The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Israel Shamir Archive
Russia and Syria: The Die Is Cast

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>

Despite doubts and denials, Russia is about to embark on an ambitious expansion of its Syrian presence, likely to change the game in the war-torn country. Russia’s small and dated naval repair facility in Tartous will be enlarged, while Jableh near Latakia (Laodicea of old) will become the Russian Air Force base and a full-blown Russian Navy base in the Eastern Mediterranean, beyond the narrow Bosphorus straits. The jihadi multitudes besetting Damascus are likely to be beaten into obedience and compliance, and the government of President Assad relieved from danger and siege. The war with Da’esh (ISIS) is to provide the cover for this operation. This is the first report of this fateful development, based on confidential and usually reliable Russian sources in Moscow.

The knowledgeable and Damascus-based French investigative journalist and dissident Thierry Meyssan noted the arrival of many Russian advisers. Russians began to share satellite imagery in real time with their Syrian allies, he added. An Israeli news site said “Russia has begun its military intervention in Syria” and predicted that “in the coming weeks thousands of Russian military personnel are set to touch down in Syria”. Russians promptly denied that.

President Bashar al Assad hinted at that a few days ago expressing his full confidence of Russian support for Damascus. First six MiG-31 fighter jets landed in Damascus a couple of weeks ago, as reported in the official RG newspaper. Michael Weiss in the far-right Daily Beast presented a flesh-creeping picture of a Russian penetration of Syria. Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper referred to Jableh as the second-base location.

Now we can confirm that to the best of our knowledge, despite denials (remember Crimea?) Russia has cast its lot and made a very important decision to enter the Syrian war. This decision may yet save Syria from total collapse and incidentally save Europe, too, from being swept by refugee waves. The Russian air force will ostensibly fight Da’esh, but probably (as Michael Weiss guessed) they will also bomb not just Da’esh but the US-allied opposition of al-Nusra (formerly al-Qaeda) and other non-Da’esh Islamic extremists for the simple reason that they can’t be distinguished from Da’esh.

The Russian Foreign Minister Mr Sergey Lavrov proposed to organise a new coalition against Da’esh including Assad’s army, Saudis and some opposition forces. The US envoy visiting Russia said that there is no chance that the Saudis or other Gulf states would agree to join forces with Bashar Assad. Russia still plans to build this coalition, but in the view of the American rejection, apparently President Putin decided to act.

Russia is worried by successes of Da’esh, as this force fights and displaces Christians in Syria, while Russia considers itself a traditional protector of these people. Russia is also worried that Da’esh may begin operations in Muslim areas of Russia, in the Caucasus and on the Volga River. And the US-led anti-Da’esh coalition didn’t do the trick.

The US and Turkey ostensibly fight Da’esh, but they have their own interests, quite different from those of Syrians, Europeans and Russians. Turkey fights the Kurds who are staunch opponents of Da’esh. The US uses the war with Da’esh as a smokescreen to fight the legitimate government of Bashar Assad who was recently re-elected by vast majority of the Syrians. Da’esh does not suffer much from the US raids, as opposed to the Syrian Army. Moreover, the US sent hundreds of trained terrorists to Syria after providing them with a military upgrade in Jordan and elsewhere. Recently David Petraeus called for the arming of Jabhat an Nusra so they would fight Da’esh. This silly idea was laughed out of court but it is far from dead.

ORDER IT NOW

The US and its allies have wreaked havoc in Syria. The US is far away and can enjoy the show. Europe is a loser once removed as it gets the flood of refugees. Turkey is a direct loser, as it gets refugees, terrorism, the rapid decline of President Erdogan’s popularity, and a drop of living standards, all this being due to its erroneous policies in Syria.

Now Russia has taken over the difficult task of saving the situation. If Erdogan, Obama, Kerry, and the Saudis had thought that Putin would drop Assad, now they are having a rude awakening from such delusions. The Russian position is rather nuanced. Russia will not fight for Assad, as it did not fight for [the Ukrainian President] Yanukovych. Russia thinks it is up to Syrians to decide who will be their president. Assad or somebody else – that’s an internal Syrian affair. On the other hand, Obama and his allies do fight against Assad. He had “lost his legitimacy”, they say. They have a problem with Assad, as they admit. Russia has no problems with Assad. As long as he is popular with his people, let him rule, Russians say. If some members of the opposition will join him, fine.

Russia does not intend to fight the armed opposition per se, as long as this opposition is ready for peaceful negotiations and does not demand impossible (say, Assad’s head). In real life, nobody can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate groups and Da’esh. All of them are likely to suffer when the Russians will begin to do the job seriously. They’d better negotiate with the government and come for some arrangement. The alternative (destruction of Syria, millions of refugees, uprooting of Middle Eastern Christendom, jihadi attack on Russia proper) is too horrible to contemplate.

The War in Syria is fraught with dangers for Russia; that’s why Putin steered clear of direct involvement since 2011. The adversary is well armed, has some support on the ground, it has the wealth of the Gulf states and fanatic warriors likely to unleash a wave of terror attacks in Russia. The US position is ambiguous: Obama and his staff does not react on the growing Russian involvement. Thierry Meyssan thinks that Obama and Putin came to agreement regarding the need to defeat Da’esh. In his view, some American officials and generals (Petraeus, Allen) would like to undermine this agreement; so do the Republicans and the Neo-Cons.

Some Russian officials are worried. Perhaps Obama keeps mum in order to lure Putin into the Syrian War. Remember, the US enticed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Russian and American planes in the air over Syria could come to hostile encounters. Others say: shouldn’t Russia get involved in the Ukraine, rather than in Syria? But the apparent decision of Putin to enter war in Syria makes sense.

A war far away from home presents logistic challenges, as the US experienced in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there is much less danger of war spilling into Russia proper. In the distant theatre of war, Russian army, navy and air force will be able to show their pluck.

If they will succeed, Syria will regain peace, refugees will return to their homes, while Russia will remain forever in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russian success will cool the warmongers in Washington, Kiev, Brussels. However, if they will fail, NATO will think that Russia is ripe for reaping and may try to move war close to home.

We can compare it with military campaigns on 1930s. The Russians under brilliant Marshal Zhukov soundly trashed the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol in 1939, and the Japanese signed Neutrality pact with Russians and refrained from attacking Russia during the Soviet-German war. But the Red Army managed poorly against Marshal Mannerheim in Finland in 1940, and this encouraged Hitler to begin the war.

This time Russia will act within the international law framework, as opposed to Saddam Hussein’s adventure in Kuwait. While the US and Turkey bomb and strafe Syria without as much as ‘by your leave’ from the legitimate government of the state, Russia is coming by permission and by invitation of the Syrian authorities as their ally. There is a Mutual Defence Treaty between Russia and Syria. Syrian government offered Russians its facilities, airports and harbours for the defence purposes.

