Quote:

Washington's Hawks Push New Cold War

September 20, 2016

As a fragile and partial cease-fire in Syria totters, the back story is the political warfare in Washington where powerful hawks seek to escalate both the war in Syria and the New Cold War with Russia, ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke explains.


By Alastair Crooke


Does the failure of the U.S.-backed, major insurgent August "push" on Aleppo and the terms of the consequent ceasefire, to which some in the U.S. only irascibly agreed constitute a political defeat for the U.S. and a "win" for Russia?


Yes, in one way: Moscow may, (just may) have cornered America into joint military air attacks on Al Qaeda in Syria, but in another way, one would have to be somewhat cautious in suggesting a Russian "win" (although Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's diplomacy has been indeed tenacious).

President Barack Obama talks with advisers, including National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry, Nov. 9, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Secretary of State John Kerry's Syria agreement with Lavrov though, has sparked virtual open warfare in Washington. The "Cold War Bloc," which includes Defense Secretary Ash Carter and House Speaker Paul Ryan, is extremely angry.
The Defense Department is in near open disobedience: when asked in a press teleconference if the military would abide by the terms of the agreement and share information with the Russians after the completion of the seven-day ceasefire, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, the commander of the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, which is directing the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, responded: "I think … it would be premature to say we're going to jump right into it. And I'm not saying yes or no."


But President Obama wants to define some sort of a foreign policy historical "legacy" (and so does Kerry). And the President probably suspects (with good cause possibly) that his legacy is set to be trashed by his successor, whomsoever it be the minute he steps down from office.


In brief, the Establishment's dirty washing is hanging on the line in plain sight. And it does not look great: Ash Carter, whose Department would have to work jointly with Russia in Syria, last week at Oxford University, accused Russia of having a "clear ambition" to degrade the world order with its military and cyber campaigns.


House Speaker Paul Ryan called Russian President Vladimir Putin an "adversary" and an "aggressor" who does not share U.S. interests. There is a U.S. media blitz in train, with powerful forces behind it, which paints Putin as no possible partner for the U.S.


Obama's Will


Only in the coming days will we see whether Obama still has the will and clout to make the Syria ceasefire agreement stick. But the agreement did not appear out of the blue. One parent was the failure of America's military "Plan B" (itself a response to the failed February ceasefire), and the other "parent" was Kerry's wringing of a further concession from Damascus: Obama supposedly agreed to the separation of U.S. insurgent proxies from Al Qaeda (the former Nusra Front now called Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), and to their joint targeting, in return "for the what the Obama administration characterized as the grounding' of the Syrian air force in the current agreement," as Gareth Porter has reported.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

The U.S. and its Gulf allies in pursuit of Plan B had invested enormous effort to break Damascus' operation to relieve Aleppo from the jihadists' hold in the northeastern part of the city. The two sides, here (Russia and U.S.), were playing for high stakes: the U.S. wanted its Islamist proxies to take Aleppo, and then to use its seizure by the jihadis as political leverage with which to force Russia and Iran to concede President Bashar al-Assad's ouster. Plan B, in other words, was still all about "regime change."


Aleppo, Syria's second largest city, has from the outset of this conflict been strategically pivotal its loss would have pulled the rug from under the Syrian government's guiding objective of keeping the mass of the urban population of Syria within the state's orbit.


America's long-standing objective thus would have been achieved albeit at an indescribable price paid by the inhabitants of western Aleppo, who would have been overrun by the forces of Al Qaeda. Thus, the Syrian government's recovery of all Aleppo is a major strategic gain.


In the end, however, the U.S. and its Gulf allies did not succeed: their much vaunted Plan B failed. And in failing, the insurgents have sustained heavy loss of life and equipment. Indeed, such are the losses, it is doubtful whether a "push" on this scale could again be mounted by Qatar or Saudi Arabia (despite the post-Aleppo "push" in Hama) .


In spite of the failure of Plan B, the U.S. was not ready to see Al Qaeda isolated and attacked. It wanted it protected. The U.S. ambiguity towards the jihadists of being "at war with the terrorists"; but always maneuvering to stop Syria and Russia from weakening the jihadistswas plain in the letter sent by the U.S. envoy to the Syrian opposition Michael Ratney to opposition groups backed by the United States.


The first letter, sent on Sept. 3, after most of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement had already been hammered out, "makes no reference to any requirement for the armed opposition to move away from their Al Qaeda allies, or even terminate their military relationships, and thus implied that they need not do so," Porter wrote.


A second letter however, apparently sent on Sept. 10, reverses the message: "We urge the rebels to distance themselves and cut all ties with Fateh al-Sham, formerly Nusra Front, or there will be severe consequences."


Will it happen? Will the agreement be observed? Well, the Syrian conflict is but one leg of the trifecta that constitutes the "new" Cold War theatre: there is the delicate and unstable situation in Ukraine (another leg), and elsewhere NATO is busy building its forces on the borders of the Baltic Republics (the third leg). Any one of these pillars can be wobbled (intentionally) and crash the delicate political framework of all the others.


Demonizing Russia


Which brings us to the complex question of the current demonization of Russia by the Cold War Bloc (which includes Hillary Clinton) in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs has described the situation as one in which the U.S. Establishment is deliberately and intentionally "sacrificing key bilateral relationships in order to win [a] domestic election," adding "in my 50 odd years covering the US government, I have never seen this level of partisanship within the administration where a sitting president actually regards the opposition party as the enemy of the state."


In short, the stakes being played here in demonizing Russia and Putin go well beyond Syria or Ukraine. They lie at the heart of the struggle for the future of the U.S.


There is practical evidence for such caution for, three days before the Syrian artillery was scything the ranks of Ahrar al-Sham near Aleppo on Sept. 9 to close the chapter on America's Plan B (and four days before Ratney's letter to the Syrian insurgents telling them to separate from Al Qaeda "or else"), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in addressing the Ukrainian parliament, the Rada in Kiev, was eviscerating the Minsk II accords, brokered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande as the only possible political solution to the Ukrainian civil war.


"Moreover, in a difficult dialogue," Poroshenko said (see here and here), "we have convinced our western allies and partners that any political settlement must be preceded by apparent and undeniable progress on security issues: a sustainable ceasefire, withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from the occupied territories, disarmament of militants and their family and finally the restoration of our control over our own border" (emphasis added.)


Poroshenko, in other words, unilaterally turned the accord on its head: he reversed its order completely. And just to skewer it further, he told Parliament that any decision would be "exclusively yours" and nothing would be done "without your co-operation" knowing full well that this Ukrainian parliament never wanted Minsk II in the first place.


And Kiev too is deploying along the entire borders of Donetsk and Lugansk. (A description of the military escalation by Kiev can be seen visually presented here).


Is Poroshenko's U-turn the American "revenge" for Russia's "win" in Syria to heat up Ukraine, in order to drown President Putin in the Ukraine marshes? We do not know.


U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has boasted: "I think I tend to be in more direct conversation, for longer periods of time with the President [Poroshenko], than with my wife. (Laughter.) I think they both regret that (Laughter)."
Is it possible that Biden was not consulted before Poroshenko made his annual address to the Rada? We do not know, although within 48 hours of Poroshenko's making his Rada address, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was in London, recommitting to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as he signed a "bilateral partner concept" with the Ukrainian defense minister.


Provoking Russia


What we do know however, is that this is and is intended to be a direct provocation to Russia. And to France and Germany, too. Within a week, however, Poroshenko was backtracking as "coincidentally" a new IMF loan was being floated for Kiev, just as the German and French Foreign ministers insisted on the Minsk formula of "truce special status elections in Donbass control of the border" be respected and as the Donetsk and Lugansk leadership unexpectedly offered a unilateral ceasefire.

President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

But Poroshenko's "backtrack" was itself "backtracked" by Sept. 16, when the French and German visiting Foreign Ministers were reportedly told that Ukraine's government now refused to implement the Minsk accord as it stood, as it now insists that the order be fully reversed: "truce control of the border elections."


The American bitter internal election "civil war" is now shaking the pillars of the tripod on which America's and Europe's bilateral relations with Russia stand. It would therefore seem a stretch now for Obama to hope to prevail with any "legacy strategy" either in the Middle East or Ukraine that is contingent on cooperation with Russia.
The U.S. Establishment seems to have come to see the very preservation of the global status quo as linked to their ability to paint Trump as President Putin's instrument for undermining the entire U.S. electoral system and the U.S.-led global order.


To the world outside, it seems as if the U.S. is seized by a collective hysteria (whether genuine, or manufactured for political ends). And it is not clear where the U.S. President now stands in this anti-Russian hysteria having likened Putin to Saddam Hussein, and having accused the Republican nominee of trying to "curry favor" with the Russian president for having appeared on "Larry King Live" which is now broadcast by Russia Today.


But the bigger question is the longer-term consequence of all this: some in the "Hillary Bloc" still hanker for "regime change" in Moscow, apparently convinced that Putin's humiliation in either Syria (not so likely now), or in Ukraine, could see him deposed in the March 2018 Russian Presidential elections, for a more Atlanticist, more "acceptable" leader.


It is unadulterated wishful thinking to imagine that Putin could be displaced thus and more likely, Ukraine (with its prolific kith and kin' ties to Russians) used as a lever to "humiliate" President Putin will prove counter-productive, serving only to harden antagonism towards the U.S., as ethnic Russians die at the hands of rightist Ukrainian "militia."


But it is certainly so that this campaign is strengthening the hand of those in Russia who would like to see President Putin taking a less "conciliatory line" towards the West. So, we may be heading towards more troubled waters.


Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.

Quote:One week ago I and many other analysts predicted that the ceasefire agreement brokered by the US and Russia last week was doomed to fail. I said this because of the fact that there are no "moderate" rebels, and that any group trying to disassociate itself from Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) would commit both political and military suicide. Right from the first day of the implementation, Western backed Jihadists and their allies declared that they would not take part in the cessation of hostilities, which really rendered the whole agreement useless since it became clear that they would use this opportunity to regroup and rearm.

This week long ceasefire was also supposed to allow for humanitarian aid to reach besieged areas such as East Aleppo which is currently under the control of Washington's "moderate" rebels. Despite the Syrian Army withdrawing up to 1 km north of the imperative Castillo road leading into the eastern parts of Aleppo and handing over the control over the checkpoints in this area to Russian Marines and Syrian Red Crescent Society, the humanitarian aid destined for eastern Aleppo were severely delayed due to constant attacks on the Russian Marines by the Jihadists.[1] [2] In a video posted by RT on their Youtube page, one can clearly see the Russian personnel coming under attack by Jihadist fire, yet despite this, mainstream media in the West shamefully reported that the "Assad regime" were the ones who were guilty of both violating the ceasefire and disrupting the delivery of humanitarian aid. [3] [4]

The Jihadists and their supporters refused to allow for humanitarian aid to be delivered because they refused to acknowledge the ceasefire, instead claiming that both the ceasefire and the humanitarian aid being sent to them was part of a "UN conspiracy" and that they "refuse to accept this humiliating and pathetic aid". In a video posted online, a rally takes place in eastern Aleppo where Jihadists and their supporters declare that they refuse to accept this "humiliating" aid in the name of the religion (of Islam). [5]

It should clearly be concluded then that these Jihadists and their supporters were not interested in any kind of reduced violence, not even for a week it would seem, with Jihadists clearly showing their intentions of using this ceasefire to break the siege of Aleppo by even attacking Russian Marines.

This ceasefire was doomed from the start because Washington will not and cannot separate any "moderates" from the rest of the Jihadists. In an Op-Ed posted on RT in June, experts agree that Washington has no control over its proxies in Syria, with Journalist Willy van Damme saying that Al-Nusra and "moderate rebels" have been cooperating for about five years fighting together against the Syrian government. "To think that they would split from Al-Nusra is dreaming," he added.

In another video posted online last week, the "spiritual leader" of the Jihadist Jaysh Al-Fateh coalition Abullah Muhaysani, a renowned Saudi Wahhabi cleric who illegally entered Syria in 2013, declared that "the other factions' [moderates] rejection of the ceasefire is not only a slap in the face of Kerry and Lavrov, but it is also a slap in the face of all those who are trying to incite the factions against each other". He goes on to reiterate the unity among the plethora of Jihadist factions working together as one against a common enemy, the Syrian government. [6]

The US-led Coalition massacre of Syrian Army personnel

As if the rejection of the ceasefire and the blocking of humanitarian aid wasn't proof enough that the ceasefire was doomed to fail, Washington also did its utmost to make sure that it didn't by flagrantly attacking the Syrian Army in the besieged city of Deir Ezzor. Although I was shocked, I was not surprised to read on Saturday night that the US-led coalition had struck the Syrian Army with phosphorous bombs over the Jabal Al- Thardeh area in southwestern Deir Ezzor, killing at least 62 and injuring over 100 Syrian Army soldiers.

Washington being used to dishonesty, immediately tried to put the blame first on Russia with the Pentagon claiming that they had informed Russian of the upcoming strike and that he bombardment only concluded when Russia had told Washington that it was possibly targeting the Syrian Army and not the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Some hours later Russia flatly denied the earlier CENTCOM press release claim of Russian knowledge about the bombardment beforehand with Major General Igor Konashenkov of the Russian Defense Ministry adding that "If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets then it's a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria". [7]

Russia, furious with the Americans, immediately summoned the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting on the matter with the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova being blasting Washington as she said that "If previously we had suspicions that Al-Nusra Front is protected this way, now, after today's airstrikes on the Syrian army we come to a really terrifying conclusion for the entire world: The White House is defending IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL]"

"We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at the UN Security Council," Zakharova added.[8]

But there was no explanation from Washington. Instead, Washington offered us the despicable US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Instead of explaining the actions of the US-led coalition's massacre of Syrian Army soldiers, she walked out of Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin's speech and later on went on to address reporters with nonsense about "the crimes of the Assad Regime and Russia". She even mocked the Russians decision to call for an emergency meeting, calling it a "stunt". [9]

"It is clear that the United States must come up with some very serious actions. What actions, I can not say now, but what I saw today, unfortunately, was very concerning, as my American colleague Samantha Power behaved very strange at the least," said Russia's permanent representative to the UN Churkin about the results of the consultations of the Security Council.[10]

Churkin was correct to say that "in all my years in the United Nations, that is over 10 years, and all my years in international life, which is over 40 years, I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness as we have seen today".

And I understand him. One look at Samantha Power is enough to understand that she is mentally deranged. Her behaviour was shameful for a representative of a leading country at the highest international body, behaving as a teenager that has just been dragged out of bed with a hangover.

If it wasn't clear before this incident, it should be clear by now that Washington cannot be trusted, ever. Moscow should now understand that it can never reach a deal with Washington that will hold, because Washington is only interested in weakening Syria as much as possible, and will go to lengths unimaginable to achieve it, one way or another.

It therefore comes as no surprise that according to an Iranian military source, ISIL launched an offensive on the Jabal Al- Thardeh area just 7 minutes after the US led airstrikes, who added that that the air and ground assault were highly coordinated. Initially ISIL captured the Jabal Al-Thardeh area but were later repelled after a Syrian Army counterattack backed by Russian airstrikes, that same night. The source said the simultaneous raid of the ISIL terrorists immediately after the coalition airstrikes is the best evidence of the high coordination done between the US and the terrorists.[11]

In Iran's view, this flagrant attack on Syrian Army personnel violated the truce; "We strongly denounce the US measures, and do not believe that it was a military mistake," said Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iranian Parliamentary Director General for International Affairs on Sunday during a meeting with Syria's Ambassador to Tehran, Adnan Hassan Mahmoud."Attacking an army which is battling terrorism means backstabbing and helping Daesh," he added.

Iran reiterated its support for Syria on Monday when deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari travelled to Damascus to meet with Syrian officials. "Iran is determined to provide Syria all the possible facilities in its fateful fight against terrorism," Jaberi Ansari said in a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He added that "strategic and one-of-a-kind" relations between Iran and Syria go beyond the two nations' interests and are based on common views and understanding of the threats facing all regional nations such as terrorism and extremism.[12]

One can conclude that the attack on the Syrian Army by the US-led coalition was indeed intentional, which leaves us with the question of why they would do such a thing? A quick look at a map of who controls what in the Deir Ezzor province gives us a clue. The province of Deir Ezzor in southeastern Syria (see map below) is mostly controlled by the ISIL terrorist group except for parts of the city of Deir Ezzor that has been under siege for years now, with ISIL facing stiff resistance from the Syrian Army comprised of the heroic 104th Brigade of the Republican Guard, led by the iconic Druze Major General Issam Zahreddine and the 137th Artillery Brigade. To the northeastern part of the province, there is a Kurdish/FSA presence as a result of the US-backed Kurdish-led "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF) largely expelling ISIL from the neighbouring Al-Hasakah province earlier this year.

SDF has since made their intentions publicly clear that they intend to advance on both the province and city of Deir Ezzor. This is something that Washington sees as an opportunity to carve up the country in order to achieve its ultimate goal; to separate Syria from Iran indefinitely. Washington has previously made it clear that if it cannot achieve its plan A; regime change, it will go for its plan B; to balkanize the country and help to create a Kurdish and/or Sunni state in eastern Syria. Achieving this will "isolate" the Syrian government and its Lebanese allies Hezbollah from Iran, thus protecting Israel, Washington's main imperial ally in the region.

Attacking the Syrian Army, and allowing ISIL to capture the city will make Deir Ezzor a probable target for the US-backed proxies to attack and annex. It does not matter for Washington if 100 000 civilians are trapped along with the Syrian Army personnel stationed there, and that they will meet a fate far worse than anyone of us can imagine if the city falls into terrorist hands, as long as Washington achieves its goals, it is content with whatever price the Syrian people must pay for Washington's imperial ambitions.

What happens now?

The Syrian Arab Army's High Command announced on Monday that the nationwide ceasefire is over after a 7-day period. "Rebel forces committed more than 300 violations by targeting residents and the Syrian military around the country," the High Command added. Several civilians and military personnel were killed as a result of these ceasefire violations committed by the Jihadist forces. The High command also declared that Jihadist groups had taken advantage of the ceasefire to regroup and attack Syrian military positions, while the Army had done its utmost to implement the truce with the highest degree of professionalism, but that ultimately it had to respond to the provocations against the Syrian Armed Forces.[13]

As soon as the ceasefire expired at 7 pm Damascus time yesterday, fighting began to rage on in the Aleppo, Hama and Damascus provinces, with both the Syrian Army and the Jihadist groups launching offensives on different fronts. The Russian Air Force also began targeting Jihadists in Aleppo who led by Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham were trying to launch a new offensive. Meanwhile on Monday, new accusations were made by Washington and its vassals against Russia and Syria, claiming that they had struck a UN aid convoy heading for Aleppo City, an incident that the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed as an attempt to distract attention from the US-led coalition's bombardment of the Syrian troops on September 17. [14] "We are considering, with resentment and indignation, attempts by some foreign curators of rebel units and terrorists in Syria to put the blame for the incident on the Russian and Syrian Aerospace Forces who allegedly bombarded a relief convoy," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

"Such attempts, which are unconfirmed by any facts, are designed, among other things, to distract attention from a strange error' made by pilots of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition on September 17 when its planes bombed the Syrian government troops positions near Deir ez-Zor," the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed.

In fact, it has been established that this was not even a UN aid convoy that had been attacked, but rather it was a Syrian Red Crescent convoy that was attempting to deliver weapons to the Jihadists. The humanitarian convoy that was attacked on Monday in the Syrian province of Aleppo was followed by a militant group's pickup truck carrying a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Tuesday.

"Analysis of video records from drones of yesterday's movement of the humanitarian convoy across Aleppo's territories controlled by militants has revealed new details. It is clearly seen in the video that a terrorists' pickup truck with a towed large-caliber mortar is moving along with the convoy," he said.[15] I am in agreement with the Russian Foreign Ministry in their analysis over the situation. It is clear that these accusations are intended to lay the blame for the failure of the ceasefire on Russia and the Syrian government, and try to divert attention from their own crimes in Deir Ezzor last week. It therefore comes as no surprise that a senior Obama administration official speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity said that "We don't know if it can be salvaged," when speaking of the collapsing ceasefire. "At this point the Russians have to demonstrate very quickly their seriousness of purpose because otherwise there will be nothing to extend and nothing to salvage," he added.

Washington was never interested in a ceasefire, rather it wanted to give its Jihadist proxies time to regroup and regain their strength after a month of hammering by the Syrian Army, especially in Aleppo. During this entire week, Washington and the Western mainstream media have been looking for excuses to lay the blame on Russia and the Syrian government for the failure to implement the ceasefire. From an Iranian point of view (and my own), these ceasefires have always been useless because Iran has always maintained that Washington can never be trusted. Instead of benefitting the Syrian Army and its allies, the ceasefires have served to not only benefit the Jihadists, but also to sow discord between Russia and Iran who on several occasions have made it clear that Moscow's constant faith in Washington and Secretary Kerry endangers the war effort against terrorism.

It remains to be seen now what will happen with this ceasefire agreement, but from the looks of it, it is all but over as the Syrian Army and its allies have restarted their operations across the country. Hopefully, Moscow have proved once and for all that there is no way to separate any "moderate opposition" from Jihadist rebels and that they must now all be deemed as legitimate targets for aerial bombardment. Moscow must hold nothing back and coordinate more than ever with its Syrian and Iranian allies on the ground in order to defeat this terrorist plague that has been wreaking havoc in Syria for almost six years now.

1. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-rebels-open-fire-russian-marines-aleppo/ ↑
   
2. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-returns-strategic-aleppo-highway-rebel-attack/ ↑
   
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFhgpWyoT98 ↑
   
4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/13/syrian-regime-is-blocking-aid-from-entering-eastern-aleppo-claims-un ↑
   
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN70jXkc_LM ↑
   
6. https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/776895742589931520/video/1 ↑
   
7. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-denies-knowledge-us-airstrikes-killed-tens-syrian-soldiers/ ↑
   
8. https://www.rt.com/news/359686-un-security-urgent-meeting/ ↑
   
9. https://www.rt.com/news/359686-un-security-urgent-meeting/ ↑
   
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bID01gIEIOY ↑
    
11. http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950628000914 ↑
    
12. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/19/485451/Iran-Syria-US-Bashar-alAssad-Hossein-Jaberi-Ansari ↑
    
13. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-command-declares-ceasefire/ ↑
    
14. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-calls-us-accusations-aleppo-aid-attack-outrageous/ ↑
    
15. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/red-crescent-convoy-followed-militant-groups-aleppo-russian-mod/ ↑
    

Quote:

Latest, News, Our Picks, Sections

Syria on brink of final victory in Aleppo

ALEXANDER MERCOURIS18 hours ago 6 431
With Jihadi counter offensives crushed, the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo trapped, and the US out of options, the Syrian government backed by Russia is on the brink of winning 'the Great Battle of Aleppo' and restoring its full control over Syria's biggest city.

