A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[Magda Hassan]

::laughingdog::

So Putin helped out Obama with the neo-cons who wanted regime change at all cost. He helped himself of course too as they need Syria a stable Syria without more lunatics running around like Libya. Love watching the factionalism in the US elite.

[Lauren Johnson]

::laughingdog::

So Putin helped out Obama with the neo-cons who wanted regime change at all cost. He helped himself of course too as they need Syria a stable Syria without more lunatics running around like Libya. Love watching the factionalism in the US elite.

It gets much, much funnier. Get this. The just a few days after starts his pull out of Syria, Federica Mogherini of the EU Foreign Affairs Council announces "five guiding principles" for dealing with Russia in the future. Here they are:

The first of these guiding principles is the full implementation of the Minsk agreements as a key element for any substantial change in our relations. By the way, this is an important week, it is the week where two years ago the illegal annexation of Crimea took place and we re-stated our common strong position of non-recognition of the annexation of Crimea.

The second principle is strengthening relations with our Eastern Partners and other neighbours, in particular in Central Asia, and we had very good discussions on how to proceed in this respect.

Third, strengthening internal European Union resilience, in particular in view of energy security, hybrid threats and strategic communication, but not only.

Fourth principle we all agreed on is the need for selective engagement with Russia, both on foreign policy issues - this is clear, when it comes to Iran or the Middle East Peace Process or Syria, but also DPRK, migration or counter-terrorism, climate change - but also in other areas where there is a clear European Union's interest.

The fifth of our guiding principles is the willingness to support more and more the Russian civil society and engage and invest in people-to-people contacts and exchanges and policies that are related to that, with a particular view to the youth of Russia and the youth of the European Union because we see the future of our countries as something we need to invest into.

In other words, after engaging in a complex diplomatic engagement with consultations with the US, the EU, gulf state countries, Russia takes on the job of cleaning up the problem that was so "worrying" to the rest of the "civilized" world and then quickly reduces its role, is then warned that it better start changing or else.

The laundry list of things the RF must do before sanctions will be lifted not to mention the sanctions yet to be imposed in the future is endless. It could totally abandon the Donbass, turn over Crimea to Ukraine, release Nadiya Savchenko, and there would be still be future conditions imposed until Russia is ruled by a Western approved technocrat.

But Putin's go 'em right where he wants 'em as he continues to confound them with his Black Belt Eleven Dimensional Chess Zen Master skills. (The Saker has finally admitted what he has denied -- he's a Putin Fan Boy.)

I might very well be way off on Putin, and I will be happy to eat crow. He has warned that he will be ready to move back into Syria in strength. That would impress me. Another thing is if he tells NATO to fuck off and annex Donbass. That would mean telling the West Russia will go her own way, which would also mean nationalizing the RCB. But then Russia would have to lose the billions it has purchased and still is purchasing in US Treasuries.

Won't happen.

[Lauren Johnson]

A very favorable perspective on Putin's gambit in Syria from Foreign Policy magazine.

Vadimir Putin could hardly wait to drop the bombshell that he was withdrawing Russian forces from Syria's civil war. In a meeting at the Kremlin broadcast on the evening news Monday, the Russian president fidgeted in his chair, rubbed his eyes, and scratched his nose as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu rattled off Russian military successes and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reported on the tenuous peace process the nearly six-month air campaign had brought about. It was a perfect setup for the inevitable conclusion: After hearing so much good news from his top advisors, how could Putin help but decide that Russia's work in Syria was done?

Putin's performance was a striking contrast to then-U.S. President George W. Bush's infamous 2003 "mission accomplished" declaration aboard an aircraft carrier. Bush put on a show; the Kremlin's surprise announcement was presented as bureaucratic procedure. With peace talks underway in Genevaand Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appearing a little too pleased with his Russian-backed gains on the ground, Putin is now exiting Syria as quietly as he entered it.

