkey, and once the tail of the snake has entered Syria, destroy the whole snake. Repeat algorithm until all the convoy trucks are destroyed and the convoys stop coming.

Of course, also do the same for all “human humanitarian” and other convoys. 100% destruction of all trucks who cross the border….. especially in large convoys….

Posted by: Erik | Dec 3, 2015 9:26:29 PM | 35

@25, @28 GS @29 WBL

Global Research makes a good point in Turkey’s Downing of Russia’s Aircraft: Was it Coordinated with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Syria and its allies appear to realize that despite much more work to be done, the momentum has finally and irreversibly shifted in their favor. Seizing territory from NATO-backed terrorists and cutting off their supply lines leading in from NATO territory in Turkey will essentially end the war in favor of Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow.Attempts to provoke Russia, no matter how tempting, will be resisted by Moscow. Any retaliation Russia exacts against Turkey will be done in a matter that negates any affects carrying over to its primary mission in Syria – to win the war.

I imagine that in the days before the Russians came to help the Syrians were wondering if, with sanctions and the Great Satan & sidekicks arrayed against them, they wouldn’t eventually fail in a war of attrition.No more!

They seem rejuvenated. And with the help of Hezbollah and Iran they can now even imagine not just evicting the foreign terrorists but becoming part of the new regional equation of power and a force to be reckoned with on their own.

And all of us feel rejuvenated with them – at least I do. TIAA! There Is An Alternative. Thanks to the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah … as ever, to the Palestinians … and to the Russians, for showing us all the way to self-determination : Just do it!

TIAA!

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 9:36:17 PM | 36

@32 erik… not a bad idea.. i am sure they have been thinking of this and moved towards doing it too… the west is in cahoots with their bullshite ‘moderate’ mantra.. too much water under the bridge for things to get fixed here.. waiting for the next chapter to unfold…

Posted by: james | Dec 3, 2015 9:39:29 PM | 37

@17 da

I tuned in earlier and found the ‘snap’ gone, and a broken link to the video, so I tried to replace them. b’s real original snap is now back up in place, much better than the one I found. I don’t remember the origin of the video – but I love the sound track …

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 9:40:23 PM | 38

@22 guest

Yes indeed, just another bozo here, grateful for a free seat on the bus. Further, b. If you please.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 3, 2015 9:50:19 PM | 39

When are putin, iran and china going to turn the pressure up on Erdogans backers, Qatar and Saudi and on UAE?

Those three countries are the cause (via funding and ideology) of most of the world’s Sunni terrorism. There seems to be no shortage of young brain washed Sunnis willing to kill themselves for US and Israel goals. It doesn’t stop until the funding from those three countries, mainly, dries up. Saudi is also a key component in the economic war against Russia and all three are probably funding terrorism and separatism in russia.

No one has touched any of the aforementioned gulf monarchies and that tells them they can continue to get away with whatever they desire.

Posted by: Alaric | Dec 3, 2015 10:04:36 PM | 40

Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

Vladimir Putin delivered the Annual Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly. The Address was traditionally delivered at the Kremlin’s St George Hall before an audience of more than 1,000 people.

December 3, 2015 \ 13:00 | The Kremlin, Moscow

[box] Those present for the Address included members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, members of the Government, heads of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, regional governors, heads of regional legislative assemblies, heads of Russia’s traditional religious faiths, public figures, including heads of regional civis chambers, and the heads of Russia’s biggest media outlets.[/box]

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Citizens of Russia, members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies,

I would like to begin my Address with words of gratitude to the Russian servicemen who are fighting international terrorism.

Today here in the St George’s Hall, a historic hall of Russian military glory, we have combat pilots and representatives of the Armed Forces who are taking part in the anti-terrorist operation in Syria.

Gelena Peshkova and Irina Pozynich, who lost their husbands in the war against terror, have joined us too. My deepest respect to you and the parents of our heroes.

I would like us all to honour the memory of the soldiers who gave their lives while doing their duty, and the memory of all Russian citizens who fell at the hands of terrorists.

(Moment of silence)

Colleagues,

Russia has long been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. This is a fight for freedom, truth and justice, for the lives of people and the future of the entire civilisation.

We know what aggression of international terrorism is. Russia faced it back in the mid-1990s, when our country, our civilian population suffered from cruel attacks. We will never forget the hostage crises in Budennovsk, Beslan and Moscow, the merciless explosions in residential buildings, the Nevsky Express train derailment, the blasts in the Moscow metro and Domodedovo Airport.

These tragedies took thousands of lives. We still grieve for them and will always grieve, along with the victims’ loved ones.

It took us nearly a decade to finally break the backbone of those militants. We almost succeeded in expelling terrorists from Russia, but are still fighting the remaining terrorist underground. This evil is still out there. Two years ago, two attacks were committed in Volgograd. A civilian Russian plane was recently blown up over Sinai.

International terrorism will never be defeated by just one country, especially in a situation when the borders are practically open, and the world is going through another resettlement of peoples, while terrorists are getting regular financial support.

Terrorism is a growing threat today. The Afghanistan problem has not been resolved. The situation there is alarming and gives us no optimism, while some of the yet recently stable and rather well-doing countries in the Middle East and North Africa – Iraq, Libya and Syria – have now plunged into chaos and anarchy that pose a threat to the whole world.

We all know why that happened. We know who decided to oust the unwanted regimes and brutally impose their own rules. Where has this led them? They stirred up trouble, destroyed the countries’ statehood, set people against each other, and then “washed their hands”, as we say in Russia, thus opening the way to radical activists, extremists and terrorists.

The militants in Syria pose a particularly high threat for Russia. Many of them are citizens of Russia and the CIS countries. They get money and weapons and build up their strength. If they get sufficiently strong to win there, they will return to their home countries to sow fear and hatred, to blow up, kill and torture people. We must fight and eliminate them there, away from home.

This is why it has been decided to launch a military operation there based on an official request from the legitimate Syrian authorities. Our military personnel are fighting in Syria for Russia, for the security of Russian citizens.

The Russian Army and Navy have convincingly demonstrated their combat readiness and their increased capabilities. Modern Russian weapons have proved to be effective, and the invaluable practice of using them in combat conditions is being analysed and will be used to further improve our weapons and military equipment. We are grateful to our engineers, workers and all other personnel of our defence companies.

Russia has demonstrated immense responsibility and leadership in the fight against terrorism. Russian people have supported these resolute actions. The firm stance taken by our people stems from a thorough understanding of the absolute danger of terrorism, from patriotism, high moral qualities and their firm belief that we must defend our national interests, history, traditions and values.

The international community should have learned from the past lessons. The historical parallels in this case are undeniable.

Unwillingness to join forces against Nazism in the 20^th century cost us millions of lives in the bloodiest world war in human history.

Today we have again come face to face with a destructive and barbarous ideology, and we must not allow these modern-day dark forces to attain their goals.

We must stop our debates and forget our differences to build a common anti-terrorist front that will act in line with international law and under the UN aegis.

Every civilised country must contribute to the fight against terrorism, reaffirming their solidarity, not in word but in deed.

This means that the terrorists must not be given refuge anywhere. There must be no double standards. No contacts with terrorist organisations. No attempts to use them for self-seeking goals. No criminal business with terrorists.

We know who are stuffing pockets in Turkey and letting terrorists prosper from the sale of oil they stole in Syria. The terrorists are using these receipts to recruit mercenaries, buy weapons and plan inhuman terrorist attacks against Russian citizens and against people in France, Lebanon, Mali and other states. We remember that the militants who operated in the North Caucasus in the 1990s and 2000s found refuge and received moral and material assistance in Turkey. We still find them there.

Meanwhile, the Turkish people are kind, hardworking and talented. We have many good and reliable friends in Turkey. Allow me to emphasise that they should know that we do not equate them with the certain part of the current ruling establishment that is directly responsible for the deaths of our servicemen in Syria.

We will never forget their collusion with terrorists. We have always deemed betrayal the worst and most shameful thing to do, and that will never change. I would like them to remember this – those in Turkey who shot our pilots in the back, those hypocrites who tried to justify their actions and cover up for terrorists.

But, if they expected a nervous or hysterical reaction from us, if they wanted to see us become a danger to ourselves as much as to the world, they won’t get it. They won’t get any response meant for show or even for immediate political gain. They won’t get it.

Our actions will always be guided primarily by responsibility – to ourselves, to our country, to our people. We are not going to rattle the sabre. But, if someone thinks they can commit a heinous war crime, kill our people and get away with it, suffering nothing but a ban on tomato imports, or a few restrictions in construction or other industries, they’re delusional. We’ll remind them of what they did, more than once. They’ll regret it. We know what to do.

We have mobilised our Armed Forces, security services and law enforcement agencies to repel the terrorist threat. Everyone must be aware of their responsibility, including the authorities, political parties, civil society organisations and the media.

Russia’s strength lies in the free development of all its peoples, its diversity, the harmony of cultures, languages and traditions, mutual respect for and dialogue between all faiths, including Christians, Muslims, Judaists and Buddhists.

We must firmly resist any manifestation of extremism and xenophobia while defending our ethnic and religious accord, which is the historical foundation of our society and the Russian statehood.

In 2016 we will hold elections to the State Duma. I would like to remind party leaders, all participants of the upcoming election campaign and all the social and political forces about the following words of our famous historian, Nikolai Karamzin: “Those who have no respect for themselves cannot hope to be respected by others. That does not mean that love for our homeland must blind us into saying that we are better than all others in everything we do. But Russians must know their value.”

Yes, we can debate ways to solve this or that issue. But we must remain united and remember what is most important for us: Russia.

The election campaign must be honest and transparent and respect the law and the electorate. At the same time, it must be conducted so as to win public trust in the election results and legitimacy.

Colleagues, I expect that a considerable part of the parliamentary candidates’ election programmes will be devoted to the issue of corruption, which is a major concern for society. Corruption is hindering Russia’s development.

Officials, judges, law enforcement officers and deputies at all levels are obliged to submit their income and expense declarations and declare their property and assets, including outside Russia.

From now on, state and municipal officials will also have to disclose information about the contracts they plan to sign with the companies of their relatives and friends. Situations with a possible conflict of interest will be closely monitored by the regulatory and law enforcement authorities, as well as civil society.

Just recently participants in the Russian Popular Front’s project For Fair Public Procurement told me about the instances of abuse and blatant violations they have uncovered. I ask the Prosecutor General’s Office and the law enforcement authorities to promptly react to this information.

The law must be hard on those who are guilty of premeditated crimes against human lives and the interests of society and the state. But the law must be lenient to those who have slipped up.

Today, nearly half of the criminal cases brought to court concern petty crimes or misdemeanours, but those who committed them, including very young people, go to prison for them.

A prison term and even a prison record usually have a highly negative impact on these people’s lives, often creating a situation in which they commit new crimes.

I ask the State Duma to approve the Supreme Court’s proposal that some offences in the Criminal Code are decriminalised and that misdemeanour is reclassified as an administrative offence, with an important reservation: a repeated offence must be classified as a criminal act.

We must also work to enhance the independence and objectivity of our courts. In light of this, I suggest strengthening the role of juries and expanding the list of crimes that can be submitted to them. It’s not always easy to find 12 jurors, and although I know the position of human rights organisations, which insist on 12-member juries, forming such juries is not easy and it is also expensive. Therefore, I suggest cutting the number of jury members from 12 to 5–7, on the condition that they take their decisions autonomously and independently.

Colleagues, last year we faced some serious economic challenges. Oil and other products we traditionally offer for export fell in price. The access of Russian financial institutions and companies to global financial markets was restricted.

I know that many people are experiencing hardships today. These economic issues are affecting incomes and the general quality of life. I understand very well that people are wondering when we are going to overcome these hardships and what needs to be done in order to accomplish this.

The current situation is complicated but, as I have said before, not critical. In fact, we can already see some positive trends. Industrial production and the national currency are generally steady. There is a slight decline in inflation. We can see a significantly lower capital flight as compared to 2014.

However, this doesn’t mean that we just calm down and wait for everything to miraculously change, or that we can just sit quietly in expectation of rising oil prices. Essentially, such an approach would be unacceptable.

We must be prepared for low commodity prices and external restrictions to last much longer. By changing nothing, we will simply run out of reserves and the economic growth rates will linger around zero.

