Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
by PAUL
CRAIG ROBERTS
24
October, 2016
A
month ago I wrote a column , “He Who Hesitates Is Lost—And Russia
Hesitated.” The consequences of this hesitation are now
apparent:
1/
A UN report orchestrated by Washington has accused Syria and Russia
of war crimes in Aleppo. According to the report, “indiscriminate
airstrikes across the eastern part of the city by Government forces
and their allies [Russia] are responsible for the overwhelming
majority of civilian casualties. These violations constitute war
crimes. And if knowingly committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against civilians, they constitute crimes
against humanity.”
The
UN Human Rights Council has now voted to start an “independent”
investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to indict Russia
and Putin as war criminals and to “bring to justice those
responsible for the alleged abuses.” Moreover, “the situation
should be urgently referred to the International Criminal Court.
Every party to this conflict must know that they will be held
accountable for the international crimes they commit – all, without
selective protection or discrimination.” Keep in mind that
Washington provides the largest share of the UN’s budget, and the
UN will overlook that it was Washington that sent ISIS to Aleppo.
Obviously,
neither Washington nor the UN will be able to drag Putin into the
International Criminal Court. The purpose of this orchestrated
exercise is its propaganda value. Among Washington’s many concerns
is that some Eastern European countries, alarmed by the conflict that
Washington is leading them into with Russia, will threaten NATO with
a non-participation statement. If Russia is branded a war criminal,
it becomes even more difficult for countries that foolishly and
thoughtlessly joined NATO to extricate themselves from the
consequences.
2/
Washington has succeeded in bringing to power in Poland the far
right-wing Law and Justice Party. These agents of Washington have
re-opened the matter of the death of Poland’s President Kaczynski
in a plane crash, making wild claims that the crash was a terror
attack by Russia aimed at depriving Poland of its political
leadership.
Despite
massive and convincing evidence to the contrary, the Law and Justice
Party’s claims will find traction thanks to the scary portrait of
Russia painted by Washington’s demonization campaign. The intended
result is to further blacken and isolate Russia and its government.
3/
As the anointed spokesperson for the neoconservative warmongers,
Hillary wants Washington to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. A no-fly
zone would require Washington to attemp to prevent Syrian and Russian
air strikes against ISIS positions. It seems clear enough that Syria
and Russia would not accept any attempt to deny Syria the use of the
country’s own airspace in the conflict against forces sent by
Washington to overthrow the Syrian government, as happened to Gaddafi
in Libya. Hillary’s no-fly zone would result in military conflict
between Russia and the US.
To
advance the no-fly zone proposal, the “use of chemical weapons”
ruse has been resurrected. Fabricated reports are appearing that the
Syrian airforce is guilty of dropping chemical weapons on the Syrian
population. On October 22, the Indian Express reported that on
October 21 the UN-Led Joint Investigative Mechanism informed the UN
Security Council that the chemical attack on Qmenas “was caused by
a Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter dropping a device from a high
altitude which hit the ground and released the toxic substance that
affected the population.” The report concluded that three of the
chemical attacks investigated were made by Syria and one by the
Islamic State.
The
fact that the Russians resolved the chemical weapons issue in 2014,
a year before the alleged attack on Qmenas, by taking possession of
the weapons and removing them from Syria means that the report has
little credibility. However, at no time during Washington’s
15-year-old attack on Muslim countries have facts played any role,
and certainly facts have played no role in Washington’s
demonization of Russia.
4/
Diana Johnstone has concluded that Hillary intends regime change for
Russia and will use the presidency for that purpose.
It
is impossible to imagine a purpose more reckless and irresponsible.
Many members of the Russian government have stated that Washington’s
provocation and demonization of Russia have brought trust between the
nuclear powers close to zero and that Russia will never again fight a
war on her own territory. Sergey Karaganov told the German news
magazine, Der Spiegal, that if Washington and NATO move from
provocations to encroachments against Russia, a nuclear power, they
will be punished.
Many
foolish people believe that nuclear war cannot happen, because there
can be no winner. However, the American war planners, who elevated
US nuclear weapons from a retaliatory role to a pre-emptive first
strike function, obviously do not agree that nuclear war cannot be
won. If nuclear war is believed to be unwinable, there is no point
in a war doctrine that assigns the weapons the role of surprise
attack.
The
Russians are aware and disturbed that Washington has made the
situation between the US and Russia more dangerous than during the
Cold War. Vladimir Putin himself has stated that the West does not
hear his warnings. In an effort to avoid war, Putin wrings everything
possible out of diplomacy. He enters into agreements with Washington
that he must know will not be kept.
So
much has happened to teach him this lesson— the Washington
instigated invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia while he was at the
Beijing Olympics, Washington’s coup in Ukraine while he was at the
Sochi Olympics, Washington’s abandonment of the Minsk Agreement,
the advantage Washington took of the Syrian ceasefire agreements, the
violation of Washington’s promise not to move NATO to Russia’s
border, Washington’s sacking of the Anti-ABM Treaty, the
orchestrated blame of Russia for MH-17, Hillary’s hacked emails,
etc.
Washington
clearly intends to use Russia’s military and diplomatic assistance
to Syria to convict Russia in world public opinion of war crimes. It
was Russia’s hesitancy in Syria that enabled Washington to recover
from the defeat of its ISIS mercenaries and substitute control of the
explanation for defeat on the ground.
Russia’s
air assault on ISIS in Syria caught Washington off guard and quickly
rolled up the Washington-supported ISIS forces, completely reversing
the tide of war. Had Russia finished the job, Syria would have been
cleared of hostile forces before Washington could catch its breath.
Instead,
pressured by the Atlanticist Integrationist element in the Russian
elite, the Russian government withdrew, announcing mission
accomplished and relying on the Syrian Army to complete the job.
This strategic error allowed Washington not merely to replenish the
ISIS munitions that had been destroyed and to muster more
mercenaries, but more importantly to come up with a plan for Russia’s
and Assad’s undoing.
By
the time that the Russian government realized that early withdrawal
was a mistake and re-entered the conflict, Washington had decided
that if Dasmacus could not be “liberated,” Syria could be
partitioned and pressure kept on Assad in that way. Yet the Russian
government continued to postpone victory by cease fire agreements
that Washington used to rearm ISIS and as propaganda weapons against
Russia.
Whatever
the outcome of the military conflict in Syria, Russia faces a war
criminal conviction by the Western media, if not by the UN Human
Rights Council, and a no-fly zone in Syria if Hillary becomes
president of the US.
This
is the huge cost that Putin paid for listening to the unrealistic,
American-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists who are determined
that Russia be accepted by the West even if it means being a
semi-vassal. If there is nuclear war, the Russian Atlanticist
Integrationists will share the blame with the American
neoconservatives. And all of us will pay the price for the disaster
produced by these few, the neoconservatives demanding war and the
Atlanticist Integrationists demanding appeasement of Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.