The Christian Churches of the Middle East welcome Russia and ask for its assistance in the face of the jihadi onslaught. The ancient Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem welcomed Russian involvement. The most high-ranking and politically active Palestinian clergyman, Archbishop Theodosius Atallah Hanna expressed his hope the Russians will bring peace to Syria and the refugees will return home.

For the Europeans, this is the chance to wean themselves from blind support of the US policies, to return millions of refugees home from European railway stations and hostels.

If it will work, this Putin’s initiative in Syria will count with his greatest achievements. He is playing his hand keeping cards very close to his chest, and this report is the first emanating from his vicinity.

Israel Shamir reports from Moscow and can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This report was first published in the Unz Review

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Russia, Syria 

173 Comments to "Russia and Syria: The Die Is Cast"

Commenters to Ignore
...to Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. I hope you are right.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Another Afghanistan for Russia?

    • Replies: , , , ,
  3. I can’t see this ending anyway but badly for Russia. But it could end very well for the US if Russia wants to make itself once again the main target of world jihadism. All the US has to do is … nothing! Just butt out. Fat chance of that happening? Maybe, but one can hope. After all, the Israeli lobby appears on the verge of its first truly major defeat.

    • Replies: , ,
  4. Not likely.

    Afghanistan is a mountainous nightmare while Syria is pretty flat. Sort of like whack-a-mole versus ducks in a pond.

    • Replies:
  5. Do you mean US sponsored world jihadism?

    The upside is pretty good for Russia and the downside is pretty bad for USrael. Russia can make brownie points with the Kurds, establish strategic military bases, help secure Syria and Iran from USrael attacks, and seriously monkey wrench our ME policy.

    And make some commercials for their military hardware.

  6. Israel Shamir: “But the apparent decision of Putin to enter war in Syria makes sense.” I am not sure, but as 5371 above, I hope you are right. This is an extremely risky move and I list reasons for and against.

    It is true that Russia is running a high risk of getting ISIS jihadists in its southern ‘Stan belly, but so is the EU. It is easy to see that ISIS is more of a threat to Russia than the Ukrainian Nazis, but Syria is so far from Russia. Simply, it is outside of the Russia-China protective envelope (so is Greece, so is Cyprus, so is Malta). Maybe it would have been better to fight jihadists at Russia’s border instead of Syria.

    I can also appreciate the importance of sending a signal to the Western Thieving Alliance – Russia is strong because it can project power away from its borders, do not even dream of dismembering Russia. This is a similar message that China is sending with its small fleet near Alaska – every sword has two edges, or live by the sword, die by the sword.

    The main Russian achievement so far appears to be the grounding of the Israeli Airforce, after one of their F16 has been shot-down over Syria by an S-300 about 8 days ago. Until then, the Israeli Airforce provided direct air support to ISIS in Syria. Since then, no Israeli plane has violated the Syrian airspace. Israel now wants the usual godzillions of US$ from the US tax payers to be the bulwark against Russia in Syria.

    It appears that Iran and Russia are coordinating their actions in Syria, the Iranians will send ground troops and the Russians will provide the air-cover in the fight against ISIS. Cooperating with Iran is a good move.

    Turkey’s Erdogan may also be saved from himself (his own stupidity) by this intervention.

    Finally, why not let the “humanistic” EU show its real racist and facsist face by dealing badly with Syrian refugees that their allies US and Israel created? My heart is with these refugees, but I would seriously enjoy exposing the EU countries for what they really are – the lying Euro trash.

    But I feel great pleasure that this move proves that the Israeli/necon BS in the MSM about Russia giving up on Assad for what it is – pure BS. We have been fed a diet of this BS by the Western media for almost two months incessantly.

    Overall, moving militarily into Syria is not the best move for Russia, it should have continued only supplying weapons, but let us see what transpires.

    • Replies: ,
  7. Afghanistan for Russia.
    Afghanistan for the British Empire.
    Afghanistan for US.

    USSR and its Communist Afghan allies had successfully subdued Islamist Muj in Afghanistan, until US started supplying Stingers to Muj.
    Soviets lost their airborne advantage: you can’t fight Muj on the ground in their own country.
    They know the lay of the land better than any foreigner (….including NATO, US, UK, etc).

    Russia successfully defeated Chechen Islamist terrorists, after screwing up badly at first.
    One thing about Russians: they often screw up first, but learn very quickly from their mistakes.

    Syria Arab Army has been able to hold its own against 10s of 1000s of Islamist terrorists trained and equipped by Turkey, US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States.
    Syrians will fight for their own country.
    All they need is a level playing field.
    Hopefully Russia will be able to give them that.

    • Replies:
  8. I will be watching the Saker’s blog, like many of you, to read his thoughts on this subject. But I am with him if Russia sends ground troops it would be walking into a U.S.-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli arranged trap, especially when Russians are suddenly fighting ISIS while the US under Obomber isn’t doing a damned thing. Perhaps Moscow’s goal is to ‘heighten the contradictions’ eg have Lavrov or Putin speak to the UN later this month and directly throw down the gauntlet to the U.S. ‘where the hell is your bombing campaign against ISIS and why has it been pinpricks while we’re engaged?’ but since Samantha Power is a psychopath she will just respond by blaming Russia for Assad’s barrel bombs and claiming that Moscow and Assad created the Islamic State rather than Uncle Sam and his local ‘allies’.

    Even just Russian airpower and Russian personnel based in the coastal redoubt of Latakia surrounded by friendly Allawites and Christians who pray for Putin, Assad and even Nasrallah’s health daily is not without its risks. What if ISIS suddenly is found to have a huge boatload of Stinger missiles they ‘captured from the Iraqis’, which of course we conveniently weren’t told about for months despite all the numerous ISIS threats to kill Americans on American soil? Amazing that will be and how quiet the MSM that told us we should all panic about ISIS will be — while the neocon scumbags not so secretly salivate about the ISI…er, Al Nusra…er, ‘Free Syrian Army’ handing Moscow another 1980s Afghanistan. Which they so obviously and desperately wanted in eastern Ukraine but didn’t get. Not because Russia ‘surrendered’ as the ‘hooray patriots’ say but because Putin cleverly armed and funded the Novorossiya Armed Forces that kicked Kiev’s butt with minimal direct Russian participation last August.

    Hopefully if the airpower and stepped up training presence is Russian the boots on the ground at the fiercest fighting will still be Iranian, Lebanese Hezbollah and Syrian Arab Army. We rather suspect too given Putin and Xi’s consultations this week in Beijing around the 70th anniversary of VJ Day China is sending money and possibly its own warships to Tartus as a symbolic and tangible show of support.

