Paul Craig Roberts on Russia's seeming naivity

Russia Has No Partners In The West

By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45499.htm

18 September, 2016

The Russian government is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Russian government keeps making agreements with Washington, and Washington keeps breaking them.

This latest exercise in what Einstein defined as insanity is the latest Syrian cease fire agreement. Washington broke the agreement by sending the US Air Force to bomb Syrian troop positions, killing 62 Syrian soldiers and wounding 100, thus clearing the way for ISIS to renew the attack.

Russia caught Washington off guard in September 2015 when the Russian Air Force was sent to bomb ISIS positions in Syria, thus enabling the Syrian Army to regain the initiative. Russia had the war against ISIS won, but pulled out unexpectedly before the job was done. This allowed the US or its agents to resupply ISIS, which renewed the attack.

So Russia had to return to Syria. In the interval Washington had inserted itself. Now the Russian air attacks on ISIS are more complicated, as is the sky over Syria. Russia notifies Washington of its planned attacks on ISIS, and Washington warns ISIS and perhaps Turkey which shot down a Russian plane. Nevertheless, the Syrian Army gained ground.

But each time victory was stymied by “peace talks” or a “cease fire,” during which the US supported forces would regroup. Consequently, a war that Russia and Syria could have already won continues, and with a new element. Now Washington has directly attacked the Syrian army.

The US military claims it thought it was striking ISIS. Think about that a minute. The US claims to be a military superpower. It spies on the entire world, even on the personal emails and cell phone calls of its European vassals. Yet, somehow all this spy power failed to differentiate a known Syrian Army position from ISIS. If we believe that, we must conclude that the US is militarily incompetent.

This is what has happened: Prior to the current “cease fire,” the Russians could attack the US-supported jihadists, but the US could not attack Syrian forces directly, only through its jihadist proxies. The US has used the “cease fire” to create a precedent for US direct attacks on the Syrian Army.

The Russians, who almost had the war won, have shifted their focus to “peace talks” and “cease fires” that the US has used to introduce Washington’s direct participation into the conflict.

It is a mystery that the Russian government believes Washington and Moscow have any common interest in the outcome in Syria. Washington’s interest is to remove Assad and put Syria into the chaos that rules in Libya and Iraq. Russia’s interest is to stabilize Syria as a bulwark against the spread of jihadism. It is extraordinary that the Russian government is so misinformed that it thinks Moscow and Washington have a common interest in fighting terrorism, when terrorism is Washington’s weapon for destabilizing the Middle East.

How can the Russian memory be so short. Washington promised Gorbachev that if he permitted the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East. But the Clinton regime placed NATO on Russia’s border.

The George W. Bush regime violated the ABM Treaty by pulling out of it, and the Obama regime is putting missile bases on Russia’s border.

The neoconservatives deep-sixed no first use of nuclear weapons and elevated them to pre-emptive first strike in US war doctrine.

The Obama regime overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed a US puppet government in a former constituent part of Russia. The puppet government launched a war against the Russian populations in Ukraine, causing secession movements that Washington has mischaracterized as “Russian invasion and annexation.”

Yet, the Russian government thinks Washington is a “partner” with whom it has common interests.

Go figure.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order

Peter Lavelle: Washington’s forced-illegal regime change in Syria moves apace

For those paying attention, Washington’s public pronouncements and actions reveal appalling hypocrisy and calculated cynicism.

The Duran,

18 September, 2016

The American attack on the Syrian Army appears more and more to be intentional and with the expressed aim to support terrorist groups to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. Washington talks peace but is determined to expand the war in Syria.

The U.S. government claims its bombing of the Syrian Army was not intentional. This is truly hard to believe. U.S. airstrikes on Deir Ezzor killed at least 83 Syrian troops, a clear violation of the second ceasefire agreed to by Russia and the U.S., and an obvious opening for the Islamic State to capitalize on the losses suffered by the Syrians. This is still another attempt to achieve regime change on the cheap and through deception.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power slammed Russia’s protest of the bombing and Moscow’s demand that the UN Security Council debate the meaning and consequences of the American airstrike. She called Russia’s proposal according to Power was “a magician’s trick” and “a stunt.” She insisted the Syrian government is to blame for what’s happening in Syria. Power also called the meeting a “diversion from what is happening on the ground.” Her words ring hollow and demonstrate an intentional cover-up. Much more is in play, I am certain.

Consider the following:

Why does Washington demand the entirety of the most recent ceasefire plan remain secret? What does Washington want to conceal?

Did Washington agree to the ceasefire because it was determined to render it meaningless soon after?

Did the Pentagon finally agree to the ceasefire as a means to torpedo the so-called peace efforts of the State Department (knowing full well Barack decided long ago to go AWOL)?

Is Washington determined to undermine any credit to Russia for ending the Syrian conflict?

Does Washington (I know this is sounds crazy) think it can control its terrorist proxies in Syria? Remember Afghanistan and Libya?

Is there any reason to believe Washington has a plan after it achieves it regime change? Again, remember Afghanistan and Libya?

Does Washington hope to trap Moscow into a Syrian quagmire defending the Assad government?

Has Washington finally come to the realization Assad (with Russian and Iranian support) could win this conflict militarily? Is this why the U.S. has directly attacked the sovereign state of Syria?

All of these questions lead me to the conclusion Washington’s forced regime change for Syria is alive and gaining strength. After five years, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died, half the Syrian population is in exile and/or displaced, and Washington and its regional surrogates support terrorists.

The questions cited above amount to a very cynical mindset and agenda, but it won’t work. The U.S. wants more war and it will get it. If history is a guide, it won’t achieve any of its goals.

Peter Lavelle is host of RT’s political discussion program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer.