Tuesday, 4 October 2016

The Americans can't face defeat

US ADMITS BIG LOSS IN SYRIA: Leaked Kerry recordings expose fear of Russian victory

October 3, 2016
Ruslan Ostashko, PolitRussia - translated by J. Arnoldski -
Introduction by J. Arnoldski: On September 30th, 2016, the New York Times published an article entitled "Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors" which presented a series of leaked recordings of discussions between John Kerry and Syrian opposition representatives on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. In these leaked audio samples, Kerry is heard expressing frustration with being outmaneuvered by Russian diplomacy and nervously attempting to explain the crisis of the US's game plan for Syria in light of recent developments. In the following commentary, Russian political analyst Ruslan Ostashko explores just why this leak has appeared now and how it bears on the domestic and geopolitical situation of the US...
Anyone who follows geopolitics is periodically plagued by bouts of insatiable curiosity. One really wants to know just what is being said behind closed doors during negotiations deciding the fate of the world.
Retelling news from different sources is, of course, interesting, but not the point. And waiting for memoirs, which are filled with lies anyway, is long and boring. Sometimes we have the delight of published WikiLeaks that give us the opportunity to spy on American diplomatic mail and the results of the private conversations of American diplomats and their pocket politicians, but this is also not quite what is needed.
Very, very rare are those leaks that allow one to really see through the diplomatic smokescreen. The New York Times’ leak of conversations between Kerry and representatives of the so-called Syrian opposition is one of these rare finds.
Our media have picked up only a few elements in this leak which, undoubtedly, are pleasant for us, but these are not even the most important. 
Yes, during his talk with his Syrian puppets, Kerry complained of “cunning” Russian diplomats, which very much pleased the Russian foreign ministry.
Yes, Kerry acknowledged the possibility of Assad participating in presidential elections in Syria despite the State Department’s official position that Assad must leave and never return to Syrian politics.
This is all very good, very nice, and really is an extra reason to point a finger at the absurdity of the official American position and make fun of American propaganda. But the most important part of this leak is something else.
Let’s ask ourselves two questions: Who did this leak? Why did a top American newspaper, and not RT, first publish this incriminating recording? 
Here begins to spin the quite interesting story which I have mentioned many times. We are witnessing a very intense conflict between the CIA and Pentagon or, if you wish, between the moderate and radical parts of the American elite. This conflict sometimes manifests itself in an intricate way. In this specific situation, it turns out that the leak’s orchestrators aimed at Kerry, but ended up hitting the whole USA.
The most likely scenario behind the appearance of the recorded conversations is such: representatives of the Syrian opposition are very frustrated that the US never started bombing Damascus, so they decided to record talks with Kerry during which he explained that everything is bad, that the Russians have tricked him, and thus offered dozens of reasons why the “US Secretary of State has ditched the Syrian opposition and caved in to the Russians.”
The New York Times as a newspaper is the official mouthpiece of the Clintonoids and all the American hawks. That it happily published this leak hints that such a position of the American diplomatic leadership is a disgrace for the US and that things were never and never could have been so bad under Clinton. As a result of this special operation, Kerry’s reputation has been dealt a serious blow and the American hawks have scored extra points in the fight for influencing the minds of American citizens and the undecided part of the American elite. 
All of this would be good, but the entire world is watching this showdown and drawing different conclusions. Here are the conclusions that beg themselves: 
1. Now the US really wants to, but effectively cannot influence the situation in Syria. No one believes in Obama’s peaceful intentions, and this means that there can only be one explanation: the Americans are afraid to engage in a real military conflict with Russia. For the Americans, this is a minus, just as it is a plus for our reputation.
2. The American elite have reached such a point in their internal confrontation that they no longer hesitate to sacrifice the interests of the country in order to spite their competitors in internal political struggles. 
This is a very important milestone. From the point of view of old civilizations, such as the Chinese, this is a clear sign that the American Empire is nearing its end and should be treated accordingly.
Now the Americans are trying to arrange another media and diplomatic show around the offensive of Syrian troops and the bombing of Aleppo. They are trying to put maximum media and diplomatic pressure on Russia. But since Kerry’s leaked confessions, no one will take this seriously.
The Americans have run out of tools for directly influencing the situation in Syria, and their opinion should be ignored. By spreading media and diplomatic noise, they are trying to hide the fact that they have already reconciled with the fact that Assad is going to continue to lead Syria and that the Russian army is going to continue to use Syrian bases. All that is left is to squeeze them to recognize this not only on the sidelines of the UN, but officially.
I think that our air force can handle this task.

Kerry: Russians Don't Care About the Law but We Do. That's Why They're in Syria Legally and We Aren't

Americans don't actually have to follow international law for their love of international law to be evident
2 October, 2016

The New York Times says it has obtained an audio recording from a meeting US Secretary of State held in New York with members of the Syrian opposition. The NYT's recap of the tape offers a few interesting points.
Firstly, the tape again confirms John Kerry is a very American diplomat -- the kind that is always eager to see Pentagon fireworks over foreign countries. Albeit not quite as bad as the wackos angling for a seat at Hillary's table (Ash Carter, John Brennan, Samantha Power) he's still firmly to the "right" of Obama who has over and over again had to put a damper on his wilder schemes:
I think you’re looking at three people, four people in the administration who have all argued for use of force, and I lost the argument.”
Mr. Kerry has been hamstrung by Russia’s military operations in Syria and by his inability to persuade Washington to intervene more forcefully. He has also been unable to sell Syrian opponents of Mr. Assad, like the ones in that room, on a policy he does not wholeheartedly believe in.
His frustrations and dissent within the Obama administration have hardly been a secret, but in the recorded conversation, Mr. Kerry lamented being outmaneuvered by the Russians, expressed disagreement with some of Mr. Obama’s policy decisions and said Congress would never agree to use force.

Our heart is breaking here. Mr. President bombed Gaddafi for Hillary for won't bomb Assad for poor John. :( So unfair. :((
After talking up his personal appetite for bombing the government of the Arab Syrian Republic the US Secretary of State made a startling discovery:
He also said the U.S.-led coalition forces don't have legal justification to attack the Assad regime, while Russia operates with the approval of Damascus' government.
"The problem is the Russians don't care about international law, and we do," Kerry told the Syrian nationals.

You are excused if you needed to read the above twice to comprehend it. Yes. Immediately after noting that Russia is in Syria legally and the US illegally, Kerry turned around and explained the US cares about law even if Russia does not.
I guess it's that great love of international law that had Kerry proposing three years ago that US rains cruise missile against Syria -- and not even claim responsibility for them, much less argues their legality.
The self-righteousness on display here is something else. It's clear Russians by the very virtue of being Russian don't care about international law even when they're following it to the letter. Americans meanwhile -- oh they care about the law deeply, even as they're burning a hole through it the size of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria combined.
The Syrian oppositionists Kerry was talking to are a piece of work as well:
And that is when the conversation reached an impasse, with Ms. Shehwaro, an educator and social media activist, recalling hopes for a more direct American role.
So you think the only solution is for somebody to come in and get rid of Assad?” Mr. Kerry asked.
Yes,” Ms. Shehwaro said.
Who’s that going to be?” he asked. “Who’s going to do that?”
Three years ago, I would say: You. But right now, I don’t know.”

And this is exactly why the rebellion in Syria is dominated by Islamist fundamentalists, many of them foreign. Because Syria's pro-western constituency that Ms. Shehwaro stems from doesn't have the constitution to fight, but thinks instead the height of courage is lobbying the global hegom to bomb and invade your country.

No comments:

Post a Comment