    • Replies: ,
  9. The original story about Russia bringing in MiGs, pilots, and advisors was said to be a fraud. The Saker doesn’t think it is going to happen, but it will be a stroke of genius for Putin. He solidifies Russian presence in the Eastern Med and the Middle East, helps out a friend(Assad) and can help Hezbollah, the Syrian Army take out ISIS, as well as expand operations in Iraq. Russians are ruthless. The Taliban had great respect for them as at least they had the balls to fight them Mujis face to face and not just rely on smart bombs, drones, etc.

    • Replies:
  10. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I can’t wait for the gun camera video of Russian aircraft annihilating the ISIS and jihadi training camps and bases that the U.S., et al., refuse to bomb. I want to see napalm, fuel air bombs, white phosphorus, you name it, dropped on those sociopathic retard motherfuckers. As Europe becomes a Camp of the Saints and the U.S. becomes third-world by the day, Ivan is making the Fertile Crescent livable. If I were Putin I’d go all in, move in nuke assets and subs, and let everyone in the neighborhood know that playtime is over, bitches. And if we get Trump in it’ll be tag team time turning these motherfuckers into molten Mohammedans.

    • Replies: ,
  11. We are in full agreement, I do hope Putin stops at air-support, nothing more in Syria. It is the Shiites who need to carry the ground war against the Sunni ISIS.

    Europe’s MSM are plastered all over by an image of a dead refugee child on a Turkish beach – brought to you by the humanitarian Anglo-Zionist interventionists and regime changers. Call Samantha Power and Nutty Yahoo to express approval for their job well done!!!

    They are the tumor of humanity.

  12. […] Source: Russia and Syria: The Die Is Cast – The Unz Review […]

  13. Regarding comparisons with Afghanistan. There is a great confusion in the minds. The USSR won the Afghan war. The country was peaceful and well governed. Stingers did not change that at all. However, Moscow surrendered to Yeltsin, and Afghanistan as well as GDR etc were given up. Pro-Yeltsin’s KGB passed the keys of Kabul, Bucharest, Warsaw and Berlin to the West. Even now the Afghanis I meet say that the Soviet days were the best in their memory. So the only lesson of Afghanistan is not “do not intervene” but “do not allow your enemy to take over your own capital”.

    • Replies:
  14. Regarding Saker’s opinion: I have a lot of respect to Saker. But he has his sources, while I have my sources. Now we do not discuss what would be better for Russia, but what Russia is actually doing. Saker is influenced by Russian inactivity in Donbass; he feels that will be repeated in Syria. But Putin is quite a surprising guy. He is not doing what is expected of him. And I rely upon my sources, not upon my intuition.

    • Replies: ,
  15. It is unthinkable that Putin would send Russian ground troops or Russian pilots to Syria.
    Russia did not even intervene directly in its own backyard, Ukraine.
    Ukraine is infinitely more important to Russia than Syria will ever be.
    Local Russians in Ukraine proved more than capable of taking on the Kiev Neo-Nazi junta.

    And nobody really knows what Putin will pull in Syria, aside form his inner circle, despite all the rumors or alleged sightings.
    The Crimea operation was planned in such secrecy and was so unexpected that by the time NATO figured out what was going on, the “little green men” were all over Crimea and the operation was over.

    IF Russia sends any troops, it will be loyal Chechen volunteers (from Vostok battalion).
    Since there are Islamist Chechen terrorists already fighting in Syria, nobody will be the wiser.
    But there is really no need for Russian troops in Syria nor Russian pilots.
    Hezbollah has more than enough tough, experienced fighters.
    Same with Iran irregulars.

    Russia can help with military hardware and intelligence, their forte.
    Which they no doubt already are doing.

    • Replies: ,
  16. Hard to see what a few Russian aircraft are going to do that thousand of sorties by US and allied air forces could not. Assad’s forces have not lacked for air superiority being able to send helicopters over rebel held territory and roll barrel bombs onto their positions! Assad needs troops, thousands of them, and unless Putin is going to provide them Assad’s regime is not long for this world.

    • Replies: ,
  17. The Russians are putting boots on the ground, not a huge number but a couple of thousand with the equipment to act as a force multiplier.

    Right move, the Syrian state and army are still functioning, the Israeli and Turkish government will have to back off or their planes will be shot down. The US has already stood down the Patriot missile battery in Jordan however this will cause a ruckus in DC.

    The rest of Europe says thank you, spasiba.

  18. Michael Weiss in the far-right Daily Beast presented a flesh-creeping picture of a Russian penetration of Syria. Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper referred to Jableh as the second-base location.

    This line suggest the writer is entirely unfamiliar with his source material or on a part of the political spectrum where the buses don’t run.

  19. When the Kurds were supported by US airstrikes they made huge gains, similarly when the Turks stopped Syrian sorties in the north the rebels made big gains (or indeed Israeli strikes in the south). Air-power is vital in a flat country like Syria and this is as much aimed at blocking the Israelis and Turks interfering, I would assume. Also the allies, as they won’t cooperate with the Syrian government, lack forward observers on the ground to direct the bombs and missiles, which is the reason that many planes return with their bomb loads intact.

    I would also assume there is an underlying political purpose as the UN Security Council Presidency passes to Russia and that is to put a new impetus behind peace talks.

  20. […] Russia and Syria: the Die Is Cast by Israel Shamir for the Unz Review.  [Added 9/4/2015] […]

  21. The Russians are wasting valuable resources and possibly their own blood propping up an unpopular tyrant in a violent country.

    I would think they would have learned their lesson about intervening in a Muslim country after their experience in Afghanistan.

    • Replies: , , ,
  22. I am curious where Israel (the country not the author) stands on this ? My guess is that they are not too happy about Russia acting next door to it.

    • Replies:
  23. Perhaps.
    It is possible that the Russian Federation has been protecting her own future from the imminent tsunami of refugees to Europe. If the tsunami is not managed right now, the results will an appearance of multiple centers of explosive discontent in Europe. Besides, the US have the openly stated hegemonic plans for the Middle East.
    There is nothing illogical in the RF decisive yet painful steps to alleviate the dangerous inflammation. Do not forget, that the European mess (including Ukraine) is the direct consequence of the US policies in the Middle East and Europe. It is impossible to accuse the RF, that is still in a recovery phase from the dissolution of the USSR, in the funning the flames of war. (The dissolution, though bloodless, was devastating in many respects for Russia. Harvard imbecile Boys anyone?) It is rather logical to suggest that the world is on fire because the Federal Reserve calls for more money for the moneyed.
    As for the US strategists, they enjoy a no-accountability status. And see how quickly the powerful Jewish interests forget about Holocaust when the Ukrainian neo-Nazis provided help to the Hegemon’s plans. AIPAC has been left without trousers:

    http://www.salon.com/2015/09/02/outright_lies_from_the_new_york_times_what_you_need_to_know_about_the_dangerous_new_phase_in_the_ukraine_crisis/

  24. unpopular tyrant = not US ass-kisser

    I’m sure the lesson learned in Afghanistan (and Ukraine, etc.) is never ever trust the US.

