Voices from Russia

Monday, 17 October 2016

Syrian Stalemate: Window of Opportunity for American Intervention Now Closed


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

Sputnik International



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.


Tuesday, 13 September 2016

13 September 2016. President Assad PROTECTS Syrian Christians



I believe that Metropolitan Joseph, the First Hierarch of the AOCANA, should curb the konvertsy within his ranks, especially, loudmouth clergy such as Josiah Trenham (and those like him). Whatever they may mouth, they support rightwing political factions that support the terrorists that crucify Syria. Trenham in particular has shown that rightwing ideology means more to him than Orthodoxy… first by his support of the Mormon Romney, secondly, by his false teaching that artificial contraception is sinful. The first was collaboration with known and sworn enemies of Christ’s Church, the second was a conscious distortion of the Church’s Teaching (the Church of Antioch agrees with the Church of Moscow, which teaches that artificial contraception is licit via oikonomia). He’s also brought godless Evangelical sectarians onto his Ancient Faith Radio programme. Metropolitan Joseph, you have a shit-spattered byre to clean up. I don’t envy you the task. However, you must do it, but I’ll confide that many of your believers will thank and bless you for doing it. Follow in the footsteps of the late saintly Archbishop Michael Shaheen… not in the footsteps of arrogant konvertsy toddlers…

Remember the Golgotha of Christian Syria… remember who helped… remember who hurt… may God see and judge…


Tuesday, 16 August 2016

16 August 2016. The Heart of Christian Syria Still Beats

00 christian syria 160816


May my right hand wither if I forget thee…


Saturday, 6 August 2016

The West Obviously “Decided Against” Toppling President Assad

00 assad syria iran 060816


As the USA missed yet another deadline it had previously set for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, some Middle East analysts suggest that the West dropped its idea of toppling the legitimate Syrian leader, especially, as he enjoys such strong support from Russia and Iran. Back in May, US Secretary of State John Kerry set a new deadline for President Assad’s exit… 1 August. Four days past the deadline, there seems to be no further demands for the legitimate Syrian leader to go.

German Middle East analyst Guido Steinberg said in an interview with the German news service Tagesschau:

The USA took a reality check; it understands that this is a hard goal to reach, especially, with Russian and Iranian support for President Assad. Apparently, Washington no longer bets on ousting Assad, but it reiterates that it’d be desirable. Meanwhile, the USA does nothing to make it happen. One reason is that the USA and Europe need him in power to control the country and prevent a refugee influx into Europe. There are about ten million people in Syria; thus, the West has concerns that if the country goes down, those living in such large cities as Damascus, Hama, Homs, and Lattakia would flood Europe. Ergo, the USA and its allies no longer want to topple the régime.

However, Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky provides another reason the USA seems to be dropping its demands for President Assad to go:

With Russian air support, the régime forces and their Iranian and Lebanese allies are pushing back and maintaining the siege [of eastern Aleppo], which cuts the rebels off from Turkey. That’s a nasty situation for the USA (quoting Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Foundation). In Syria, Putin is holding a much stronger hand. Unlike the USA, he backs a capable force that… with Russian and Iranian support… could take on the insurgents. Probably, the opposition missed its best chance to negotiate a political transition… since the USA is holding back, so is Turkey. Assad, Putin, Hizbullah, and Iranian forces are going to pummel [the terrorists].

If Assad’s forces take Aleppo, the war would become essentially binary… between the Assad coalition and the Islamic State (Daesh). For President Putin, this is preferable to a negotiated solution. The defeat of the opposition groups in Aleppo would make the American reluctance to leave Assad in power irrelevant. There’d be no alternative. The USA appears to be allowing Assad, Putin, and the Iranian generals to implement their plan. If they succeed in taking Aleppo, they’d face ISIS without American support. Probably, they’d be able to defeat the terrorists if they don’t have to fight on several fronts. Such a scenario would definitely affect the USA’s credibility as an international arbiter, as it might eventually have to watch from the sidelines as Assad and Erdoğan gang up on the Kurdish militias that received open American backing. However, it still might be a better option.

Meanwhile, Ambassador A N Borodavkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN in Geneva, also recently mentioned Assad’s fate:

As far as we understand it, the USA no longer talks about Assad’s immediate departure. Washington’s updated stance on the issue focuses on saying that Assad supposedly doesn’t have a political future in Syria, but [the Americans] aren’t demanding that he resign right away.

5 August 2016

Sputnik International


Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.