The Kremlin's official rationale for fighting in Syria was that it was responding to a request by the "legitimate" government in Damascus to help combat international terrorism. Since the Islamic State had found recruits among Muslims from Russia and other former Soviet republics, Putin had an added incentive to bomb terrorists and stop them from returning home as battle-hardened extremists. To demonstrate Russia's success in these anti-terrorism operations, Shoigu went through a checklist of accomplishments, from liberating 400 population centers and strengthening government control to cutting off terrorist supply routes and killing 2,000 foreign fighters from Russia.

Of course, the unofficial reasons for Putin's Syrian adventure are just as important.

Throughout the air campaign, Syrian opposition groups and the United States claimed that Russia was mainly targeting moderate rebels opposed to Assad and not Islamic State or al Qaeda affiliates. The true civilian death toll of the Russian bombing raids may never be known, but the air war had the effect of denying rebels the hope of achieving victory on the battlefield by reconquering rebel-held territory and edging in on Aleppo. Pounded by Russian bombs, the rebels gave up their refusal to talk with the government and headed for Geneva. Rescuing Assad was Putin's No. 1 unofficial mission.

A second unofficial reason for Putin's foray into Syria was the opportunity to demonstrate Russia's restored military might. In fact, one of the main goals of the mission was to test new weaponry under combat conditions, a source in the Russian General Staff told the Kommersant newspaper Tuesday. Kalibr cruise missiles launched from warships in the Caspian Sea were fired at targets almost 1,000 miles away in Syria on Oct. 7, Putin's birthday. The tactical purpose was dubious cruise missiles are typically used to penetrate air defenses that the Syrian rebels could only dream of getting their hands on. Nevertheless, the use of the missiles did make U.S. military planners perk up. Sorties flown by long-range strategic bombers based in Russia had a similar effect.

On Monday, Putin praised his troops for proving that they could fight "far from their own territory, without any common borders with the theater of operations." The president's message was clear: After decades of decline, the Russian military can again strike at will, wherever it sees fit.

Yet the main unspoken reason for the Kremlin's Syria mission was to re-establish Russia on the world stage not just as a Middle East powerbroker but also as a global player on par with the United States. After the annexation of Crimea and Russia's intervention in eastern Ukraine two years ago, Western countries turned Putin into a pariah, avoiding him at international gatherings and hammering out the Minsk peace deal only to prevent a larger conflict. Becoming an indispensable actor in the Syrian civil war offered Putin a brilliant, if risky, way out of his isolation.

It worked. In September of last year, as Russia built up its forces in Syria and the rest of the world puzzled over the Kremlin's intentions, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter had his first phone conversation with Shoigu. Simultaneously, Lavrov built on his relationship with Secretary of State John Kerry to launch a number of diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the fighting. On Monday, Lavrov trumpeted Russia's close cooperation with the United States on two U.N. resolutions and co-chairing the International Syria Support Group.

The Syrian conflict even gained Putin the ear of U.S. President Barack Obama again. The two presidents met during the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September; the very next day Russia began its bombing campaign. Obama, who was reluctant to reward Putin with a full-fledged meeting, awkwardly huddled with his Russian counterpart in a hotel lobby during the G-20 summit in November.

Following Monday's announcement to withdraw from Syria, Putin spoke with Obama on the phone. The Russian read-out of the call ended with the formulation that "the conversation was held in a businesslike and frank manner." From the Kremlin's point of view, Russia is now speaking to the United States on equal terms.

Russia's intervention in Syria's civil war hasn't been flawless. Russia lost Turkey as a partner, after a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24 along the Syrian border in November. The Kremlin also risked the radicalization of Sunni Muslims in southern Russia who oppose Putin's support for Assad, an Alawite, and his Shiite allies.

None of these problems looked to be improved by sticking around longer, however. Many American observers, including Obama, predicted that Putin was wading into a quagmire. But the Kremlin has evidently learned the lessons of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq and took the first opportunity to get out.

True to form, Putin is holding his cards close to his chest, making his next move impossible to predict. He played a similar game in Ukraine, intervening with military force to rescue his proxies while engaging in peace talks to achieve a shaky cease-fire. Some commentators are wondering if Putin's drawdown in Syria could mean a new escalation of hostilities in Ukraine. Others fear a new Russian front against the Islamic State in Libya or Afghanistan.

"Mission accomplished" shouldn't be taken too literally. In the first stage of the Syrian withdrawal, half of Russia's 60 warplanes and helicopters based in the country will be removed, Vedomosti newspaper reported on Tuesday. But Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia's Tartus naval facility and Hmeymim air base will continue to operate and help observe the "cessation of hostilities." That presumably means leaving the S-400 air-defense system, deployed to Syria after Turkey downed the Russian warplane.

On Tuesday morning, Russia's state-run Channel One showed Russian warplanes at Hmeymim fueling at dawn for the long flight home. Putin isn't going anywhere, though. In Syria, as in Ukraine, he is leaving all options open.

[David Guyatt]

What the whole affair tells me is that, no matter what you may think of Putin personally, and no matter what Russia's world strategy truly is, he is a really smart guy and intellectually heads and shoulders above most of the western heads of state he has to do business with.

No wonder they don't like him.

And we all, on the other hand, have to put up with pre-owned, bought-and-paid-for numpty chumps daily parroting utter tosh because they can't possibly speak the truth to the people who they are supposed (sic) to represent.

::face.palm::

[Lauren Johnson]

What the whole affair tells me is that, no matter what you may think of Putin personally, and no matter what Russia's world strategy truly is, he is a really smart guy and intellectually heads and shoulders above most of the western heads of state he has to do business with.

No wonder they don't like him.

And we all, on the other hand, have to put up with pre-owned, bought-and-paid-for numpty chumps daily parroting utter tosh because they can't possibly speak the truth to the people who they are supposed (sic) to represent.

::face.palm::

Putin? It remains to be seen how smart he really is and in what sense.

But watching one of his long press conferences that are anything but staged or his brilliant speech to the UN ("Do you realize what you have done?") cannot deny his personal command and his ability to communicate so brilliantly.

And yes, we have Barry the Water Carrier. Here is a savage critique of his very long interview with The Atlantic magazine. ::thumbsdown::

The Atlantic has just published a long essay, The Obama Doctrine, by their Washington national correspondent, Jeffrey Goldberg. Based in most part on wide-ranging reflective interviews with President Barack Obama, the article makes extensive use of direct quotes from that interview. Considerable space is devoted to the various American engagements in the Middle East along with Obama's views on prospects for the region. It is a remarkable journalistic event insofar as it represents a preemptive attempt by a sitting President to shape the discourse about his record and his legacy. What he says is revealing - less as analysis and interpretation of actions taken, though, than as an exhibit' of all that is peculiar about Obama's policy-making style - and what the implications for American diplomacy have been.Obama's overall stance is one of dissociation from his own administration and its conduct. Throughout, he appears to be referring to himself in the 3rd person. This can be seen as the soon to be memoir writer's attempt to cast himself as detached statesman while distancing himself from errors made. However, this degree of dissociation by a still incumbent President is odd. It suggests that he has been playing the role of participant-observer while in the Oval Office. Moreover, it conveys his sense that somehow the words he utters are equivalent to actions. Indeed, a feature of his Presidency has been a frequent mismatch of words and deeds which never get reconciled. Nor do they in this seemingly candid interview. That raises a cardinal question: is this honest reflection or a characteristic flight from accountability?

Two, this strange attitude is most pronounced in his remarks about the Middle East. For example, he inveighs against allowing the United States to be placed in a position of picking sides in Islam's Sunni-Shi'ite civil war. He is especially adamant about the dangers of American power being used as a tool of the Saudis to advance their cause. Yet, this is exactly what he has been doing in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Moreover, he never has confronted the KSA leaders about the promotion of wahabbism or their concrete support for ISIl and al-Qaeda (in Syria and Yemen - where they fight side-by-side with Saudi troops) - either in private or in public.