This is not the only issue to consider. Busy with the immediate tasks, we must not overlook general global development trends. The global economy is rapidly changing shape. New trade associations are forming. We are experiencing a period of radical change in the sphere of technology.

This is a crucial moment when countries need to compete to secure their roles in the global division of labour for decades ahead. We can and must become one of the leaders.

Russia has no right to be vulnerable. We must have a strong economy, excel in technology and advance our professional skills. We must fully use our current advantages, as there are no guarantees that we will have them tomorrow.

Clearly, the authorities must hear the public out and explain the nature of the problems people face and the reasons behind the government’s actions, treating civil society and business as equal partners.

What areas should we focus on?

First, competitive manufacturing is still concentrated mostly in the commodities and mining sector. We’ll only be able to achieve our ambitious goals in security and social development, to create modern jobs and improve the living standards of millions of our people if we change the structure of our economy.

Importantly, we do have effective industrial and agricultural operations, as well as small and medium-sized businesses. Our goal is to have the number of these kinds of companies grow fast in all sectors. Our programmes for import substitution and export support, manufacturing retrofitting and professional training should be geared to achieving this goal.

Second, we need to bear in mind that a number of industries are now at risk, including primarily the construction, automotive, and light industries, as well as railway engineering. To address this, the Government will need to come up with special support programmes. Financial resources for this purpose have been set aside.

Third. It is imperative to support low-income households and socially vulnerable groups of citizens, and finally adopt fair principles of providing social assistance that is made available to those who really need it. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the individual needs of people with disabilities, and focus on their training and employment.

We have done a lot to improve demography, education, and healthcare. The key benchmarks in these areas were outlined in the corresponding executive orders of May 2012. Of course, life is ever changing, and, given current complications, our responsibility for people’s welfare only increases, so I’d like to ask you to take these executive orders seriously. We must strive to fulfil them.

Fourth, it is imperative to achieve a balanced budget. This, of course, is not an end in itself, but a critical prerequisite for macroeconomic stability and our financial independence. As you may recall, by the end of the 2016 federal budget year, the deficit should not exceed 3 percent, even if revenue is lower than expected. Please take a note of this, colleagues, members of the State Duma and the Federation Council, the Federal Assembly in general. This is important. I just mentioned that financial stability and the independence of our country are completely interrelated. Please keep these basic considerations in mind.

Budget planning, in fact, planning each budget cycle must begin with a clear identification of priorities. We must make government programmes play the decisive role in this process again. It is essential that we tighten our control over public funds, including federal and regional subsidies to industrial and agricultural enterprises. I believe that they should be transferred to the end user only through treasury accounts. Government revenue must be used strictly as planned. ”Grey“ schemes used in paying customs duties, excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and fuels and lubricants siphon off hundreds of billions of rubles from the budget annually. This is outright theft.

I propose forming a single system for administering tax, customs and other fiscal payments. There are a variety of options to go about this, and we have discussed them on many occasions. I expect the Government to submit specific proposals. Here again, I would like to emphasise that the tax environment for business should remain unchanged in the coming years.

Fifth. We need to further strengthen trust between the Government and business, to improve the business climate in Russia.

This year we have mostly completed the plans outlined in the national entrepreneurial initiative. The dynamics are good, but we certainly shouldn’t stop yet.

The Government, together with the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and leading business associations, should continue their systematic work to improve the conditions for doing business, constantly monitoring how laws are carried out locally.

I believe free enterprise to be the most important aspect of economic and social well-being. Entrepreneurial freedom is something we need to expand to respond to all attempts to impose restrictions on us.

That is why we have given such a broad authority to the newly created Federal Corporation for the Development of Small and Medium Business. I would like to ask all ministries, departments, governors, heads of all Russian regions, state-owned companies and banks to provide all the necessary assistance to it.

Polls show that businesses see no qualitative progress in the regulators’ work. Yet, all the necessary instructions for this have been issued, even more than once. We repeat ourselves and our attempts to reduce their powers. We reduce them in one area – they simply grow again in another. A whole army of inspectors continues to hinder the operation of good businesses. I am not saying that control is not necessary. Business does require regulation. But I ask the Government Commission for Administrative Reform to work out, together with business associations, proposals on eliminating redundant and overlapping functions of regulatory agencies, and submit them by July 1, 2016.

I would like to cite some figures supplied by one of our business associations. During 2014, the investigative authorities opened nearly 200,000 cases on so-called economic crimes. But only 46,000 of 200,000 cases were actually taken to court, and 15,000 cases were thrown out during the hearings. Simple math suggests that only 15 percent of all cases ended with a conviction. At the same time, the vast majority, over 80 percent, or specifically, 83 percent of entrepreneurs who faced criminal charges fully or partially lost their business – they got harassed, intimidated, robbed and then released. This certainly isn’t what we need in terms of a business climate. This is actually the opposite, the direct destruction of the business climate. I ask the investigative authorities and the prosecutor’s office to pay special attention to this.

There is one more point I’d like to make. Last year we announced the so-called capital amnesty to return financial assets to Russia. Yet, businesses seem in no hurry to take advantage of that opportunity, which suggests that the procedure proposed is too complicated, while guarantees it provides are still insufficient. I follow the public discussions on the issue. The word is, that what we have already done and the decisions we made previously are slightly better than the solutions we’ve offered in years past, but it is definitely not enough today. I ask the Government to organise consultations, including further consultations with the business community, with the Supreme Court, with law enforcement agencies, and in short order make the appropriate adjustments. I also suggest extending the capital amnesty itself for another six months.

Colleagues, the state will fund the necessary assistance to those who are ready to go forward and become leaders. We are building such a system in our dialogue with the business community based on its requirements and the tasks facing our country.

The Industry Development Fund is already supporting import substitution programmes. These programmes are needed by entrepreneurs. I suggest increasing its authorised capital by another 20 billion roubles.

We are also guaranteeing stable tax rates and other basic terms for investors who are ready to finance import substitution projects. This is included in mechanisms such as the special investment contract. I suggest granting the regions the right to reduce profit tax to zero under such contracts. Some governors directly request this to allow investors to cover their capital outlays on developing new production lines.

Obviously, we are aware of the regional governors’ concerns. The regions should be motivated to consolidate their economic base, so an increase in regional profits from implementing these projects should not lead to a reduction in federal subsidies.

We are ready to guarantee the demand for the goods produced under these programmes and projects. I propose giving the Government the right to purchase on a non-competitive basis up to 30 percent of the products manufactured under special investment contracts. Whatever remains should go to the free markets, including those abroad, to motivate these companies, to monitor the quality of their products and reduce overheads.

As you know, when other countries carried out these kinds of programmes, the terms for state support were even tougher: it was mandatory for a certain percentage of goods produced to be sold abroad. What for? To motivate producers to manufacture quality products.

We’re saying that we will guarantee demand in our own market. Our terms are somewhat different from those in other countries with tougher terms. That said, we must assume that these products will be highly competitive on the international market. Let me emphasise again that we will support expressly competitive domestic production lines. No one should be working under the illusion that under the guise of import substitution it’s possible to build a substandard, out of date product and pawn it off to the state or to our people and make them pay a premium price for it. Russia needs companies that are capable not only of providing the country with quality products but also of taking on foreign markets. The Russian Export Centre was established to help those who are ready for this effort.

In addition, I suggest making the growth of non-energy exports one of the key indicators of the performance of industry-related agencies and the Government as a whole.

I think it would be appropriate to implement the business community’s initiative and create a technological development agency to help companies acquire domestic and foreign patents and licenses for engineering services. Access to foreign markets and the expansion of Russian manufacturing should become a natural strategy for the development of the nation’s business sector and the entire Russian economy. We should put stereotypes aside and believe in our own capabilities. If we work with this attitude, we are certain to see a result.

Our agriculture sector is a positive example. Just a decade ago we imported almost half of our food products and critically depended on imports, whereas now Russia has joined the exporters’ club. Last year Russia’s agricultural exports totalled almost $20 billion. This is a quarter more than our proceeds from arms sales or about one third of our profits from gas exports. Our agriculture has made this leap in a short but productive period. Many thanks to our rural residents.

I believe we should set a national goal — fully provide the internal market with domestically produced foods by 2020. We are capable of feeding ourselves from our own land, and importantly, we have the water resources. Russia can become one of the world’s largest suppliers of healthy, ecologically clean quality foods that some Western companies have stopped producing long ago, all the more so since global demand for such products continues to grow.

To fulfil these ambitious goals, we need to concentrate our resources on primary support for highly efficient farms. This approach should underlie the programme for the development of the agro-industrial complex. This includes large, medium and small companies – all of them must be efficient. I would like the Agriculture Ministry to pay special attention to this.

It is necessary to put to use millions of hectares of arable land that is now idle. They belong to large land owners, many of whom show little interest in farming. How many years have we been talking about this? Yet things are not moving forward. I suggest withdrawing misused agricultural land from questionable owners and selling it at an auction to those who can and want to cultivate the land.

I would like to ask the Government to prepare specific proposals, including draft regulations and standards by June 1, 2016. I would also like to ask the State Duma deputies and all members of the Federal Assembly to make amendments to the related laws over the next year and adopt laws to make this possible at the next autumn session.

We also need our own technology for the production, storage and processing of agricultural produce, our own seed and pedigree stock. This is a very important goal. We are still vulnerable in these areas. I ask you to get leading research centres, the Russian Academy of Sciences and businesses which are successfully putting advanced technology into practice involved in this process.

In my previous Address, I announced the launch of the National Technology Initiative, spanning 15–20 years, but practical work is already underway. It shows that we have plenty of strong teams capable of offering and following through on innovative ideas. In areas such as neutron technology, robotics in aviation and the transport sector in general, energy storage and distribution systems, Russia has every chance of breaking through to global markets in the near future, within the next few years.

Development institutions should be geared towards achieving priority goals, primarily those related to technological modernisation. We have over two dozen of them. Unfortunately, many of them, to put it bluntly, have turned into dumping grounds for bad debts. It is essential to streamline them and optimise the structure and mechanisms of this work. I know that both the Government and the Central Bank are actively working on this.

We should make a more active use of the investment potential of domestic savings for economic modernisation. I ask the Central Bank and the Government to submit proposals on the development of the corporate bond market, something we have discussed many times. It is essential to simplify the procedure for the issue and acquisition of corporate bonds. To make it worthwhile for investors, individuals to invest in the development of the domestic real sector, I propose exempting the coupon income on these bonds from taxation, including from income tax for individuals.

Dozens of major projects are being implemented or are about to be launched in industry, agriculture, transport and housing construction. They should have a positive impact not only on separate sectors but also stimulate the comprehensive development of entire territories. These are primarily private projects.

To expedite their effective implementation it is important to make pinpoint amendments to laws, lift administrative barriers and assist the development of infrastructure and the process of entering foreign markets. These issues often extend beyond the scope of just one government agency, so I propose putting in place a mechanism to support the most important projects. A special agency can be established for this. I ask Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to submit proposals on the work of this agency.

Incidentally, one such project could be the creation of major private Russian companies that specialise in online trade so that Russian goods are delivered via the Internet to all countries in the world. We do have a great deal to deliver.

Colleagues, we are interested in broad business cooperation with our foreign partners, and we welcome investors who focus on long-term work on the Russian market, even though the current circumstances they face aren’t always favourable. We highly appreciate their positive attitude to our country, and the fact that they see advantages for growing their respective businesses in our country. Russia is involved in integration processes designed to open additional avenues for expanding economic ties with other countries.

We have reached the next level of cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union by creating a common space, with free movement of capital, goods and labour. We have reached a basic agreement on combining Eurasian integration with the Chinese Silk Road Economic Belt. A free trade zone with Vietnam was established. Next year, we will host the Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi, and I am sure we will be able to work out a mutually beneficial agenda for cooperation.

I propose holding consultations, in conjunction with our colleagues from the Eurasian Economic Union, with the SCO and ASEAN members, as well as with the states that are about to join the SCO, with the view of potentially forming an economic partnership. Together, our states make up nearly a third of the global economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Such a partnership could initially focus on protecting investments, streamlining procedures for the cross-border movement of goods, joint development of technical standards for next-generation technology products, and the mutual provision of access to markets for both services and capital. Of course, this partnership should be based on principles of equality and mutual interest.

For Russia, this partnership will open new possibilities for increasing exports of food and energy, as well as offering services in engineering, education, healthcare, and tourism to the Asia-Pacific Region, allowing us to play the leading role in forming new technology markets, and re-orienting major global trade flows to Russia.

We will continue to upgrade our transport infrastructure and expand major logistic centres, such as the Azov-Black Sea and the Murmansk transport hubs, modern ports in the Baltic Sea and the Russian Far East. We will consolidate the system of inter-regional air transport, including in northern and Arctic regions. We will review in detail the situation with inland waterways and river routes during a forthcoming State Council meeting.

The Northern Sea Route should become a link between Europe and the Asia-Pacific Region. To enhance its competitiveness, we will extend the preferential regime of the free port of Vladivostok to key Far Eastern harbours, as requested by the entrepreneurs who operate in this strategically important Russian region.

The socioeconomic development of this region is a major national priority. Investors have shown great practical interest in the new methods of operation we have proposed, including priority development areas.

I instruct the Government to expedite decisions on levelling off energy rates for the Far Eastern regions where they are considerably above average national rates, and I urge the Parliament to promptly hear the draft law on the free allocation of land plots to people in the Far East.

Over the past few years, major investments have been made in the development of Khabarovsk and Vladivostok, and people there have noticed the improvements. Komsomolsk-on-Amur must become one more rapidly developing centre in the Far East. It is a city with a rich history and modern high-tech industries, which turn out civilian products that enjoy high demand and also work fruitfully for the defence sector. But this city’s urban and social infrastructure has been neglected.

I’m referring to the city’s face and its sports, culture, healthcare and education facilities, none of which are consistent with the potential of Komsomolsk-on-Amur. This is why it is difficult to attract talented young professionals there, which the regional companies badly need. I believe that we can use resources under the on-going programmes to address the problems of Komsomolsk-on-Amur without delay. Of course, we can’t do this overnight, but we at least must understand what we need to accomplish and how fast work must proceed.

Colleagues, we have a long-term agenda that must be independent of election cycles and the prevailing situation. These strategic goals include preserving the nation, bringing up our children and helping them develop their talents, which constitutes the basis of the power and future of any country, including Russia.

I’d like to begin with demography. We’ve registered a natural increase in population for the past three years. It has been modest, but present nevertheless. What I would like to highlight is that, according to forecasts, we should have seen a demographic collapse due to the demographic echo of the 1990s, which demographers have predicted, including at the UN. But this hasn’t come to pass, primarily because half of the new-borns today are second or third children. Russian families want to have children, they believe in their future and in their country, and they are confident that the state will help them.

The maternity capital programme ends next year. Over 6.5 million families have enjoyed its benefits, including in Crimea and Sevastopol. But we know that our efforts in this sphere have not been sufficient to close the demographic wound of the past.

Of course, we realise that this will be hard on the budget, that the programme needs major funding. We said in the past that we need to analyse the figures to see if we can shoulder this burden, as the financiers say, if we can guarantee the payment of these allocations. Yes, we can do this, despite the current challenges. I believe that we must extend the maternity capital programme for at least two years.

A major demographic policy measure is the development of preschool education. Over the past three years, 800,000 new places have been created at kindergartens. Practically in all parts of Russia, such institutions are available for children between the ages of three and seven. I know that the Prime Minister has paid special, personal attention to this. Thank you, Mr Medvedev.

However, so far, individual families – many families – continue to encounter problems placing children in kindergartens. As long as these problems exist, we cannot say that the issue has been closed. I ask both the Government and regional authorities to pay special attention to this.

Now, healthcare. The main achievement of our entire policy in this sphere is that we are seeing an increase in average life expectancy. Over the past decade, it has increased by more than five years and this year, according to preliminary estimates, should exceed 71 years. Nevertheless, there are still quite a few problems that have to be dealt with.

Next year, the Russian healthcare system will transition completely to an insurance-based system. It is the direct responsibility of insurance companies operating in the compulsory medical insurance system to uphold patients’ rights, including in situations where they are refused free medical care without a reason. If an insurance company does not do this, it should be held accountable, including being banned from working in the compulsory medical insurance system. I ask the Government to ensure stringent oversight in this regard.

Next. We have significantly expanded the scope of high-tech medical care. It may be recalled that in 2005, 60,000 high-tech operations were performed in Russia – 60,000! – compared to 715,000 in 2014. For the first time in the country’s history, a significant part of such operations are carried out without there being a waiting list, and this is indeed a major achievement.

However, it is important to understand that certain operations are expensive. As a general rule, they are performed at leading federal medical centres and clinics. To finance such operations, I propose establishing within the compulsory medical insurance system… We have thought about this a great deal – whether we should provide additional funding to the system. The deputies, government ministers and governors know what happens in reality. The compulsory medical insurance system is a territorial system and it supports primarily territorial healthcare institutions. Naturally, underfinancing is a matter of concern for the heads of major federal clinics, where the majority of high-tech operations are in fact performed. So, to finance these centres and perform such operations, I propose instituting a special federal component within the compulsory medical insurance system. I request that the relevant amendments to the law be adopted during the spring session.

Even so, this is not enough because people must not suffer while we make these decisions. It is necessary to ensure continuous financing of high-tech medical care, including with direct support from the federal budget until this decision is made.

As you also know, the ambulance service has been significantly upgraded as part of the Healthcare national project. We have procured a large number of modern ambulance vehicles and other equipment. Naturally, as time goes on, the auto fleet needs maintenance and renovation. Ten years have passed. This is the regions’ responsibility and they are duty bound to fulfil this task and find the necessary reserves.

People are complaining that they often cannot understand why certain hospitals, schools, cultural or social centres and institutions are being closed or merged. We keep talking about the need to restructure the network, which is, in some cases, oversized. Yes, that’s a fact. But we must proceed very carefully and be fully aware of the fact that in order for us to be able to reach certain indicators, closing rural medical centres is not always the best option. Unfortunately, such things happen. People then have to travel 100 kilometres to get medical attention. This is outrageous! Please make sure that things are done right. I ask the Government to draft and adopt a methodology for the most efficient distribution of social institutions by March 1, 2016. It should be mandatory for use in the regions. We must find a legally valid formula that will allow us to do so.

In matters such as providing assistance to the elderly or people with disabilities, or supporting families and children, it is imperative to show more trust in civil society and non-profit organisations. Often, they work more effectively and efficiently, showing genuine concern for the people. Also, there’s less red tape in their work.

