Nikolai Patrushev (left) and Vladimir Putin (right) (Photo credit: www.kremlin.ru)
By Madison Ruppert
January 14, 2012
By Madison RuppertThe push for foreign
intervention in Syria has been going on for quite a while now and never seems
to relent in ferocity. I have been writing about this issue for months now, so
if you would like to get a strong background on this topic I highly recommend you
scroll down to the end of the article to find a list of related reading
materials.
Despite the large
conglomeration of Western nations and allied nations in the Arab League’s
relentless full-court press, some countries continue to resist this effort.
The most glaring example
is, of course, Russia.
Russia has not only been
a vocal opponent of sanctions and resolutions in the United Nations Security Council,
indeed they have actually backed up their rhetoric with muscle; something which
China has yet to do.
I previously reported on Russia moving complete advanced
anti-aircraft missile systems and all that is required
to operate them into Syria, a move which was likely an attempt to dissuade the
West and/or Arab League from moving to establish a no-fly zone over Syria.
Russian warships have
also moved into Syrian waters previously, and most recently it was announced
that a Russian naval group docked in the
Syrian port city of Tartus.
All of these actions make
some quite pronounced statements to the United States, NATO and Arab League
members who are seeking to topple the Assad regime.
However, it just becomes
more heated as the days go by and the statements coming out of Russia just get
increasingly unequivocal.
Remarks made by Russian
Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev have been some of the strongest to
date.
In an interview with
Russian newspaper Kommersant, Patrushev stated that NATO member states are
planning “direct military intervention” in cooperation with the Arab League,
according to RT.
Such an operation would
likely be mostly in the blueprint of the foreign intervention in Libya which
led to the brutal murder of Qaddafi, the desecration of his corpse, Western
puppets being put in power, Western nations reaping the windfall profits of the
contracts to rebuild Libya, and of course a massive civilian death toll.
This seems like hardly
the course of events anyone would seek to repeat, yet this is exactly what they
are apparently planning to do.
However, I must encourage
the reader to keep in mind that this is not the first time such a report has
been released, but in the previous case no such no-fly zone or so-called
“buffer zone” ever emerged.
This operation would
likely break from the mold of the Libyan operation in one important way:
instead of the United States, France, Italy and the United Kingdom providing
most of the firepower and personnel, it very well might be Turkey in this case.
Turkey might turn its
back on a former ally due to the Turkish-Iranian rivalry.
Turkey reportedly has
“huge ambitions” in the region and the major impediment to the realization of
such ambitions is Iran, which continues to maintain close ties with Syria ~
something which obviously irks the West.
Patrushev has stated that
the United States and Turkey are thought to be in the process of negotiating the
establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, which obviously would directly
benefit the armed insurgent forces in the nation like the Free Syrian Army.
Recently a foreign journalist was killed in
Syria, but not by government forces as many in the controlled
establishment media immediately assumed.
This became quite obvious
when it came out that the journalist was in fact at a pro-government rally, and
a government under siege domestically shooting its own citizens who support
them makes so little sense that it is surprising that anyone would say
otherwise, even in the chronically nonsensical mainstream media.
Events like this have
been occurring since day one, but the mentions of the armed opposition and
their actions are usually either omitted, marginalized, or strategically buried
in articles.
Obviously this is a
concerted effort as the presence of opposition gunmen is hardly an
insignificant detail and it thoroughly contradicts the mainstream media’s
manufactured narrative.
Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad has continued to point to a foreign conspiracy as the cause of the
uprising, statements which are routinely derided by the Western media and
governments.
Assad’s statements are
usually either ignored or brushed off as the insane rantings of some paranoid
lunatic, which is a classic diversionary tactic, intended to keep people from
actually looking into his claims.
When one does, it becomes
quite clear that there is, in fact, a Western conspiracy against Syria, and it
is hardly unclear when one takes the time to look past the myopic coverage of
the establishment media.
Often a news outlet will
actually report on the Western backing of opposition groups, funding of
anti-government propaganda, etc. while somehow managing to forget to integrate
this knowledge into their future coverage.
This is because it
wouldn’t look very good for a news outlet to cover the statements of chronic
deceiver Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then mention how there is
evidence that clearly shows all of her statements to be bold faced lies.
The same State Department
has been guilty of pumping anti-government propaganda into Syria via satellite
while American ambassadors have met with prominent Syrian opposition figures
and Syrian opposition non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have had high-level
meetings with the British government as well.
Unsurprisingly, instead
of even attempting to address the mounds of evidence that show covert foreign
involvement in the Syrian uprising ~ and the greater “Arab Spring” uprisings in
general ~ Clinton just derided the comments as a whole.
Clinton made her
typically laughably baseless statements during a joint press-conference with
the Prime Minister of Qatar, calling Assad’s speech “chillingly cynical” adding
that America “cannot permit President Assad and his regime to have impunity.”