Let's step back and reflect on this. Barack Obama, President of the United States, in telling a journalist that his most important ally' in the Middle East has been aiding and abetting America's mortal enemies and that they should stop. Yet, three years after those hostile actions began he has yet to voice his displeasure directly in numerous meetings. Instead, he gets an interview published in a magazine that the Saudi leaders might pick up in the waiting room at the Mayo Clinic on their next medical visit. If there is any sense or logic to this, it must conform to a mental process never before encountered.

Obama urges that the KSA and Iran learn to co-exist, "to share space," in the region. Yet, in the wake of the nuclear accord, he's gone overboard in denouncing the IRI as the primary source of instability in the Middle East and insists that until they cease and desist, no normalization is possible. As Goldberg quotes Susan Rice in seconding the President: "The Iran deal was never primarily about trying to open a new era of relations between the U.S. and Iran." In other words, if the US refuses adamantly to "share space" - as in Iraq - on what grounds does he here encourage the Saudis to do so? On Turkey, Obama is similarly mealy-mouthed as regards their tangible contributions to both ISIl and al-Nusra/al-Qaeda - although he refrains from the same direct criticism of Erdogan.

Finally, Obama strongly criticizes Washington's foreign policy Establishment as being overly rigid in their thinking and imposing their views on American leaders. This is baffling - is not the President the head of the Establishment? Has Obama not stocked his two administrations - to a man and to a woman - with members of the Establishment? Robert Gates, David Petraeus and John Brennan were his appointees. Gates boasts in his memoir of the scheme he orchestrated to force Obama's hand in escalating in Afghanistan in 2009. With his allies Petraeus and Hillary Clinton, Gates planned to expand it further and to make its duration indefinite. Only Stanley McChrystal's inopportune public insults of the President prevented its success.

Does he not invite Robert Kagan and Thomas Friedman to intimate Camp David deep think sessions? Did Obama not put Victoria Nuland, Dick Cheney's principal deputy foreign policy adviser (and Kagan's wife), in charge of European policy where she helped foment the Ukrainian coup and from which post she aggressively runs a belligerent policy toward Russia? Hasn't he bowed the knee before the Israeli lobby going so far as to allow himself to be humiliated by Netanyahu before Congress without any rejoinder? Does he not have the authority to address the country directly and to instruct them about world realities?

Yet, he whines to Goldberg that he is somehow caught in a web spun by "the Establishment." What is a reasonable interpretation of this illogic? Election politics? but nothing has changed since his 2012 re-election. (Anyway, is starting a new war in the Middle East a sure-fire vote-getter?) Was the President fantasizing for seven years, was he blackmailed, did he lack the conviction to take different paths, or was he simply weak and feckless?

Here is the Obama view of where he fits in Washington's power map of foreign policy-makers/thinkers: "There's a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It's a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions. In the midst of an international challenge like Syria, you get judged harshly if you don't follow the playbook, even if there are good reasons why it does not apply."

The deference and passivity accorded the upholders of the conventional wisdom exposes the critical flaw in Obama's interpretation of his authority as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

He is not a constrained Doge of Venice under strict surveillance by the Great Council of aristocrats. He is not just the custodian of some Holy Grail in the sacred custody of a vestal priesthood. He is not the prize student being tested in a simulation exercise by masters of the guild. The Washington Consensus embodied by the head-nodders of the think tanks and op. ed. pages is nothing more than the calcified corpus of failed ideas which have brought the United States nothing but wrack and ruin for (at least) the past 15 years. The Iraq debacle cut the ground from under it thereby helping to clear the way for Obama's entry into the White House. His historic task was reformation. Instead, he decided that acceptance into the ranks of the Establishment was worth a ritualized surrender.

All of this is baffling. Part of the explanation lies in the President's singular personality. Despite his high intelligence, he seems to live with a great number of unreconciled contradictions. Some have to do with his background and upbringing. Some are intellectual. The title of the Atlantic article is misleading. There is no "Obama Doctrine." Incoherence is the hallmark of American actions in the Middle East and elsewhere. The interview with Goldberg confirms that.