I would like to propose a number of concrete solutions based on the results of the active citizens’ forum Community, which took place in November.

First, we will launch a special programme of presidential grants to support non-profit organisations working in small towns and villages.

Second, the non-profit organisations that have established themselves as reliable partners of the state will receive the legal status of a ”non-profit organisation – provider of socially useful services,“ and a number of incentives and preferences. Finally, I believe that making up to 10 percent of the regional and municipal social programmes’ funding available to non-profit organisations is the right thing to do. That way, non-profit organisations will be able to participate in providing social services that are financed from the budget. We believe we know well the current legislation, and we are not imposing anything on anyone, but I’d like to ask heads of the regions and municipalities to bear this in mind in their work.

I will now note a positive fact, such as the growing interest of young people in engineering jobs and blue-collar occupations, the vocations of the future. Competition for enrolment in engineering universities has almost doubled in the past two years. The WorldSkills International (WSI) will take place in Kazan in 2019. By the way, Russia was the first to hold such contests for young people aged 10 to 17 years. It is important to make sure that such tournaments become a road map for school children, for those who are just choosing their trades. We must establish a whole system of national competitions for blue-collar workers. I suggest we call this system “The Young Professionals.” This is a very important task.

In a nutshell, Russian schools, additional and professional education, and support for children’s creative work should be aligned with the country’s future, the requirements of people, young people in this case, and the demands of the economy in the context of its prospects. These guys will have to resolve even more complicated tasks and should be ready to be the best. They should become not only successful in their careers but also simply decent people with a firm moral and ethical background.

Colleagues, we have repeatedly faced a historical choice of which road to take to further development. We crossed another milestone in 2014 when Crimea and Sevastopol were reunified with Russia. Russia declared a voce piena its status as a strong state with a millennium-long history and great traditions, as a nation consolidated by common values and common goals.

We are acting with the same confidence now, at a time when Russia is waging an expressly open, direct struggle against international terrorism. We are making and implementing decisions, knowing that only we can cope with the tasks facing us, but only if we act together.

Thank you.

(Anthem of the Russian Federation.)

We apologize for this inconvenience.

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

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Breaking international law in Syria

The West has no legal basis for military intervention. Their strikes are illegal.

The war drums are getting louder in the aftermath of ISIS attacks in Paris, as Western countries gear up to launch further airstrikes in Syria. But obscured in the fine print of countless resolutions and media headlines is this: the West has no legal basis for military intervention. Their strikes are illegal.

…

Trends

Islamic State, Syria unrest

“It is always preferable in these circumstances to have the full backing of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) but I have to say what matters most of all is that any actions we would take would…be legal,” explained UK Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons last Wednesday.

Legal? No, there’s not a scrap of evidence that UK airstrikes would be lawful in their current incarnation.

Then just two days later, on Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2249, aimed at rallying the world behind the fairly obvious notion that ISIS is an “unprecedented threat to international peace and security.”

“It’s a call to action to member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures against (ISIS) and other terrorist groups,” British UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told reporters.

The phrase “all necessary measures” was broadly interpreted – if not explicitly sanctioning the “use of force” in Syria, then as a wink to it.

Let’s examine the pertinent language of UNSCR 2249:

The resolution “calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter…on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq.”

Note that the resolution demands “compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter.” This is probably the most significant explainer to the “all necessary measures” phrase. Use of force is one of the most difficult things for the UNSC to sanction – it is a last resort measure, and a rare one. The lack of Chapter 7 language in the resolution pretty much means that ‘use of force’ is not on the menu unless states have other means to wrangle “compliance with international law.”

“US-backed forces have right to self-defense, but others do not…”—State Department

Syrian Turkmen fighters are seen with an anti-aircraft artillery weapon near the northern Syrian village of Yamadi, near the Turkish-Syrian border, Syria, November 24, 2015. © Stringer / Reuters

What you need to know about international law

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is important to understand that the United Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War 2 expressly to prevent war and to regulate and inhibit the use of force in settling disputes among its member states. This is the UN’s big function – to “maintain international peace and security,” as enshrined in the UN Charter’s very first article.

There are a lot of laws that seek to govern and prevent wars, but the Western nations looking to launch airstrikes in Syria have made things easy for us – they have cited the law that they believe justifies their military intervention: specifically, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It reads, in part:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

So doesn’t France, for instance, enjoy the inherent right to bomb ISIS targets in Syria as an act of self-defense – in order to prevent further attacks?

And don’t members of the US-led coalition, who cite the “collective self-defense” of Iraq (the Iraqi government has formally made this request), have the right to prevent further ISIS attacks from Syrian territory into Iraqi areas?

Well, no. Article 51, as conceived in the UN Charter, refers to attacks between territorial states, not with non-state actors like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Syria, after all, did not attack France or Iraq – or Turkey, Australia, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

And here’s where it gets interesting.

Western leaders are employing two distinct strategies to obfuscate the lack of legal justification for intervention in Syria. The first is the use of propaganda to build narratives about Syria that support their legal argumentation. The second is a shrewd effort to cite legal “theory” as a means to ‘stretch’ existing law into a shape that supports their objectives.

The “Unwilling and Unable” Theory – the “Unable” argument

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he unwilling and unable theory – as related to the Syria/ISIS situation – essentially argues that the Syrian state is both unwilling and unable to target the non-state actor based within its territory (ISIS, in this case) that poses a threat to another state.

Let’s break this down further.

Ostensibly, Syria is ‘unable’ to sufficiently degrade or destroy ISIS because, as we can clearly see, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory within Syria’s borders that its national army has not been able to reclaim.

This made some sense – until September 30 when Russia entered the Syrian military theater and began to launch widespread airstrikes against terrorist targets inside Syria.

The American media have acted like a huge p.r. machine for ISIL. From “the dictator is killing his own people” to the “regime is using chemical weapons” to the need to establish “No Fly Zones”to safeguard “refugees fleeing Assad”…propaganda has been liberally used to build the justification for foreign military intervention.

As a major global military power, Russia is clearly ‘able’ to thwart ISIS –certainly just as well as most of the Western NATO states participating in airstrikes already. Moreover, as Russia is operating there due to a direct Syrian government appeal for assistance, the Russian military role in Syria is perfectly legal.