  25. Couldn’t the same be said about the U.S.? Yet we keep doing what we are doing. All the while the U.S. sponsors both state and non state barbarians over there, so eventually they move here. I for one hope Putin’s ploy works.

  26. It is unthinkable that Putin would send Russian ground troops or Russian pilots to Syria.
    Russia did not even intervene directly in its own backyard, Ukraine.

    Russia intervened in Ukraine when it grabbed Crimea.

    Ukraine is infinitely more important to Russia than Syria will ever be.

    Donbas is a dysfunctional mess that neither Ukraine nor Russia want. Donbas may be important for Russian nationalists but a less emotional calculation suggests that unlike Crimea, Donbas is useless for the Russian state. Putin is in essence not a Russian nationalist but a Russian statist. The interests of nationalists and statists coincided in Crimea, but not in Donbas. It is in the interest of the Russian state for its anti-Russian Ukrainian neighbor to be burdened with a festering low-grade war or to suffer from “federalization” by inclusions of Donbas within its borders, preferably with veto-power over national policies. It is not in the Russian state’s interests to annex that now-impoverished, crime-ridden, in-need-of-massive-reconstruction, demographic black hole.

    Local Russians in Ukraine proved more than capable of taking on the Kiev Neo-Nazi junta.

    Without Russian intervention (arms, training, facilitation of the entrance of thousands of Russian volunteers, intelligence, probably several hundreds trainers/advisers) Donbas would have fallen fairly quickly.

    Intervening in Syria would be a good thing for the Russian state for the reasons outlined by Mr. Shamir.

    • Agree: unit472
    • Replies:
  27. Russia did intervene “in its own backyard.” Russian troops have been killed in the Donbass and the reports of Russian soldiers being pressured to go to the Donbass are too common to be ignored. Troops with Russian internal passports have been captured in the Donbass, and the poor separatists did not get all that heavy equipment by saving their “Kopecks.”

    The evidence of Russian involvement is far to strong to deny. Not to mention the Russian theft of the Crimea.

    • Replies: , ,
  28. The Russians are wasting valuable resources and possibly their own blood propping up an unpopular tyrant in a violent country.

    Why do you believe Assad is generally unpopular? In a divided country such as Syria “popularity” depends on ethnicity. Assad is popular among the various religious minorities: Shiites, Alawaites, and Christians. The Sunni Kurds seem to view him as a lesser evil, also. Collectively these groups are about 40%-45% of Syria’s population. Middle-class and wealthy, urban, secular Sunni Arabs probably prefer Assad too; this could be another 10%. This all suggests that Syria is about evenly divided pro- and anti-Assad. Given that Assad has the army behind him, this rebellion exists purely because of massive amount of foreign support (international Jihadists pouring in, Saudi financing, etc.).

    • Replies:
  29. as the refugees pour into Europe and the world wrings its collective hands, paralyzed by moral cowardice and bovine apathy..

    thank God there’s at least one adult left on the world’s stage

    Putin is starting to look like the 21st centuries most important statesman- head and shoulders above the two-bit sycophantic scum in the West, who slurp their precious shekels as they doom their people and progeny to Moloch’s pyres for all eternity

    http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150220/1018551817.html

    God speed to Putin!

  30. I’m not denying Assad has his supporters in Syria and I agree there are thousands of dangerous outside troublemakers entering Syria to fight his regime.

    But there are also millions of Syrians who despise him and want him gone.

    And as far as foreign support for opponents of his regime you fail to mention Assad’s foreign support, ie thousands of Hezbollah troops fighting for him on Syrian soil and aid from Russia and Iran.

    The whole situation is a mess.

    • Replies: , , ,
  31. Syria is the mirror image of Iraq only without the oil. If Iraq has an overwhelmingly Shia population that was ruled by a 20% Sunni minority under Saddam , Syria is an overwhelmingly Sunni nation ruled by a Shia minority sect that is not even 20% of the population.

    If the US, will all of the military and economic resources it poured into Iraq, was unable to build a unified state what chance has Putin, given the much smaller resources available to him, of being able to do any better in Syria especially since his ‘stooge’ represents the minority Alawites.

    • Replies: ,
  32. If the US, will all of the military and economic resources it poured into Iraq, was unable to build a unified state what chance has Putin,

    the US (Israel) never wanted a thriving unified democracy in Iraq. They wanted a dystopian hell on earth where the people would be too busy trying to survive the tribal street slaughter to put up any resistance to Israel’s imperial designs in the Levant. Duh.

    Same for Libya and Syria and Iran too. The only problem was Putin put a kibosh on doing it to Syria (and hence Iran) after he realized all the bullshit talk of humanitarian bombing of Libya were lies intended to destroy the country. That’s why the US State Dept. started the strife in Ukraine and blamed Putin for shooting the jet down. Because he upset their grand designs.

    That’s why Putin is the Hitler of the month these days.

    And if what Mr. Shamir is telling us is true; that Putin is trying to bring sanity and stability to Syria, I suspect the rhetoric will be turned up a couple of notches.

    • Replies:
  33. also take a look at Col. Pat Lang’s blog, SicSemperTyrannis, and his assessment of Russia’s intentions –

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/09/httpwwwbbccomnewsworld-europe-34131573.html

    Lang writes:

    Russia believes that Iran in its efforts in Syria is not sufficiently focused on the absolute need for governmental survival with or without Bashar Assad. The Russians believe that the Iranians in their policy and power projection in Syria are more concerned with protection of the Shia population of Lebanon than with the survival of secular government in Syria. To that end the IRGC Quds force in Syria and their Lebanese Hizbullah allies are intent on holding the line of the anti-Lebanon range against Sunni jihadi invasion of Lebanon. This is reflected in the recent maximum effort by these Shia forces and to some extent the Lebanese Army in the Qalamoun sector and especially around the town of Zabadani.

  34. The arid plains are tank and airplane country. Good luck against that

  35. “…there are thousands of dangerous outside troublemakers entering Syria to fight his regime. But there are also millions of Syrians who despise him and want him gone.”