II
Barack Obama gave Goldberg many, many hours of his time. The President allowed the writer to accompany him on international jaunts, and accorded him entry to his inner circle. Goldberg has thanked the President by concentrating on the supposed historic error of not bombing Syria when Assad allegedly (if factually mistakenly) was accused of crossing the notorious ' red line' by using sarin gas. That is the pivot of the article; it is returned to time after time in positing the hard-line critique of the Obama foreign policy as the one authoritative perspective. That was predictable. Goldberg is an Israeli who started his career at the Likud megaphone The Jerusalem Post. Why does a President afford such liberties to a tendentious journalist?

European monarchs of old had court portraitists. American presidencies have Boswells like Bob Woodward and now Jeff Goldberg. Boswells who are not friends but on assignment. The purpose seems similar: to immortalize the ruler at the height of his powers. To show a forceful leader mastering a daunting problem with resolve, sobriety and dedication to the interests of his fellow citizens. This being America, the subject matter has to be one of action and suspense. Bush the Younger seeking retribution for 9/11. Now Barack Obama in a titanic struggle to escape the coils of stifling dogma.

A narrative account that covers a long span of time, though, does have a few drawbacks. It cannot fix the image at a single moment that will last for eternity. However laudatory, the written account is liable to be viewed differently as time goes by. And Goldberg's portrait is not very becoming. A picture wings the flying hour; a story is part of the flow of events. There is the further drawback that the chronicler may depict persons and things in ways that are not entirely complimentary to the main protagonist in the drama.

Journalistic talents may be available for lease but they do not come with a money back guarantee. For the exchange currency is not hard cash but access. The White House gets surefire blockbuster publicity and, in this case, the chance to set in place the first sketch of his Presidential record. A complication is that while the President is the patron, the commission is loosely written to allow the artist unmonitored access to other members of the court. Their vanities and ambitions are not identical with his. See the quoted remarks of John Kerry and Pentagon officials.

In the light of the ensuing risks, why does Barack Obama enter into such a pact? Our celebrity culture provides part of the answer. Publicity is what it is all about. A public figure whose meteoric rise is a testament to star power must be acutely sensitive to the imperative of how vital to success is mythic imagery and turns in the limelight. The stage lights have the special glow when energized by a graphic account of star performance.

Then there is the simple truth that Presidents want to celebrate themselves. They are the ultimate celebrity in a celebrity culture. They in fact feel proud of what they do and how they do it. Reality is clay in my hands. A successful leader must never allow the future to be hostage to history even yesterday's history. Except where history can be bent better to serve fresh exigencies or a post-Presidency career of 30 -35 years.

The selection of a hawk like Goldberg to be his interlocutor demonstrates another truth that also can be inferred from the Obama discourse. Authority on matters of foreign policy is understood to rest with the guardians of the very Establishment that constrains him. It is the neo-cons and their hard-line companions in arms who, he believes, are the cynosure of core American beliefs about the world and our place in it. So it ultimately is from them that he must seek validation. This conviction of Obama's, of course, becomes self-confirming as we have observed for seven years.

Obama is a man of reflection, at least as concerns his own identity and self-image. Maybe, the serial interviews with Goldberg were the first try at coming to terms with himself as director of American foreign policy. So he invited Goldberg to join him in an excursion through the Presidential mind - a Virgil exploring his own psyche.


Posted at 08:15 PM in Brenner, Policy |Permalink

[David Guyatt]

From Middle Eastern Eye, an interesting and informed take on the Syrian ceasefire:

How Putin's leverage shaped the Syrian ceasefire

#Diplomacy





Gareth Porter


Monday 28 March 2016 10:00 UTC


28 95googleplus1 202





Topics: Diplomacy

Tags:
Bashar al-Assad; Vladimir Putin; Barack Obama; Kerry; Syria

Show comments

By his military withdrawal, Putin was actually enhancing his leverage over both the military situation and the political negotiations still to come