• 37
• Share on Facebook
  
• Twitter
  

Whilst all the attention is focused on the diplomacy, the fighting in Aleppo progresses steadily towards what is now starting to look like an inevitable government victory.
A review of the key events in the Great Battle of Aleppo' likely to be the decisive battle in the Syrian war is in order.
At the time of the start of the Russian intervention a year ago, Aleppo which contrary to what the Western media says is mainly government controlled and overwhelmingly loyal to the government had become almost completely surrounded by the Jihadi rebels who in 2012 had managed to capture its eastern suburbs.
The key to the crisis the government faced in Aleppo was the Jihadi capture in March 2015 of the provincial capital and most of the western province of Idlib.
This enabled the Jihadis to threaten the government's heartland of Latakia, and put them in a position where they could threaten the roads linking Aleppo to the government controlled areas in the south. At the time of the Russians' arrival the roads to the south of Aleppo had been cut, so that Aleppo could only be resupplied by air through the airport, which remained under government control.
In the months that followed the arrival of the Russians in September 2015, Russian air support enabled the Syrian army to take the offensive.
By the time of the first cessation of hostilities' agreement in February of this year the roads leading to Aleppo from the south had been reopened. The Jihadis in eastern Aleppo however still retained control of the Castello road to the north of the city so that their supply routes to Turkey were still open.
It is now clear that both sides used the period following the cessation of hostilities' agreement in February to resupply and reorganise.
On the part of the US and its allies this involved combining the various Jihadi groups (including Jabhat Al-Nusra) and putting them under the command of a single headquarters (or "operations room") whilst resupplying them with weapons including it seems heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery, allegedly drawn from ex-Libyan army stocks.
Though the objective of this planned offensive was (naturally) never made public, it is clear that it was aimed at capturing (or "liberating") Aleppo.
Presumably if Aleppo had been captured an alternative Syrian government would have been set up there, which the US, the European powers, Turkey, and the Arab states of the Gulf, would have recognised as Syria's true or legitimate government.
With President Assad having lost control of what was once Syria's largest city, and the area under the control of his government reduced to Damascus and a belt of territory to its north, that would have made the demand for his removal almost irresistible.
By May US Secretary of State Kerry was issuing threats that the Russians only had until August to agree to a "political transition" in Syria (ie. President Assad's removal from office). Though what would happen in August if this did not happen Kerry left unsaid, with hindsight it is clear that it was the Jihadi offensive that was in preparation that he had in mind.
As previously discussed by The Duran (see here and here) Kerry followed up this threat with negotiations with the Russians in which he appears to have offered the Russsians a junior place in the US coalition against ISIS in return for their agreement to President Assad's removal from power.
In the event the Russians rejected this offer, whose acceptance would have contradicted the fundamental principles of their whole foreign policy.
Before the Jihadis were in a position to start their offensive, the Syrian government and the Russians got their blow in first.
Further advances by the Syrian army backed by the Russian air force resulted in the capture in July of the Castello road, cutting off the supply route to the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo from Turkey, and encircling them.
The result was that when the Jihadi offensive against Aleppo finally got started at the end of July it found the Syrian military and the Russians prepared and waiting for them.
As a result, though the Jihadis were briefly able at the start of their offensive in August to punch a hole through the government lines by capturing the territory of what is sometimes called the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district in Aleppo's south western suburbs, their offensive as The Duran predicted quickly stalled, causing the Jihadis to suffer heavy losses at the hands of the Syrian army and the Russian air force.
By the beginning of September the Jihadi force attacking Aleppo from the south west had spent itself, allowing the Syrian army apparently with help from Russian Special Forces to recapture the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district, thereby plugging the hole the Jihadis had punched through the government's lines at the start of their offensive in August.
In passing I would say that this particular episode casts an interesting light over Western media coverage of the war.
The brief Jihadi capture of the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district were widely trumpeted by the Western media as a great victory in banner headlines that appeared on the front pages of Western newspapers. There was much breathless talk of how the siege of Aleppo' had been "broken", and of how this would open the way to the capture or "liberation" of the government controlled area of Aleppo.
The Western media has by contrast barely reported the Syrian army's recapture of the grounds of the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district in September. It would require very close reading of Western news reports to know it had happened.
Less observant watchers of the Syrian war who take all their news from the Western media might be confused why a siege which was broken' in August is intact now.
Whilst the fighting continued around Aleppo, the diplomacy continued as well.
The failure of the Jihadi offensive in August led to the US proposing a new plan whereby the Syrian military would withdraw from the Castello road purportedly to allow the movement of humanitarian convoys into the city.
This was first proposed at a time when the Jihadis were still in control of the territory of the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district and were thus in a position to threaten Aleppo's communications to the government controlled areas to the south.
The inducement the US this time offered the Russians was a US offer of joint operations against Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch Jabhat Al-Nusra.
As discussed before, this plan had it ever been accepted would have put the government's communications and supply routes to Aleppo at grave risk, threatening its control of the city in the event of the (inevitable) collapse of the ceasefire.
Unsurprisingly the Russians proved unreceptive to this plan, especially as they probably always doubted that the US would act on its offer of joint operations against Jabhat Al-Nusra all the more so since Jabhat Al-Nusra actually constitutes the bulk of the Jihadi forces fighting the Syrian government in and around Aleppo.
By the time the plan was formally presented by Obama to Putin at the G20 summit in Hangzhou the whole premise of the plan had however collapsed following the Syrian army's recapture of the territory of the Aleppo artillery base' and of the Ramousseh district, securing the government's supply lines to Aleppo from the south.
The result was that the meeting between Obama and Putin at the G20 summit ended in acrimony, with the US accusing the Russians of supposedly "backtracking" on things that had already been agreed upon (almost certainly this reflects US anger at the Syrian army's recapture of the territory of the Aleppo artillery base' and the Ramousseh district).
Following the defeat of the Jihadi offensive against south west Aleppo at the beginning of September, and the conclusive completion of the encirclement of the Jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo, their fate was in all practical terms sealed.
The ceasefire plan that subsequently emerged was an attempt by the more realistically minded officials in Washington who presumably include Obama and Kerry to save the Jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo and to preserve them as a coherent fighting force by getting the Russians to agree to their withdrawal from eastern Aleppo via the Castello road.
Though the opening of the Castello road as part of this ceasefire plan was presented as intended to make possible the delivery of humanitarian supplies to eastern Aleppo, in reality the agreement quite clearly refers to the withdrawal of Jihadi fighters together with their equipment from eastern Aleppo by way of the Castello road. The relevant term of the agreement reads as follows:

"Any Syrians can leave Aleppo via Castello Road, including armed opposition forces with their weapons, with the understanding that no harm will come to them and they can choose their destination. Opposition forces leaving Aleppo with weapons must coordinate ahead of time with UN representatives as to the time they will be using Castello Road and the number of personnel and weapons and military equipment departing."

(bold italics added)
The ceasefire ultimately collapsed because the hardliners in Washington and the Jihadis on the ground in Syria could not in the end bring themselves to accept the surrender of eastern Aleppo to the government by agreeing to the withdrawal of Jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo by way of the Castello road.
The loss of a Jihadi presence in Syria's biggest city and with it the loss of any realistic prospect of the city's eventual capture would end the possibility of setting up an alternative government in Aleppo, and with it any realistic prospect of achieving regime change in Syria.
Though there is now some talk of setting up an alternative government in Turkish controlled Jarablus, doing so in a small town on the Turkish border under the protection of the Turkish army five years after the war started is not a viable alternative, and cannot compare with the setting up of such a government in a Jihadi "liberated" Aleppo.
Since the surrender of eastern Aleppo means the abandonment of any realistic possibility of achieving regime change in Syria, the proposal to do so encountered bitter resistance from the hardliners in Washington and from the Jihadis on the ground in Syria. That is why the ceasefire plan in the end failed.
The problem is that having ruled out a withdrawal from Aleppo the hardliners have no realistic alternative to offer.
The Russians have made clear since the collapse of the ceasefire that any idea of sending humanitarian supplies' into eastern Aleppo via the Castello road must now be abandoned, ending any hope of the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo being resupplied by that route.
Russian troops are apparently still located there, whilst the collapse of the ceasefire means that Syrian troops, who had briefly withdrawn from there, have reoccupied their former positions there, and are indeed carrying out further advances in the area. That means that the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo can no longer obtain reinforcements or fresh supplies by way of the Castello road.
Since the Castello road was the last remaining resupply route of the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo, that means they can no longer receive reinforcements or fresh supplies, and are reduced to trying to hold off the attacks of the Syrian army with only what they have. By contrast the Syrian troops pressing in on them from the north and south can be resupplied and reinforced continuously, which is what is apparently actually happening.
The result of all of this, with the ceasefire having collapsed and with the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo trapped and facing defeat, is that the US is left thrashing around looking for something it can do.
There is again talk of supplying Jihadi troops, presumably in the area around Aleppo, with shoulder held surface to air missiles (MANPADS') (the Saker has explained why this would not be effective) and of the US pulling out of negotiations with the Russians (it is not obvious why the US thinks that would scare or impress the Russians) but the truth is that with a head on clash with the Russian military in Syria categorically ruled out by the US military, the US has no real cards left to play.
This is the reason for all the overblown rhetoric of Russian "barbarism", of Russia becoming a "pariah nation", of the death threats against Russian servicemen and civilians in Syria and elsewhere, of the talk of the US bombing of Syrian military bases in eastern Syria (this clearly refers to Deir Ezzor), and of the hints of imposing further sanctions("coercive measures") on Russia (a non-starter), and of expelling Russia from the UN Security Council or diluting its power of veto there (ditto).
In the absence of any viable alternative strategy this talk is intended to embarrass or scare the Russians into calling a stop on the Syrian military's offensive in Aleppo, or if that doesn't work in concealing behind a smokescreen of angry words the extent of the US's humiliation in Aleppo . The Russians however are obviously unimpressed and are paying no attention, and are pressing on.
None of this talk can change the military situation in Aleppo. Though the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo are as is to be expected putting up a fierce fight, as they are now cut off from any hope of reinforcement or resupply in what continues to be a battle of attrition, their strength every day dwindles. The result is that with every day that passes news comes of further Syrian army advances in the city.
Unless the Jihadis' foreign sponsors are prepared to escalate beyond anything we have seen up to now which since it would risk a head on clash with the Russians seems very unlikely the eventual outcome of the fighting in Aleppo is no longer in doubt.
The Syrian army's eventual recapture of eastern Aleppo would not end the war in Syria.
Jabhat Al-Nusra would still be in control of Idlib province. ISIS would still be in control of Raqqah and of much of the desert region in Syria's east. In addition the Turkish military has been busy over the last few weeks carving out its "safe zone" for the Jihadis in north east Syria.
It is not impossible indeed it is highly likely that the fall-back plan is to regroup the Jihadi forces in this Turkish controlled "safe zone" so as to launch fresh attacks on Aleppo from there in the future.
Another option apparently once again being discussed is the old one of partitioning Syria by carving out a Sunni Jihadi state in eastern Syria.
In my opinion neither of these options is realistic or sustainable over the long term.
Having failed in the course of four years of war to capture the whole of Aleppo before the Russians arrived, and having been comprehensively defeated there since, I cannot see the Jihadis succeeding in capturing Aleppo in the future against a revitalised Syrian army that has the backing of Russia.
Nor do I think it sustainable to preserve indefinitely what would in effect be Jihadi emirates in poor peripheral regions of Syria like Idlib or Raqqah, or in a Turkish occupied "safe zone" in north east Syria, against the opposition of Syria, Iran, Iraq, the Kurdish militia, and Russia. Not only would that be politically difficult, but with the Syrian government securely in control of Damascus and Aleppo, and with regime change in Syria definitely off the agenda, there would seem to be no point in doing so.
In saying this I should say that I know of the talk of Western plans to build pipelines from Qatar to Europe through this area in order to bypasss Russia. However I cannot imagine that happening whilst this area remains a fought over contested zone, which with neither the Syrian government in Damascus nor the Kurds accepting the existence of these emirates is what it would be.
Moreover following the capture of eastern Aleppo the Syrian government's priority is likely to be the recapture of Idlib. Though Idlib is in difficult country and will doubtless be fanatically defended (as Raqqah will be) the US can no more prevent its recapture by the Syrian army than it can prevent the Syrian army backed by Russia from recapturing eastern Aleppo.
If the Syrian army recaptures Idlib after it recaptures Aleppo then the Syrian government will have finally secured control of the whole of Syria's populous western regions, all its main cities, and of its Mediterranean coast. At that point the preservation of the remaining pockets of Jihadi control in the poor and unpopulated areas of eastern Syria would seem to have even less point.
It is unwise to underestimate the fanaticism and bloody-mindedness of some people in Washington. Unfortunately that always leaves open the possibility of some sort of dramatic escalation in Syria. However with the Syrian army close to winning the Great Battle of Aleppo' it is increasingly looking as if Syria has finally turned the corner.

Quote: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.