    Well. FromWikipedia:

    “The United States during the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, first supplied the apparently moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with nonlethal aid (including food rations and pickup trucks), but quickly began providing training, cash, and intelligence to selected Syrian rebel commanders (see Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War United States).”

    “When the Libyan civil war broke out in 2011, the United States took part in a military intervention in the conflict, aiding anti-Gaddafi rebels with air strikes against the Libyan Army. With the success of the revolution and the overthrow of Gaddafi, US President Barack Obama said that the United States was “committed to the Libyan people” and promised partnership in the development of a new Libyan state

    Do you see a pattern?

    The Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of jihadism. No regime change, no interventions by the US. Why? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
    Egypt has instituted a martial law, a lot of people are unhappy. No intervention by the US. Why? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/15/egyp-a15.html
    The US-propped government in Kiev has been killing out the members of opposition – and do not forget the open neo-Nazis in the Kiev government. The US continues supplying the Ukrainian regime with weaponry. Why? http://www.globalresearch.ca/political-murders-in-kiev-us-troops-to-ukraine/5444049

    Take a note that none of the US interventions has produced any good for the ordinary people in the invaded countries. Why the US (thousands of miles away from the Middle East and thus completely safe from the potential spilling out the civil wars on the US territories) have been inflaming the wars in the Middle East, attacking one country after another and destroying their infrastructure and social fabric? What has Israel, the so-called “only democracy in the Middle East,” done to stop the mayhem and resolve the problems by diplomatic means? You mentioned some minor players whose input is minuscule as compared to the power of the US and Israel.
    “…thousands of Hezbollah troops fighting for him on Syrian soil and aid from Russia and Iran.” What else these people are supposed to do? To see their co-religionists murdered on a mass scale? To wait until their own countries are consumed by unrest coming along with militarized bands? You do, of course, know what country has armed the most dangerous and well-organized bands in the Middle East: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/04/Fog-War-US-Has-Armed-ISIS

    Meanwhile, the Kievan military forces on a border with Russia have been joined by jihadists, in addition to the neo-Nazis: http://www.salon.com/2015/09/02/outright_lies_from_the_new_york_times_what_you_need_to_know_about_the_dangerous_new_phase_in_the_ukraine_crisis/

    https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/midst-war-ukraine-becomes-gateway-europe-jihad/

    I apologize for the profusion of the web links, but the mess in the Middle East has not arisen from a thin air.

  36. After all, the Israeli lobby appears on the verge of its first truly major defeat.

    Absolutely wrong.

    The Izzies are proceeding according to plan.

    Dennis Ross and Ashton Carter were key authors of a plan produced by Michelle Fluornoy’s group, Center for A New American Security produced in Sept 2008 — before Obama was elected

    http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/MillerParthemoreCampbell_Iran%20Assessing%20US%20Strategy_Sept08.pdf

    The first step was to produce an offer to Iran that Iran would have to refuse but that would look like it was exceedingly generous. Critical to ensure that it was not the US-side but Iran that balked.

    We’re watching Step Two: Bibi’s hysterics are theatrics. He has both sides of the deal covered, he thinks Izzies win with or without a deal and he’s probably right.

    Yesterday Dennis Ross and Nicholas Burns on Diane Rehm show conceded that “the deal is done.” They outlined the “necessary containment and deterrence policy” to ensure “enforcement” of the terms against Iran which “cannot be trusted.”

    Lobelog reported on the concessions being sought by Cardin, Booker and others for their vote:

    Cardin, the Iran Deal, and the Future of Plan B

    Plan B (Plan A?) involves arming Israel to the teeth and further sanctioning Iran:

    Bolstering Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge: The U.S. should provide Israel with access to the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to help deter Iranian cheating. The Administration should also fast-track the completion of a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding with Israel to bolster our strong bilateral security partnership and cooperation with even greater levels of foreign military financing (FMF). The President has indicated to Congress that these talks will continue, but I would like to see a conclusion reached well before the implementation of this deal.

    Renewing the Iran Sanctions Act: The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) will expire at the end of next year. If sanctions are to snapback in the event of an Iranian violation, we cannot wait for Congress to pass new Iran sanctions. The Iran Sanctions Act must be renewed so that sanctions are at the ready in the instance of Iranian cheating.

    In their remarks on Rehm’s show yesterday, Ross and Burns urged that Congress act NOW to put measures such as these in place. “Iran has got to be made to understand that it will pay a very high price for support of Hezbollah and Hamas,” insisted Ross — concepts reminiscent of Israeli settlers’ “Price Tag” practices.

    http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-09-03/congress-the-white-house-and-the-future-of-the-iran-nuclear-agreement

    The deluded head of Tea Party Patriots, which has never gotten involved in foreign policy before, is being led by the nose to head an anti-Iran rally in DC to whip up hatred of Iran. “It’s a done deal, but we have to let our congressmen know that it must be enforced.”

    Bless her pea-pickin’ heart, Jenny- Beth Martin slobbers all over Mark Levin and counts on him for advice about Iran, which Jenny-Beth fears will come to the USA and kill her children in 15 years unless they are stopped NOW!

    Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will help Jenny-Beth whip up Iran hatred.

    Whipping up hatred is what Izzies do best.

    Step Three will be when Israel inevitably gets the traitorous and compliant US Congress to approve delivery of MOP bombs to “deter Iran.”

    Izzies got USA and the British to bomb the hell out of Germany for their delectation. Henry Morgenthau, Jr. led the drive to get US taxpayers to fund the epochal destruction of the heart of Christian Europe in the 1940s.

    Izzies — Henry Morgenthau, Jr — funneled millions of US taxpayer dollars to Russia to slaughter the German army and rape 2 million German women.

    Who will the Izzies hire to destroy Iran and rape Iranian women?

    • Replies:
  37. The whole situation is a mess.

    Thanks to PNAC, AIPAC, and other members of the Israel Lobby.

    • Replies:
  38. “The evidence of Russian involvement is far to strong to deny. Not to mention the Russian theft of the Crimea.”

    You are a useful idiot for the neocon warmongers controlling this country.

  39. […] Traduction : Maria Poumier. Publication originale : Unz Review […]

  40. The Israeli lobby has done enormous damage to this country. If only Truman had followed the advice of people like George Marshall and stayed out of the conflicts of the Middle East.

  41. There aren’t many places in the world suitable for democracy and Iraq is certainly not one of them. Nor is much of any other place in the Middle East.

    I’m not sure whether the US truly intended to turn Iraq into a dysutopian hell on earth but we have certainly brought about something close to that.

    • Replies:
  42. Probably not, but you can keep Hope alive if you just wish hard enough.