When Russian President Vladimir Putin had a substantive meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry last week, it was an extremely rare departure from normal protocol. There was some political logic to the meeting, however, because Putin and Kerry have clearly been the primary drivers of their respective governments' policies toward Syria, and their negotiations have already led to a stunningly successful Syrian ceasefire and possible Syrian negotiations on a political settlement.
Washington and Moscow had to cooperate in order to get that ceasefire along with the jump-starting of intra-Syrian negotiations, now scheduled to begin next month, according to UN special envoy Steffan de Mistura. But the diplomatic maneuvering did not involve equal influence on each other's policies. Putin's Russia has now demonstrated that it has effective leverage over the policy of Kerry and the United States in Syria, whereas Kerry has no similar leverage over Russian policy.
Kerry had appeared to be the primary driver of a political settlement last year, propelled by a strategy based on exploiting the military success of the Nusra Front-led opposition forces, armed by the United States and its allies, in northwestern Syria. Kerry viewed that success a way of put pressure on both the Assad regime and its Russian ally to agree that Assad would step down.
But that strategy turned out to be an overreach when Putin surprised the outside world by intervening in Syria with enough airpower to put the jihadists and their "moderate" allies on the defensive. Still pursuing that strategy, we now know that Kerry asked US President Barack Obama to carry out direct attacks on Assad's forces, so he could have some "leverage" in the negotiations with the Russians over a ceasefire and settlement. But Obama refused to do so, and the Russian success, especially in January and February, conferred on Putin an even more clear-cut advantage in the negotiations with the United States over a Syrian ceasefire.
The US-Russian agreement on a ceasefire has proven to be far more effective than anyone had expected, and it is now clear that the reason is that Putin was able to convert his new-found leverage into the one US diplomatic concession that is necessary to any possibility of ending the war. The agreement between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry was more far-reaching than what has been made public. According to a report last week by Elijah J Magnier, who writes on regional politics and diplomacy for Al Rai, Kuwait's leading daily newspaper, "high officials present in Syria" - which his report makes clear were Iranian said that the United States had pledged as part of the ceasefire deal to "enforce on its regional Middle Eastern allies the cessation of the flow of weapons" into Syria.
In response to an e-mail query from this writer, Magnier said he had learned from his sources that no weapons have crossed the border into Syria from either Turkey or Jordan since the ceasefire went into effect. This crucial element of the US-Russian understanding, about which the Obama administration has maintained a discrete silence, evidently left the leadership of Nusra Front and its allies with little choice but to go along with the ceasefire for an indeterminate period. The entire armed opposition has thus apparently been shut down in Syria on the insistence of the United States because it was a requirement for the Russians to halt the offensive against them.
That far-reaching US concession explains why Putin surprised the entire world by announcing on 14 March that he was withdrawing the bulk of the Russian aircraft participating in the offensive. Contrary to the speculation of many pundits about his motive in doing so, Putin was actually enhancing his leverage over both the military situation and the political negotiations still to come. Magnier's sources told him that when Putin had informed Iran of his intention to withdraw the planes, he had emphasized that they could be returned to Syria within 24 hours if necessary.
Magnier's Iranian sources also made it clear that Iran was unhappy about the timing of Putin's decisions on the ceasefire. They believed that it came at least a month too soon, just as Iranian forces were in a position to gain significantly more territory. But Putin's agreement to the ceasefire and partial withdrawal on condition that outside patrons would not move to resupply their clients served the larger Russian strategy of checkmating the aim of Turkey and Saudi Arabia of bringing down the Assad regime an aim in which the United States had become deeply involved, even as it insisted it wanted to preserve the structure of the Syrian state security apparatus.
Coming after a demonstration of the effectiveness of Russian airpower in frustrating the 2015 s jihadist-led offensive, Putin's seizing the opportunity to nail down the agreement with Washington and then pulling out most of his airpower conveyed a message to the jihadist's external patrons that it was in their interets not to restart the war.
By shifting the conflict to the negotiating table, Putin's moves have also added to Russian leverage on the Assad regime, and the Russians can be expected to be active in suggesting ways to craft a Syrian agreement on new elections and constitutional reform. The Russians have ruled out any requirement for Assad to resign, but the Iranians are afraid that assurance is not ironclad. Iranian officials strongly hinted privately in Vienna that they believed the Russians made a deal with the United States on a key sanctions relief issue at Iran's expense in the final stage of the nuclear negotiations. They fear something similar may happen on Syria.
Iran has long regarded Assad and his regime as a key in the "axis of Resistance," so it views his removal from power under any formula as unacceptable. Magnier's sources told him that Iran believes Putin would accept a formula under which Assad would name someone else to run for president in a future election, according to Magnier.
Once the negotiations reach that stage of the negotiations, however, Putin will have a range of options for compromise that wouldn't require Assad's withdrawal from the regime. In a new constitution, for example, Assad could assume the role of chief of state with more ceremonial functions and an "advisory" role, while policymaking powers are assumed by a prime minister. Such a compromise could be seen as preserving the legitimacy and stability of the present regime, even though Kerry could claim that the opposition's main interest had been achieved.
Of course, despite the remarkable diplomatic leverage Putin has achieved, the negotiations could still fail. That could happen because the opposition's negotiators are unwilling to agree to a settlement that appears to preserve the Assad regime more and because the Obama administration proves unwilling to compel its allies to maintain the arms supply suspension. But the longer the negotiations continue, the greater John Kerry's personal stake in seeing them reach a compromise agreement and thus avoiding the resumption of full-scale war.
- Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.





- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how...HhS09.dpuf

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is a surprising article from Russian Insider, which contradicts many views of Putin as a geo-strategic genius. I think his incursion into Syria was well planned with Kerry and Obama for murky reasons. This article suggests that Putin is trying to earn his way back into the good graces of the West.

First of all let's think about the reason why we came to Syria: not to win, as it now seems, otherwise we wouldn't have left before doing so. Besides, we used limited force: you can't beat ISIS with 50 planes.I was really disappointed, although I should have expected this kind of trick.

It's amoral to start a war just to gain authority and acceptance back into the world community. People have always started wars to win, but we just made a little noise, lost a few lives and left.

We got a few rewards: ruble and oil are increasing, and our friendship with America is growing stronger, slowly but steadily. We achieved our goal of being accepted back into high society, and reconciliation is under way.

What immorality, to be still currying favor with the West!

There was a TV discussion on whether Putin would be able to keep his cult reputation in Syria. I'm sure it won't be for long.

In world news, Syrian Kurds formed an autonomous region called Syrian Kurdistan or Rojava in the town of Ramilan (which by the way has the largest Syrian oil deposits).

Apparently their goal is to join forces with Iraqi Kurdistan, which became an autonomous region long ago, creating Greater Kurdistan. Actually, Syrian Kurds fear a Turkish invasion. (Meanwhile Erdogan is ranting and raving: he knows that Turkey is about to be torn to pieces after Syria.) Syrian Kurdistan opened a diplomatic mission in Moscow and will probably be present at the negotiations in Geneva, thanks to Moscow.

Without ending the Donbass conflict, making amends via humanitarian assistance; giving up the conflict in Syria, leaving them with Putin portraits (plus, humanitarian assistance soap, cereal and macaroni products, that's a comfort!), will they also leave Syrian Kurdistan out in the cold at some point in the future?

This behavior is absolutely improper: people start wars to win.

I have the impression that Russian leaders are working side-by-side with the US, not against them, having learned to pursue a devastating and amoral strategy: come to a country with military assistance, then cut it adrift, leaving a blazing whorehouse behind.

This next article is from a Russian source (Chrome translation) announcing that the US corporations are welcome to take part in the next wave of Russian privatizations. Now that's interesting. ::cuckoo::

US companies can increase their presence in the Russian market - they can take part in the privatization of large state-owned Russian. This was told by the Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev said after a meeting with US Ambassador to Russia John Tefft.

