President Poetin heeft “plotseling” besloten om de Russische troepen terug te trekken uit Syrië. Wat een verrassing! Maar als Poetin iets zegt, dan voegt hij de daad bij het woord. Toen de Russen eind september 2015 ingrepen in de “burgeroorlog” van de VS, de NATO, Turkije, Saoedi Arabië en nog wat boevenstaten tegen Syrië, zei Poetin dat deze operatie slechts drie of vier maanden zou duren. Het is wat uitgelopen, misschien omdat de Turken een Russisch vliegtuig uit de lucht schoten, maar nu de Russen zich terugtrekken om de vredesbesprekingen een kans te geven, staat heel het
vrije wilde westen voor schut perplex!
Zelf mag ik dat wel: een man die doet wat hij zegt. Dat komt betrouwbaarder over dan een president met een Nobelprijs voor de Vrede die met drones zijn “vijanden” vermoordt in “bevriende” landen en de 90% burgerslachtoffers die daarbij vallen niet telt. De Russen vertrekken echter niet helemaal uit Syrië, ze blijven ISIS bestrijden.
International Military Review – Syria, Mar. 16, 2016 (Arab, Ger Subs)
De reacties van de westerse politici zijn op zijn zachtst gezegd komisch. Minister Koenders riep meteen: Eerst zien en dan pas geloven! Maar Poetin had het nog niet gezegd, of de Russen vertrokken! Nu vraagt men zich in het
vrije wilde westen verbijsterd af, welke boze bedoelingen die vreselijke Poetin daarmee zou kunnen hebben. Ze verzinnen van alles…
Syria: Things They Just Made Up
March 17, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “Off Guardian”-
The Western MSM are all a flutter: Russia are pulling out of Syria (sort of). They can’t quite decide if it’s a victory, or a defeat. They don’t know if it’s because they ran out of money, are giving up, or it’s all a big lie – but they all agree on two things: 1) Russia have not achieved anything and 2) This is a massive a surprise.
Such a surprise that Putin announced the plan five months ago, in a story printed in the Telegraph. This is what the Western world has come to, I suppose, if a politician SAYS he’s going to do something and then actually DOES IT, this is… surprising. How sad.
The Guardian are firmly of the belief that this is “A Bad Thing” – in fact they are so against Russia leaving Syria, that one almost forgets they were just as strongly against Russia entering Syria in the first place. Because Russia and reasons.
Western media blame Putin for weaponizing peace
De waarheid is altijd simpel en ongepolijst, zij heeft geen drogredenen nodig. Rusland trekt zijn troepen terug, omdat het doel bereikt is. ISIS is vrijwel verslagen, de aanvoerroutes vanuit Turkije liggen stil en het Syrisch Arabische leger kan de rest zelf. Belangrijker dan de Russische militaire oplossing is de Russische diplomatie. Maar volgens de westerse pers heeft Rusland de strijd verloren!
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 17, 2016 “Information Clearing House” –
American presstitutes, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, expressed surprise at Russia’s support for the Syrian ceasefire, which Russia has been seeking, by Putin’s halt to attacks on the Islamic State and a partial withdrawal of Russian forces. The American presstitutes are captives of their own propaganda and are now surprised at the failure of their propagandistic predictions.
Having stripped the Islamic State of offensive capability and liberated Syria from the Washington-supported terrorists, Putin has now shifted to diplomacy. If peace fails in Syria, the failure cannot be blamed on Russia.
It is a big risk for Putin to trust the neocon-infested US government, but if ISIS renews the conflict with support from Washington, Putin’s retention of air and naval bases in Syria will allow Russia to resume military operations. Astute observers such as Professor Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research, Stephen Cohen, and The Saker have noted that the Russian withdrawal is really a time-out during which Putin’s diplomacy takes the place of Russian military capability.
The second round of the Geneva Syria talks will go down in history as having been pushed out of the news with Putin’s Monday surprise. He ordered the withdrawal of Russia’s main forces, which had been sent into Syria to counter the Western and Gulf State backed terror campaign.
And here we are five months later with 9000 sorties; over 10,000 sq kms, with 400 towns and communities liberated, and a successful ceasefire that nobody but the Russians saw as possible. John McCain reminded us today that Obama had once defended his “inaction” on opposing Russia’s involvement in Syria by arguing that Russia would “find itself in a quagmire”.
The official Russian statements make clear that Putin felt the main objectives had been achieved; and now was the time to bow out on the eve of the second Geneva talks, putting his actions where his mouth was in terms of the claim that “Syrians must decide their future”; and to eliminate any diversionary charges that the Russian combat forces were remaining in Syria to influence events.
I think we can safely assume that all the advisers and technical support teams assisting the Syrian Army will also be staying, along with the weapons shipments brought in to fuel the anti-terror campaign, the real one that really worked. I say that in response to the cheap comment from the White House today on the withdrawal news, “We will have to see exactly what Russia’s intentions are,” said spokesman Josh Earnest.
