The Anglos truly believe their rot that they’re the most benevolent people on the face of the earth. History shows otherwise…
CIA veteran and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution Paul R Pillar noted that Russia’s efforts in Syria have the aim of resolving the conflict and ending the strife, adding that American policymakers who believe that they can pressure Moscow and Damascus into making concessions by military force are profoundly wrong. The breakdown of the American-Russian agreement on Syria sparked a lively debate, one largely misinterpreted so far. Pillar shed light on “what this episode doesn’t indicate”. American commentators and academics have been sceptical all along about the possible outcome of US-Russian negotiations, suggesting that Moscow has no interest in resolving the conflict with diplomacy. However, Pillar wrote in an article for The National Interest:
Such an approach is flawed. The broader political and military position that is a Russian interest isn’t served by unending conflict in Syria. There is a flaw in this concept. The Russians still have an interest in being a major part of resolving that conflict. On the other hand, those who believe that a military solution might end the conflict are wrong. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is now unable to recapture every inch of Syrian territory and maintain full control over the country. Likewise, the so-called opposition can’t oust Bashar al-Assad, even with outside help. Those who call for exerting military pressure on Moscow and Damascus to induce them to make concessions need to keep in mind that what’s at stake for the Assad government is nothing less than their survival. For its part, Russia is committed to protecting its Middle Eastern ally.
The deployment of Russian S-300V4 SAM systems in Syria in response to the Obama administration’s debates about the possibility of missile launches and airstrikes on Syrian army positions confirmed Pillar’s assumption. Pillar emphasised:
The balance of pressures would then be unchanged even though the war would be that much more intense.
Dave Majumdar, the Defence Editor of The National Interest, echoed Pillar:
Besides potential military risks, there are certain legal problems preventing Washington from overtly hitting Assad’s forces in Syria. The legal problem comes from the fact that the United States isn’t technically at war with Syria, nor is there a UN resolution authorising American forces to operate inside that nation. Even ongoing US military operations inside Syria are illegal.
Pillar went on to say:
The US national interest has nothing to do with changing the political colouration of the régime in Damascus. What Washington needs to care about is how to stop the spread of terrorism and violent extremism in the region.
Similarly, Majumdar emphasised:
The fight against the Assad régime is complicated by the fact that there are no clear-cut good guys on the ground to side with. Even so-called “moderate” rebels backed by the US government behead children.
In his Friday op-ed for online newspaper Vzglyad, political analyst Yevgeni Krutikov noted:
Washington’s hysteria over the Syrian Arab Army advance in Aleppo is quite understandable. Liberating Aleppo from Islamists would pave the way for Assad’s victory in the Syrian war. At the same time, it would mean that Washington’s five year-long political and military manoeuvres in the region were in vain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration’s fiasco is likely to coincide with the final phase of the US presidential campaign. Recently, the SAA not only gained more ground in Aleppo, but also kicked off an offensive against Islamists in Deir ez-Zor, where the US Air Force hit Syrian government forces several weeks ago. In addition, the SAA intensified its activity in Hama. In this context, it becomes clear why American war planners renewed the debate over directly striking Assad’s positions in Syria. In their eyes, only a massive assault against the SAA could save the USA’s reputation. Still, such an outcome is highly unlikely… neither the UN nor the US Congress is likely to open the door for yet another US military intervention in the Middle East.
8 October 2016
The USA’s enterprise is going down the shitter. However, that doesn’t mean that they’ll just pack it in and go home. They believe their own propaganda that they’re the sole hyperpower, with the capability to dictate to all comers. I fear that the USA will try to pull out its errors in Syria and the Ukraine with a heightened involvement, whether “legal” or not. The USA needs another defeat like Vietnam to teach it some humility. Remember, Vietnam wasn’t only a defeat; it was an open defeat in the eyes of the whole world. If the USA were to beef up involvement and still lose in Syria and the Ukraine, it may prove a similar shock to the American Establishment. After all, the Establishment hasn’t wavered with its commitment to a mercenary army since Vietnam… the lesson sank home that conscripts weren’t just clay in their hands. Long-service troops proved more amenable to pressures and threats. I fear that the situation will escalate, as the Anglos truly see themselves as the masters of the world. Their hubris and arrogance is beyond measure. God do help us.