On Monday morning, former official representative of US State Department Nicholas burns (Nicholas Burns) told CNN that he was surprised by the “calm” Russia’s reaction to the incident with the military government aircraft (produced in Russia fighter su-22) shot down in the skies of Syria, American F-18 Super Hornet. Moscow initially only protested.
The Syrian government says that the aircraft bombed the forces of ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx. ed.). Such actions can be regarded as unequivocally good thing, given that it represents ISIS. But the U.S. claim that the plane bombed their allies who are at war with ISIL in the area of Raqqa in the interaction with the American consultants. It’s mostly the Kurds who are struggling for independence, and other allied States and their Arab supporters of forces who share a common desire to overthrow the Assad regime. Anyone who understands the events, knows that among these allies include the forces that are closely related to those usually called “al-Nusra Dzhebhat” (a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx. ed.). Those whom the US considers as friends, Damascus considers terrorists.
On this issue there is disagreement between the government of the imperialist aggressor and the government of the country which is attacked a hostile foreign force, and in the center of it all — how’s the Martin Luther king bluntly called it in 1967?— is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world (“magnify supplier of violence in the world” — the U.S. government approx. TRANS.).
In any case, the Assad regime is an internationally recognized regime, is not less legitimate than the regime of trump, and the United States and its allies with their presence openly violate the sovereignty of Syria. Russia’s position is that the Syrian Arab Army (national army) is the guarantor of the unity and sovereignty of Syria, and the alternative — Islamist regime that destroyed Palmyra, blows up the Church in Damascus, beheading children and so on. This is a rational position.
The U.S. position is that the Assad regime, which governs the army is the main problem, and it should be solved. This position is based on the strange argument that says that the Assad regime was the cause of LIH and “al Qaeda” (al-Nusra, Fateh al-sham, a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx. ed.), creating opposition to itself, and thereby encouraging Islamic radicalism. This irrational position.
ISIS (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant) is because one Jordanian Bedouin named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) around the year 2000 organized an international jihadist group near Herat in Afghanistan. It was called located in at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (“Army of Monotheism and Jihad”) was a competitor of “al-Qaeda” Osama bin Laden, whose base was located in another part of Afghanistan. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi relocated to Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq (which, recall, entirely on lies and led to a long terrible destruction and suffering) has created optimal conditions for jihadists like him. In 2004 he swore allegiance to al-Qaida and founded its Iraqi unit, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (commonly known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq”).
This organization and transformed itself into ISIS. It has spread from Iraq to Syria then back to Iraq, while al-Qaida continued to challenge its influence and territorial claims. This monstrous product of the imperialist US invasion. In Syria, ISIL poses a challenge to the government, which, let’s repressive and corrupt, yet from the point of view of most rational people surely represents the best alternative. But at the State Department, the prevailing view is that Assad must go. Ongoing debate whether to exercise its overthrow by means of open or hidden funds, and the main practical problem is the lack of reliable allies who would be willing to work with American instructors and after training not defected to the other side.
So, on the one hand the United States carried out an overt campaign against ISIS in Syria (and Iraq), clearly stating that unambiguous evil — ISIS — justifies the effort to destroy it. Who here has something against? The Syrian government draws attention to the fact that any uninvited military presence is a violation of international law. On the other hand, the ultimate goal, which seems not to have changed with the advent of the new administration, is regime change.
Therefore, the Department of State generates a flow of news, to ensure that constantly denigrate the Assad regime is perceived as evil. The Syrian army appears not as the most respected force in the country, and as the enemy of his own people that put him to the bombing. So if there is information that a U.S. fighter jet shot down a Syrian fighter jet over Syria, then what is the problem here?
Intelligence experts explain that, forcing down a Syrian plane in Syria, the United States acted in self-defense. They seem to sincerely believe in what they say, and probably convince their audience — even after all those numerous revelations of lies, after which you would expect from a society of increased skepticism.
***
While I write all this appeared on the news “hot”. It seems that Russia is still “calm”, becoming more solid. USA has gone too far, by shooting down the plane ally of Russia in the Union to her country. Russian consistently approached US with a proposal to coordinate efforts against ISIS and “al-Nusra Dzhebhat”; “Memorandum on safety”, adopted in order to prevent incidents in the air, acting since last October, although the United States and broke it, when bombed positions of the Syrian army. Now Russia has emerged from a Memorandum announcing that it would consider US fighters in Syrian airspace as a possible “goal.” Barbara Starr (Barbara Starr), which, as you know, is the Pentagon at CNN, says, however, that this question is still open and, apparently, the discussion between the Russian forces in Latakia and US forces in Qatar continues.
A calm statement by the Russian Ministry of defense States: “Any airborne targets, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be accepted in support of Russian ground and air defense as air targets”. This is a clear warning to the administration trump to refrain from attacks on government forces of Syria.
Moscow, of course, puzzled by the contradictory signals from Washington regarding Syria and U.S. foreign policy in General. If early and there was some optimism about the joint efforts to combat terrorism, this incident can ruin it.
Suppose the rocket complex s-300 “Favorit” today will knock one of these American aircraft Super Hornet. The aircraft whose presence is prohibited the Union of Russia to the Syrian government. American pilot killed. In the country immediately raised a public outcry about the Russian attack on one of us, mean by definition. And yet this universal belief that Russia interfered in the elections. As we said, Russia is the enemy. Trump can’t be a puppet of Putin. Need immediate retribution in a country that is now open to any invasion, Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Russian, American and European.
I think this calm is temporary. Iranian missiles are flying at Raqqa in retaliation for ISIS, which has hit Iran. Turks bomb Kurdish allies in Syria. The combination of forces that take over (and probably destroy) the RACC is not clear. Mad new ruler of Saudi Arabia, reminiscent of Kim Jong-UN, the floods money for jihadists in Syria. The Lebanese Hizbollah and Iraqi Shiite militias fighting the Islamic state and “al-Qaeda” together with the government.
Absolutely hellish situation which may become worse.
People should demand that the United States simply to retreat. How can someone who himself created ISIS to destroy it?
As I recall, trump in his campaign, proposed to leave the victory over Russia LIH, or at least to cooperate with Russia in the fight. He was certainly inconsistent, he was vague and used the vocabulary of a sixth grade student of the school, but he seems to have wanted to avoid such provocations. It remains only to wonder who needs one?