"I gave the explanation for the large number of issues of interest to our American colleagues, prospects of economic development in Russia and the possibility of US companies to participate in privatization", - the minister said.

Asked whether US banks involved in the privatization of the organization is planned, Alexei Ulyukayev said that the number of global banks expressed readiness to participate in the promotion of privatization projects.

"I think fundamentally the right to privatization procedures were as transparent and understandable as possible for any investor, and in this regard the participation of qualified international consultants is very important," - he added.

The Minister also informed that the Ministry of Economic Development will direct banks, which agreed to provide advisory services on privatization, proposals for the price."Who will be the second stage - the price Picking, today we will send a corresponding letter to the end of the week we get the answers to the parameters of quotations And then, based on their feedback, we define the window of opportunity for those and other assets.", - Concluded the Minister.

By "big" privatization of the government is preparing a five-core assets this year -"Rosneft" , "Bashneft" Bank "VTB", Sovcomflot, "Alrosa". If adverse conditions persist, stakes in state-owned companies will be sold at "low" market that can bring significant profits for customers in the future.

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is a great video blog by Syria Girl aka Partisan Girl raising the question of Russia's involvement in the Anglo/Zionist project to balkanize Syria.

[David Guyatt]

For the record: Jane's Defence reveals that the US CIA has sent 3,000 tonnes of weapons and ammo to Syria (as reported by AsiaDefenceNews)

U.S. Delivers 3,000 Tons Of Weapons And Ammo To Al-Qaeda And Co. In Syria

Anurodh Kumar 08:24 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest







The United States via its Central Intelligence Service is still delivering thousands of tons of additional weapons to al-Qaeda and others in Syria.
The British military information service Jane's found the transport solicitation for the shipment on the U.S. government website FedBizOps.gov. Janes writes:

The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy's Military Sealift Command. Released on 3 November 2015, the first solicitation sought a contractor to ship 81 containers of cargo that included explosive material from Constanta in Bulgaria to Aqaba.
…
The cargo listed in the document included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. The Faktoria is an improved version of the 9K111 Fagot ATGW, the primary difference being that its missile has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.

Screenshot of Jane's Report
The Jane's author tweeted the full article (copy here).
One ship with nearly one thousand tons of weapons and ammo left Constanta in Romania on December 5. The weapons are from Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania. It sailed to Agalar in Turkey which has a military pier and then to Aqaba in Jordan. Another ship with more than two-thousand tons of weapons and ammo left in late March, followed the same route and was last recorded on its way to Aqaba on April 4.
We already knew that the "rebels" in Syria received plenty of weapons during the official ceasefire. We also know that these "rebels" regularly deliver half of their weapon hauls from Turkey and Jordan to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra):

Hard-core Islamists in the Nusra Front have long outgunned the more secular, nationalist, Western-supported rebels. According to FSA officers, Nusra routinely harvests up to half the weapons supplied by the Friends of Syria, a collection of countries opposed to Assad, ..

U.S. and Turkey supported "rebels" took part in the recent attack on Tal al-Eis against Syrian government forces which was launched with three suicide bombs by al-Qaeda in Syria. This was an indisputable breaking of the ceasefire agreement between Russia and the U.S. It is very likely that some of the weapons and ammunition the U.S. delivered in December were used in this attack.
Millions of rifle, machine-gun and mortar shots, thousands of new light and heavy weapons and hundreds of new anti-tank missiles were delivered by the U.S.. Neither Turkey nor Jordan use such weapons of Soviet providence. These weapons are going to Syria where, as has been reported for years by several independent sources, half of them go directly to al-Qaeda.
From historic experience we can be sure that the consequence of this weaponizing of takfiris will be not only be the death of "brown people" in the Middle East, but also attacks on "western" people and interests.
Skyscrapers falling in New York and hundreds of random people getting killed in Paris, Brussels, London and (likely soon) Berlin seem not be enough to deter the politicians and "experts" that actively support this criminal war on Syria and its people.

Copy of the Jane's Defence article HERE.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, and most importantly they are arming them with anti aircraft missiles.....