  43. From your mouth to the best video games designer’s ears. Cheetos dust, empty Pringles cans, and plethora drinks on the house.
    Or a reality that is beyond the testicular fortitude of so many democratically enforced sociopaths.

  44. Is the fact you’re unemployed also the fault of the Zionist Lobby?

    • Replies: , ,
  45. So much wrong in one short post.

    You are a perfect example of the grossly over stated intelligence of Jews.

  46. Vladimir Putin is the leader of the Free World.

    • Replies:
  47. While Mearsheimer and Walt demonstrated a connection between the Lobby and wars in the ME, I don’t recall them finding a link between the Lobby and my employment status. Care to provide a reference?

  48. If the US, will all of the military and economic resources it poured into Iraq, was unable to build a unified state what chance has Putin, given the much smaller resources available to him, of being able to do any better in Syria especially since his ‘stooge’ represents the minority Alawites.

    Putin won’t have to build a unified state in Syria, because such a state already exists. All they need to do is slaughter the terrorists that are attacking that state.

    Besides, as Rurik pointed out, it’s quite possible the neo-cons never really intended to create a functioning state in Iraq. It’s just as likely that they were interested in breaking it up into rival sectarian/ethnic cantons.

    As for Assad being merely the ‘president of the Alawites’, where did you hear that? Al Jazeera? The New York Times? Assad also has a large following among Christians, Druze, mainline Shiites, and even the urban, secular Sunni.

  49. Israel flourishes through having disorder on its borders. It keeps up the national morale by making everyone perpetually aware of the friend/enemy distinction. Meanwhile, most Euros believe that it’s wicked to think of anyone as an enemy who doesn’t represent a specific type of post-Christian religious phenomenon (i.e., Hitler=Satan ). It’s no accident that Israel is the only First World country where the majority population has a TFR above replacement level. Even the seculars have a TFR of 2.05.

    • Replies: ,
  50. Hard to see what a few Russian aircraft are going to do that thousand of sorties by US and allied air forces could not.

    You’re assuming that US and allied air forces are trying to help Syria and/or hurt ISIS. If you drop that assumption, things make a lot more sense.

  51. I’m not sure whether the US truly intended to turn Iraq into a dysutopian hell on earth but we have certainly brought about something close to that

    the US fecal governmnet (ZOG) is the master at creating dystopian hells on earth

    they’ve been doing it for over a hundred years

    From Germany following the war to Iran in the fifties all the way to Viet Nam in the sixties

    from Gary, Indiana today to Libya and Iraq to Kabul and Syria

    it’s what they do ..

    take perfectly thriving cities or countries and then set about systematically to destroy them with racial and tribal violence and strife and of course always with massive doses of corruption and debt.

    they’re doing it to Miami and Milwaukee

    they’re doing it to Denver and Detroit

    they did it to some religious folks in Waco, TX

    If you have a perfectly happy and prosperous place, that will drive the Fiend festering in the bowels of DC to a near apoplectic aneurism.

    what do you think the whole disparate-impact treason is all about? It’s about turning virtually every single remaining happy and contented place in this country into a dystopian hell on earth. It’s what they do!

    So we shouldn’t be surprised when our State Dept. tells us they spent five billion dollars in the Ukraine and soon afterwards the place is rife with misery and death and hate. They’re just at it again. Doing what they do.

    If the president of the US comes on TV and tells us all he’s going to send troops in and bombs for humanitarian reasons, be prepared for a Gaza-like outcome. Syria has their handiwork all over it. Just like Libya. Or Fallujah. Or Afghanistan, or everywhere else the Fiend in DC sets its sights.

    >><<

    We have a choice here in the US.. We can end the Fed and clean out the psychopathic fiends from our government – in that order. Or, barring that, get out the popcorn.

  52. what’s “first world” about Israel?
    It doesn’t even have borders or a constitution.

    According to Wizard of Oz http://www.unz.com/article/bribing-bibi-and-his-proxies-to-behave/#comment-1100752

    “On my one visit to Israel, three months ago, I saw little sign of its prosperous economy being easily able to afford all the outlays it makes.

    The Bedouin and the Ethiopian Jews constitute huge deadweights on the economy, as do the Ultra Orthodox in their various hues (the latter make a disproportionate contribution of retarded children thanks to their inbreeding habits; indeed it is hard to think of anything economically positive about them: the Amish they are not).

    Even the creation of the 8th or 9th research university at Ariel in “Samaria” was a subject of angst because it is requiring other universities to lose funding.

    And the two years nearly all young Israelis spend in the IDF is a big negative as is the size of the defence budget.

    The hotels I stayed in, despite plenty of stars, were pretty shoddy, as were the city streets, not least in Tel Aviv, though not so much Jerusalem. “

    And all on stolen lands and US taxpayer funding.

    Sounds more like Newark or Detroit.

    —–

    via Joshua Landis, “Syria Comment,” http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

    “Syria Comment
    19 hrs
    The Gulf countries are doing virtually nothing to help with the Syrian refugee crisis. http://t.co/nXWAkJu49N

    What’s Samantha “Right to Protect” Power doing about the Syrian refugee crisis — other than causing it? ***

    What is the US’s bfffffff Dear Israel doing to help Syrian refugees — setting snipers on the beach to make sure they don’t go near Israeli gas fields?

    *** ProFOUND apologies to Sam/antha Power.
    S/he IS on the scene and standing up to his/her Responsibility to Protect Syrian refugees –

    As long as said refugee is queer or has both a bra and a jock strap in his/her dresser drawers.

    Historic UN Security Council briefing focuses on LGBTQ refugees *******
    by Gretchen Rachel Hammond
    2015-09-02

    http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Historic-UN-Security-Council-briefing-focuses-on-LGBTQ-refugees/52687.html

    ******* That should probably be amended to include “avowed anti-anti-semite holocaust-believing anti-Palestinian We Hate Iran Israel war-crimes lovers —

    LGBTQAAAHBAPWHIIWCL s

    (no, they don’t sing barbershop)

    god, how quickly can you conjure another planet? this one’s been overtaken by mental defectives.

  53. I’m not denying Assad has his supporters in Syria and I agree there are thousands of dangerous outside troublemakers entering Syria to fight his regime.

    But there are also millions of Syrians who despise him and want him gone.

    How is the presidents game played? Ideally you go to an election and get the majority of votes. The majority usually means at least one vote more than the other guy. Only in president-friendly places like North Korea does a president get 100 or even 110% of the vote, which is why most western would-be presidents envy him. Everywhere else it’s a lot less. In a multiple candidates race one could win by as little as 30% if the others had less… In a two candidates finals one has to get at least 51%. Which means the other 49% were not voting for him.

    Now let’s look at this from the US perspective. Let’s say 51% vote for the Democrat candidate and 49% for the Republican one. Or the other way around, it doesn’t matter. Oner wins, the other one’s supporters are upset and start claiming all sorts of things, such as “He’s not my president!”, “He stole the election!”, “Minorities were excluded form the vote!”, etc, etc. Being that US has what, something over 300 million people, couldn’t your statement “But there are also millions who despise him and want him gone” apply? And in US numbers that could be tens or even a hundred million people who’d want him gone? So, would you, as in the case of Syria, advocate all these people that want him gone should pick up a gun and start an uprising against a president they didn’t vote for and despise? And everywhere else in the western world, where presidents usually only get just a bit over the half of the vote, while the other candidate gets the other near half, should we start arming the opposition to take out the president by force?

    Well, Assad did win the presidents game as in Ukraine Yanukovich won the presidents game. The majority voted for them. Some people raised questions about certain aspects of the elections being possibly troublesome, but some people also raised such questions in the case of some US elections. Some people raised questions about corruption, bad government, other anomalies, but some people also raised such questions in the US. In either case, there are democratic procedures for dealing with such situations and calling for an armed uprising isn’t a part of such procedures. The media in most countries follow their country’s official position, meaning if the government likes a guy, he’s “a patriot”, “pro-democracy” or “pro-western values” and if it doesn’t like him, he’s “a hated tyrant”, “a dictator”, can even be a “warlord”, “strongman” or “terrorist” in the evening news and in the daily papers. And, well, if our government said it and our media reported it, well then it must God damn well be true, right!?

    Well, if Syria (or Ukraine) didn’t start pouring arms and funds and advisors to foment an uprising against the president of the US when questions were raised regarding his elections, corruption, democracy standards, etc, then why does US reserve the right to pour arms, funds and advisors to foment an uprising against the Syrian (or former Ukrainian) president? The simple answer is, because it can. And if it can, then other powers can too. And this is how the rule of might replaces the rule of international law, which is where we’re at now… It’s gonna be interesting, I tell ya that.

    Respectfully,
    Dingleberry

    • Replies:
  54. {“Russia intervened in Ukraine when it grabbed Crimea.”}

    People of Crimea, overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, overwhelmingly voted to re-join Russia.
    Pay attention: re-join.

    Crimea had been Russian for a couple hundred years.
    Khrushchev “gave” Crimea to Ukraine SSR, in a reported drunken state, without asking the people of Crimea (…as Communist leaders had the habit of doing).

    People of Crimea ran a similar referendum in 1991: 94% of voters chose the option of reverting to the Autonomous status (i.e. not controlled by Kiev), which was unilaterally abolished in 1945.

    Russian troops intervened in their own land to prevent Kievan Neo-Nazi invader storm troopers from mass murdering ethnic Russians.
    The same Neo-Nazi goons who gassed and burnt alive dozens of ethic Russians in Odessa.

    The rest of your post is the standard Neocon disinformation.
    Try it on somebody else.

    • Replies:
  55. a commenter on Pat Lang’s blog wrote:

    one wonders how long it will take before a Russian S-300 shoots down an Israeli fighter jet. There was a story on a few fringe sites a week or two back, claiming that Syria had shot down an F-16. So it seems inevitable that if the Russians are there it will happen for real and be undeniable. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/09/httpwwwbbccomnewsworld-europe-34131573.html#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb086d018f970d

    which brings to mind:

    #8., @ Avery:
    “One thing about Russians: they often screw up first, but learn very quickly from their mistakes.”

    Foxbats over Dimona
    The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War by Israeli journalists/historians Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez

    Ginor and Remez’s book shows that the Six-Day War was the result of a joint Soviet-Arab gambit to provoke Israel into a preemptive attack. The authors reveal how the Soviets received a secret Israeli message indicating that Israel, despite its official ambiguity, was about to acquire nuclear weapons. Determined to destroy Israel’s nuclear program before it could produce an atomic bomb, the Soviets then began preparing for war–well before Moscow accused Israel of offensive intent, the overt trigger of the crisis.

    • Replies:
  56. Were those keys the property of the Russians to give to the West? Maybe aside from Kabul. And why not include Budapest, Prague and others in the list? At least in Romania’s case, 5 years passed between the fall of Ceausescu and the entrance into the Partnership for Peace Program that led to NATO membership another ten years later, and that was also 3 years before the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

  57. Shouldn’t we wait until Russia actually sends its troops into Syria before commenting? This article is sadly, filled with misinformation and propaganda.

    Russia is a secular country and not a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church or any other form of Christian polytheism.

    The people of Syria never elected an alawite regime – which has been a dictatorship for the past several decades. Assad has lost control over most of his country, so to take from the title of this misleading article: the die is indeed cast (for Assad). And that is despite the advanced weaponry that Russia has provided the Syrian Arab Army. Syria is a mess, and I don’t think Russia wants any part of it. The Russia/Syria/Hezbullah/Iran axis is losing (and losing badly). Once they are defeated, the real war begins between the Mujahideen and Israel.

    The US is bombing ISIS day and night. If Russia were to enter the war under that excuse, they would actually be siding with the US. It is true that the US also wants to get rid of Assad, but that priority is not at the same level as defeating Daesh. Likewise, Russia is not going to get involved directly into this conflict. Has the author of this article and others not learned anything from the cold war!?

    AMERICA AND RUSSIA NEVER FIGHT ONE ANOTHER DIRECTLY – THEY USE PROXIES IN THE THIRD WORLD AND AMONG THE POOR TO FIGHT THEIR WARS FOR THEM. They are two sides of the same coin. But our Creator (Allah=Yewah=Jehovah), who is the one and only Legislator for mankind, has given the whole of the world the Islamic system as a means to find refuge from capitalism, communism, nationalism, zionism, baathism, and other forms of polytheism.

    • Replies: ,
  58. “Is the fact you’re unemployed also the fault of the Zionist Lobby?”

    Absolutely – facts are facts – Jew Wall Street is not investing in American jobs and factories.

    p.s. Say Sherm – how is it being a Little Jew brown shirt propagandist for Big Jew fascist Zionism?

    p.s. Tell us – how does hasbara pay? (I bet that they are tight bastards.)

    • Replies:
  59. The whole situation is a mess.

    The neocons were so impressed with how “successful” creative destruction was as a driving force of the capitalist system, they borrowed the concept and applied it to U.S. ME foreign policy:

    U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

    • Replies: ,
  60. If this is true – it is geopolitically Earth shaking.

    My grandfather used to say “the fat is in the fire” — indeed.