The presence of the
Qatari PM is quite ironic given their heavy involvement in the Libyan
intervention, including running all of the major ground operations for the
NATO-backed rebel forces.
We must keep in mind that
al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded propaganda arm, thus the news they publish
must be viewed with the necessary skepticism, like all media but especially the
controlled establishment media.
It is also worth noting
that the Clinton just stated that the Arab League’s monitoring mission should
be brought to an end because they have so far totally failed to “deter the
government’s 10-month campaign of violence against dissidents,” according to Bloomberg.
The timing of Clinton’s
remarks is quite interesting as well, not only because she had just met with
Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, but also
because American President Barack Obama also recently met with the Saudi
Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal at the White House.
Saudi Arabia has been a
key partner in the Western growth in the region, especially in the effort to
encircle and isolate Syria and Iran.
As I have previously
covered, the United States is also arming these allied states in the Persian
Gulf, in the case of Saudi Arabia it is with new and renovated fighter jets.
A Middle East analyst at
the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Irina Zvyagelskaya, said that Russia is
concerned that if Assad’s government is toppled, Islamic radicals may come to
power.
This is hardly a baseless
claim given that we have seen the heavy involvement of Islamic forces
throughout the so-called Arab Spring uprisings, especially in Libya and Egypt.
Zvyagelskaya stated that
while Russia would continue to block any attempt at approval of a no-fly zone
in the United Nations Security Council, Western nations and their allies very
well might take an approach similar to that in 2003 in the case of Iraq.
This would be an
independent coalition, outside of the United Nations, which could then engage
in anything and everything without concern over operating outside of a UN
mandate or a UNSC resolution.
“Syria has not become an object of interest for a new coalition of the willing itself,” Patrushev said. “The plan is to punish Damascus not so much for repressing the opposition as for its unwillingness to sever friendly relations with Tehran.”
Then again, as we saw in
Libya, the West and others have absolutely no problem with breaching a United
States Security Council Resolution if they decide to do so.
“We have seen before what
a no-fly zone means, it will be used to overthrow the regime,” Zvyagelskaya
said.
This is quite right, as
we have seen in Libya where the no-fly zone actually killed civilians instead
of protecting them as it was intended to do.
Instead, it was used to
advance the NATO-backed and Qatari-controlled rebel ground forces in their
effort to kill Qaddafi and enact regime change.
As I have previously
reported, the Free Syrian Army ~ comprised mostly of military defectors ~ has been pushing for a “buffer
zone” (a less intimidating term for a no-fly zone) in the north on
the Turkish-Syrian border and the South on the Syrian-Jordanian border.
The Jordanian aspect of
this equation becomes more important when one considers the reports of American troop buildups
on the Syrian-Jordanian border in the recent past.
There is the real
possibility that this force (if it is actually still there, which is
unconfirmed as far as I know) could be used to create or assist in the
establishment of this so-called buffer zone.
Fyodor Lukyanov, an
analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense policy in Moscow, said that these
statements from Russia are likely due to either intelligence regarding Western
military plans in Syria or perhaps it may just be an effort to make it clear
that they will actively oppose any efforts made by the West or its allies to
intervene.
However, I would argue
that this has been quite clear with the instances of Russian warship presence
and the delivery of advanced missile systems that Russia has always intended to
take an active role in opposing any foreign efforts.
“After the Libyan experience, Russia will do everything to stop this scenario from happening,” Lukyanov told Bloomberg, adding, “Syria is much more important than Libya from Russia’s point of view.”
I think that it is quite
obvious at this point that Syria is more important to Russia given that Russia
never docked naval vessels on the coast of Libya or delivered weapons systems.
All of these statements
from the Russians only serve to make it even more obvious that they will not
stand for yet another Western intervention under the guise of humanitarianism.
Wu Sike, China’s Special
Envoy to the Middle East said that China rejected the internationalization of
the Syrian crisis while showing their support for the Arab League’s efforts to
resolve the situation, according to Syria’s SANA via Azerbaijani Trend News Agency.
Sike stated that the
situation should be addressed within the Arab framework, clearly implying that
the Western companies trying to meddle in Syria’s domestic affairs need to mind
their own business.
Interestingly, Sike’s
statements conflicted with those of Clinton most significantly in that the
Chinese Envoy said that the Arab League’s monitors should be assisted by the
Syrian government and the other sides involved in hopes that they will succeed.
On the other hand,
Clinton seems to believe that it has been a total failure which should be
chalked up as a loss, indicating that the next option they will be pursuing
will likely involve some kind of military action.
Hopefully the significant
opposition from Russia ~ backed up with the threat of military action ~ coupled
with China’s more diplomatic approach will serve to dissuade the West and the
regional allies from engaging in another imperialistic regime change.
Unfortunately the wild
brazenness with which the West has been operating as of late does nothing to
reassure me that this will not occur.
RECOMMENDED RELATED READING (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER,
OLDEST TO LATEST):
RELATED POSTS:
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.