This development struck a blow at the US-led coalition’s legal justification for strikes in Syria. Not that the coalition’s actions were ever legal – “unwilling and unable” is merely a theory and has no basis in customary international law.

About this new Russian role, Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, says:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

In recent weeks, the Russians have made ISIS the target of many of its airstrikes, and are day by day improving coordination efficiencies with the ground troops and air force of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies -Iran, Hezbollah and other foreign groups who are also in Syria legally, at the invitation of the Syrian state.

Certainly, the balance of power on the ground in Syria has started to shift away from militants and terrorist groups since Russia launched its campaign seven weeks ago – much more than we have seen in a year of coalition strikes.

The “Unwilling and Unable” Theory – the “Unwilling” argument

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]ow for the ‘unwilling’ part of the theory. And this is where the role of Western governments in seeding ‘propaganda’ comes into play.

The US and its allies have been arguing for the past few years that the Syrian government is either in cahoots with ISIS, benefits from ISIS’ existence, or is a major recruiting magnet for the terror group.

Western media, in particular, have made a point of underplaying the SAA’s military confrontations with ISIS, often suggesting that the government actively avoids ISIS-controlled areas.

The net result of this narrative has been to convey the message that the Syrian government has been ‘unwilling’ to diminish the terror group’s base within the country.

But is this true?

ISIS was born from the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in April, 2013 when the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a short-lived union of ISI and Syria’s Al-Qaeda branch, Jabhat al-Nusra. Armed militants in Syria have switched around their militia allegiances many times throughout this conflict, so it would be disingenuous to suggest the Syrian army has not fought each and every one of these groups at some point since early 2011.

If ISIS was viewed as a ‘neglected’ target at any juncture, it has been mainly because the terror group was focused on land grabs for its “Caliphate” in the largely barren north-east areas of the country – away from the congested urban centers and infrastructure hubs that have defined the SAA’s military priorities.

But ISIS has always remained a fixture in the SAA’s sights. The Syrian army has fought or targeted ISIS, specifically, in dozens of battlefields since the organization’s inception, and continues to do so. In Deir Hafer Plains, Mennagh, Kuweires, Tal Arn, al-Safira, Tal Hasel and the Aleppo Industrial District. In the suburbs and countryside of Damascus – most famously in Yarmouk this year – where the SAA and its allies thwarted ISIS’ advance into the capital city. In the Qalamun mountains, in Christian Qara and Faleeta. In Deir Ezzor, where ISIS would join forces with the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA): al-Husseiniyeh, Hatla, Sakr Island, al-Hamadiyah, al-Rashidiyah, al-Jubeileh, Sheikh Yasseen, Mohassan, al-Kanamat, al-Sina’a, al-Amal, al-Haweeqa, al-Ayyash, the Ghassan Aboud neighborhood, al-Tayyim Oil Fields and the Deir ez-Zor military airport. In Hasakah Province – Hasakah city itself, al-Qamishli, Regiment 121 and its environs, the Kawkab and Abdel-Aziz Mountains. In Raqqa, the Islamic State’s capital in Syria, the SAA combatted ISIS in Division 17, Brigade 93 and Tabaqa Airbase. In Hama Province, the entire al-Salamiyah District – Ithriyah, Sheikh Hajar, Khanasser. In the province of Homs, the eastern countryside: Palmyra, Sukaneh, Quraytayn, Mahin, Sadad, Jubb al-Ahmar, the T-4 Airbase and the Iraqi border crossing. In Suweida, the northern countryside.

If anything, the Russian intervention has assisted the Syrian state in going on the offensive against ISIS and other like-minded terror groups. Before Russia moved in, the SAA was hunkering down in and around key strategic areas to protect these hubs. Today, Syria and its allies are hitting targets by land and air in the kinds of coordinated offensives we have not seen before.

Seeding ‘propaganda’

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he role of propaganda and carefully manipulated narratives should not be underestimated in laying the groundwork for foreign military intervention in Syria.

From “the dictator is killing his own people” to the “regime is using chemical weapons” to the need to establish “No Fly Zones”to safeguard “refugees fleeing Assad”…propaganda has been liberally used to build the justification for foreign military intervention.

Article 2 of the UN Charter states, in part:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

It’s hard to see how Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has not been systematically violated throughout the nearly five years of this conflict, by the very states that make up the US-led coalition. The US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and other nations have poured weapons, funds, troops and assistance into undermining a UN member state at every turn.

“Legitimacy” is the essential foundation upon which governance rests. Vilify a sitting government, shut down multiple embassies, isolate a regime in international forums, and you can destroy the fragile veneer of legitimacy of a king, president or prime minister.

But efforts to delegitimize the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have also served to lay the groundwork for coalition airstrikes in Syria.

If Assad is viewed to lack “legitimacy,” the coalition creates the impression that there is no real government from which it can gain the necessary authority to launch its airstrikes.

This mere ‘impression’ provided the pretext for Washington to announce it was sending 50 Special Forces troops into Syria, as though the US wasn’t violating every tenet of international law in doing so. “It’s okay – there’s no real government there,” we are convinced.

Media reports repeatedly highlight the ‘percentages’ of territory outside the grasp of Syrian government forces – this too serves a purpose. One of the essentials of a state is that it consists of territory over which it governs.

If only 50 percent of Syria is under government control, the argument goes, “then surely we can just walk into the other ‘ungoverned’ parts” – as when US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and US Senator John McCain just strolled illegally across the border of the sovereign Syrian state.

Sweep aside these ‘impressions’ and bury them well. The Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad is viewed by the United Nations as the only legitimate government in Syria. Every official UN interaction with the state is directed at this government. The Syrian seat at the UN is occupied by Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari, a representative of Assad’s government. It doesn’t matter how many Syrian embassies in how many capitals are shut down – or how many governments-in-exile are established. The UN only recognizes one.

As one UN official told me in private: “Control of surface territory doesn’t count. The government of Kuwait when its entire territory was occupied by Iraq – and it was in exile – was still the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Syrian government could have 10 percent of its surface left – the decision of the UN Security Council is all that matters from the perspective of international law, even if other governments recognize a new Syrian government.”

Countdown to more illegal airstrikes?