SyrianGirl explains Russia’s withdrawal from Syria
Luke Rudkowski van We are Change kijkt verder dan alleen Syrië en het Midden Oosten. Ook in Zuid Oost Azië dreigt de VS met militair ingrijpen, zogenaamd tegen Noord Korea, maar in feite wordt zowel China als Rusland dan een gemakkelijk doelwit.
The Real Reason For Russia’s Withdrawal From Syria duurt 7 minuten.
Current Escalations in the South China Sea
Terug naar Syrië en de nieuwe vredesbesprekingen in Genève. Ook de Syrische Koerden willen worden uitgenodigd, dit tot ongenoegen van de Turkse Sultan Erdogan! Zij hebben echter de diplomatieke steun van Rusland. De vraag is nu hoe de besprekingen in Genève gaan verlopen.
Kurdish-controlled autonomous areas in Syria expected to declare federal system
Despite Turkey’s clearly hostile and unyielding position on the participation of Syrian Kurds in the Geneva talks dedicated to the settlement of the Syrian conflict, the Kurds will most likely be a qualified party to the negotiating process after all. Two factors contributed to the favorable development of the situation. A successful participation of the Kurdish militiamen in the struggle against radical Islamist groups, and a consistent and firm position of Russia on this issue.
The Russian side maintains an opinion that there should be as many representatives of Syrian political, public, ethnic and religious groups participating in the Geneva talks, as possible. If interests of some group are not accounted for at the time of negotiations, the peace process can be crippled or worse—ruined. Sergey Lavrov, Head of the Russian foreign policy department, thinks that Kurds might secede from Syria if they are not allowed to participate in the inter-Syrian negotiations. It seems that UN respects Russia’s stance on the issue of the Kurdish minority in Syria. Staffan de Mistura, the UN’s special envoy, said that the world organization is seeking to find ways to engage the Kurds in the peace talks.
The Kurds represent the second largest ethnic group (about three million people) residing in Syria. They chose not to participate in the civil war and still maintain their neutrality. Kurdish leaders stress that they neither seek independence nor support a dissolution of Syria. What they want is for their ethnic rights and freedoms to be set out in the country’s new constitution. The Kurds also confirm their commitment to cooperation with any Damascus authorities as long as they acknowledge the equality of rights. In addition, the Kurds propose to be a mediator or observer in the settlement of the intra-Arab conflict. They believe that they geographic location—half-way from the current state administration and from the forces of the opposition—would render them to be the best choice for this role.
Russia urges probe of abuse against Kurds in Turkey
By Moon Of Alabama
March 17, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “Moon Of Alabama”-
Everyone seems to agree that the recent Russian surprise move in Syria is to its advantage. The Russian government declared that it had achieved most of its aims in Syria and decided to continue its operations there with a smaller forces. As the current ceasefire seem to hold the necessity of further air attacks is much diminished. About half of its planes in Syria were ordered to fly back home. Significant forces will stay deployed and the planes could be back within 24 hours should the need arise.
It would be out of character for Washington to just let go and to let Russia win the cause. That is why I suspect that the U.S. somehow arranged the following scheme.
The Syrian Kurds have no place at the table in Geneva. Russia has pushed for their inclusion but failed. Still the Kurds are in a decent position. They have military support from the U.S. as well as Russia and the Syrian government has agreed to give them some form of autonomy.
It would have been smart of the Kurds, led by the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), to bag these achievements and to stay out of the way of the further process. The Russians can be trusted to take care of the Kurdish interests in Geneva. But in typical Kurdish fashion they try to go for more and overreach:
Tot slot voor de liefhebbers:
CrossTalk on Syria :’Russia’s Success’ duurt 24 minuten.
Gepubliceerd op 16 mrt. 2016
Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he was ordering the withdrawal of military assets from Syria was just as surprising as when he informed the world of Russia’s intention to intervene months ago. Even some of Putin’s harshest critics at home and aboard admit Russia’s military mission has been a success. But will it be enough to win a lasting peace for a sovereign Syria?
CrossTalking with Marcus Papadopoulos, James Jatras, and Earl Rasmussen.
Op Stop de Bankiers staat ook een prima artikel:
Rusland heeft er genoeg van
Waar willen de Europese landen en hun ‘Five Eyes‘-kornuiten in de Angelsaksische, Atlantische wereld teruggevonden worden in de geschiedenisboekjes? Aan de kant van totalitaire, oorlogszuchtige landen, geleid door incompetente, megalomane neo-fascisten, extreem-nationalisten en lieden die dromen van een Kalifaat? Of aan de kant van de handels-naties, die niet elke stuiver opmaken aan dingen die ‘BOEM!‘ zeggen, maar liever investeren in projecten die de welvaart van de bevolking in hun respectievelijke landen verhoogt? En dan maar wat minder voor de wapenfabrikanten.