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]f there was any lingering doubt about the illegality of coalition activities in Syria, the Syrian government put these to rest in September, in two letters to the UNSC that denounced foreign airstrikes as unlawful:

“If any State invokes the excuse of counter-terrorism in order to be present on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian Government whether on the country’s land or in its airspace or territorial waters, its action shall be considered a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”

Yet still, upon the adoption of UNSC Resolution 2249 last Friday, US Deputy Representative to the United Nations Michele Sison insisted that “in accordance with the UN Charter and its recognition of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense,” the US would use “necessary and proportionate military action” in Syria.

The website for the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) promptly pointed out the obvious:

“The resolution is worded so as to suggest there is Security Council support for the use of force against IS. However, though the resolution, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against IS, the resolution does not actually authorize any actions against IS, nor does it provide a legal basis for the use of force against IS either in Syria or in Iraq.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron. © Rob Stothard

‘The British government doesn’t want to be left out of a Syrian bombing campaign’

On Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron plans to unveil his new “comprehensive strategy” to tackle ISIS, which we are told will include launching airstrikes in Syria.

We already know the legal pretext he will spin – “unwilling and unable,” Article 51, UN Charter, individual and collective self-defense, and so forth.

But if Cameron’s September 7 comments at the House of Commons are any indication, he will use the following logic to argue that the UK has no other choice than to resort to ‘use of force’ in Syria. In response to questions about two illegal drone attacks targeting British nationals in Syria, the prime minister emphasized:

“These people were in a part of Syria where there was no government, no one to work with, and no other way of addressing this threat…When we are dealing with people in ISIL-dominated Syria—there is no government, there are no troops on the ground—there is no other way of dealing with them than the route that we took.”

But Cameron does have another route available to him – and it is the only ‘legal’ option for military involvement in Syria.

If the UK’s intention is solely to degrade and destroy ISIS, then it must request authorization from the Syrian government to participate in a coordinated military campaign that could help speed up the task.

If Western (and allied Arab) leaders can’t stomach dealing with the Assad government on this issue, then by all means work through an intermediary – like the Russians – who can coordinate and authorize military operations on behalf of their Syrian ally.

The Syrian government has said on multiple occasions that it welcomes sincere international efforts to fight terrorism inside its territory. But these efforts must come under the direction of a central legal authority that can lead a broad campaign on the ground and in the air.

The West argues that, unlike in Iraq, it seeks to maintain the institutions of the Syrian state if Assad were to step down. The SAA is one of these ‘institutions’ – why not coordinate with it now?

But after seven weeks of Russian airstrikes coordinated with extensive ground troops (which the coalition lacks), none of these scenarios may even be warranted. ISIS and other extremist groups have lost ground in recent weeks, and if this trend continues, coalition states should fall back and focus on other key ISIS-busting activities referenced in UNSCR 2249 – squeezing terror financing, locking down key borders, sharing intelligence…”all necessary measures” to destroy this group.

If the ‘international community’ wants to return ‘peace and stability’ to the Syrian state, it seems prudent to point out that its very first course of action should be to stop breaking international law in Syria.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony's College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar English, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani

We apologize for this inconvenience.

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

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Obama’s Big Lie Claiming Russia Not Combating ISIS

•by• Stephen Lendman

Obama maintains the fiction of America’s war on terrorism, a complete fabrication, suppressing its full responsibility for creating and supporting its scourge, a monstrous enemy of humanity, vital to combat, contain and eliminate.

Addressing reporters at the Paris climate conference, he lied, saying no one should be “under any illusions” about Russia waging war on terrorism— absurdly claiming its campaign achieved no substantial changes on the ground.

Fact: America’s war on terrorism is fake. It’s the world’s greatest proliferator OF terrorism. Russia’s campaign is real, changing the dynamic significantly on the ground in Syria.

Fact: Russia is routing ISIS forces effectively, destroying their weapons, facilities, ability to produce and transport stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil to Turkey for refining and black market sales, and in some areas their will to fight, letting Syrian combat troops recapture earlier lost territory, a major change from before Moscow got involved.

According to Obama, Putin only seeks to prop up Assad’s government. False! He respects Syrian sovereignty and the right of its people to decide who’ll lead them, free from outside interference, especially from Washington, a global menace threatening world peace.

Obama calling war in Syria he launched “civil” is polar opposite truth. It’s naked US aggression, like its other imperial wars, using ISIS and other Takfiri terrorists as proxy foot soldiers – what media scoundrels never explain, proliferating state propaganda, suppressing hard truths.

Obama expressing “confiden(ce)” about US forces “degrad(ing) and ultimately destroy(ing)” ISIS terrorism is polar opposite his agenda – actively supporting the scourge he claims to oppose, one of his many Big Lies.

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses speaks about the shooting attacks in Paris, from the White House in Washington

“I want to be very clear: Turkey is a NATO ally. Along with our allies, the United States supports Turkey’s right to defend itself and its airspace and its territory. And we’re very much committed to Turkey’s security and its sovereignty.”

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]e again expressed support for Erdogan’s premeditated aggression complicit with Washington – downing its Su-24 bomber in Syrian airspace, not cross-border in Turkey as he falsely claimed, Obama outrageously saying:

He ignored his own direct involvement in an act of war on Russia, a major provocation, Putin justifiably livid about what happened, compounded by Erdogan’s refusal to apologize.

He and Obama met on the sidelines of the Paris summit, partners in high crimes, plotting their next moves – Erdogan duplicitously saying “(w)e want peace to prevail at all costs” while actively complicit in naked aggression against Assad, as well as Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.

Interviewed on Czech television on Tuesday, Assad said downing Russia’s aircraft “showed Erdogan’s real intention as he could not cope that the Russian operation (in Syria) changed the balance of power on the ground.”

“This is Erdogan’s failure in Syria. The failure of his terrorist groups means the end of his political career, and he wanted to do anything to hinder the success” of effective joint Russian/Syrian military operations.

He explained the way “to fight and defeat (ISIS and other terrorist groups is by) cut(ting) off their supplies of ammunition, weapons, and money, which they mostly get through Turkey with the support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar” – complicit with Washington, other rogue NATO states and Israel.

Peace will be achieved when America and complicit allies “stop supporting terrorists,” he stressed. These groups can’t exist without foreign backers.

Cut off their funding sources, arms, munitions, supplies and outside support, and they’ll become little more than a largely contained irritant.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

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

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.