  61. Isis has certainly been a great uniting force, a lot of people who barely spoke to one another are now bombing the same crew. Progress? Maybe, the US has zero credibility, maybe Vlad can add some. Regardless, he will not be hobbled in the same way as the West, this could be a great thing , fingers crossed.

  62. The story about the dead three-year old boy washed up on the Turkish beach has finally been completed. The boy’s name is Aylan and he is a Syrian Kurd, whose family was denied refugee status by the Canadian Government. A female relative in Canada tried to sponsor the five member Kurd family who run away from ISIS war to Turkey, but the Canadian Government denied them refugee status on a technicality – they did not have valid passports. Thus, the family tried to cross Aegean from Turkey to Greece and four out of five drowned: the mother, one daughter, one five year boy and the three year old Aylan. Only the father survived.

    Harper’s Canada is one of the most active regime changers in the World, right after the boss Israel and its first servant US. Now be prepared for the spin by the Canadian regime, how they must change Syrian regime exactly to prevent such tragedies. And it is all Putin’s and Assad’s fault anyway. If they did not fight back, there would be Pax Israeli/Americana in the Middle East already and no bodies of dead babies would be washing up on the shores.

    Aylan’s dead face is the true face of the Canadian profiteering, war-initiating faux humanitarianism.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/drowned-syrian-toddler-was-denied-asylum-in-canada/

    • Replies:
  63. [As journalists for Israel’s leading broadcast and print media and as historical researchers, Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez collaborated for 20 years to expose the extent of Soviet military involvement in the Middle East.]

    Yep, two Israeli journalists writing a book blaming USSR for the Six Day war that Israel launched with a surprise attack on Egyptian air force.

    Very unbiased and credible sources for sure.

    • Replies:
  64. Shouldn’t we wait until Russia actually sends its troops into Syria before commenting?

    good advise

    you should follow it

    • Replies:
  65. One reliable constant in all Western military interventions is the total information war. There is no victim of the Western regime intervention who is not going to be used for propaganda purposes.

    The first line of Western regime propaganda is against the domestic opposition. The dead body of the victim of the Western intervention is used to prove that anti-interventionists are to blame for the dead – if they only did not oppose a total obliteration of the foreign government that the West does not like, then this person would be still alive.

    The second line of Western regime propaganda is that the dead person was killed by the government that the West opposes, when in reality it is a victim of the Western proxy terrorist force on the ground, equipped and trained by the West.

    Simply, in the Western propaganda routine, no dead can go to waste, that is be buried quietly with dignity. Thus, here are the words about the little Kurdish baby-boy from a well paid and appropriately named Western propagandist called James Bloodworth in the International Business Times:
    “The escalating refugee crisis is rightly blamed on the cruel indifference shown to the plight of the world’s most vulnerable people by certain European governments, including our own. But let us remember how many of those who are today mawkishly lamenting the sight of dead children were whooping and hollering in 2013 when parliament voted to appease the brutal dictator from whom some of these unfortunate souls are fleeing.”

    There you have it – the deceased baby-boy was fleeing from Assad, not from the US-Canadian creation ISIS, and he is a victim of the domestic opposition to the Western military interventions.

    Moar woar, moar woar,
    says the Western media whore!

    • Replies:
  66. it is not for nothing that Michael Ledeen studied Nazism, worked with neo-Nazis (in Italy), and has been promoting geopolitical plans that involve nurturing neo-Nazis (in Ukraine). This revolutionary is also dedicated to his personal war-profiteering.

    “… [Ledeen] studied under the Jewish German-born historian George Mosse. His doctoral dissertation eventually became “Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928–1936.”
    The Italian Neofascist organization P-2 (banned in 1981) had ties to American neoconservative Ledeen.
    Michael Ledeen was implicated in promoting the Iraq “yellowcake” forgery.
    “No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there is now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against them,” Ledeen wrote on May 6 in the Toronto Globe and Mail.”
    Like other famous armchair warmongers, Ledeen belongs to a group of prominent war profiteers: http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/media/2002-3/20021100.htm http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2013/october/22/michael-ledeen-enough-talk-alreadyramp-up-the-war-machine/

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1981p2#a1981p2

    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm

  67. the thesis is intriguing, nonetheless: the Russians sought to take out Dimona, just as Israel took out Osirak.

    Imagine how different the world would be if the Russians had succeeded, and if the Israelis had not.

    • Replies:
  68. {“Russia intervened in Ukraine when it grabbed Crimea.”}

    People of Crimea, overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, overwhelmingly voted to re-join Russia.
    Pay attention: re-join.

    Crimea was part of a sovereign state, Ukraine. Russia grabbed it. Thus Russia intervened in Ukraine.

    If the Mexican army marched in and took Mexican-inhabited parts of the USA< one would say that Mexico intervened in the USA. Ethnic percentages, votes etc. wouldn't change that fact.

    Crimea had been Russian for a couple hundred years.

    Which is irrelevant with respect to whether or not Russia intervened in Ukraine. Finland was Russian longer than was Crimea btw. Ireland was English centuries longer than Crimea was Russian.

    Khrushchev “gave” Crimea to Ukraine SSR, in a reported drunken state,

    The idea that Crimea was handed over as a result of a drunken binge is a very silly myth. The gift was part of a political struggle with the local party. But I see you’ll believe all sorts of outlandish myths:

    Russian troops intervened in their own land to prevent Kievan Neo-Nazi invader storm troopers from mass murdering ethnic Russians.

    They were also protecting Crimeans from Freemasons, a rejuvinated Hitler arriving from his Brazilian bunker, and Zionists. And of course Neocons too. Those are the ones who revived Hitler.

    • Replies: ,
  69. Well, Assad did win the presidents game as in Ukraine Yanukovich won the presidents game. The majority voted for them.

    Actually, even though Ukraine had only two candidates in the second round of the presidential election, Yanukovich won with 49% of the vote (“against all” was an option, plus some ballots were invalid).

    Right after winning the presidential election, he flipped the previously elected opposition parliament to give his party control over it, without new elections. He then put the guy from his hometown (who had fixed his criminal convictions) on the Constitutional Court, and gave himself a lot of new presidential powers. His party then went on to lose the popular vote in the next parliamentary election, but he fixed the system to get a majority of the seats anyways. Pro-Russian apologists for Yanukovich conveniently forget these details and just repeat the fact that Yanukovich was the legitimately elected president.

    The recipe for an uprising is a deeply unpopular government combined with the lack of legal ways to dislodge it.

    • Replies:
  70. Judging by his friends, that would be China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, and Cuba.

  71. If Iraq has an overwhelmingly Shia population that was ruled by a 20% Sunni minority under Saddam , Syria is an overwhelmingly Sunni nation ruled by a Shia minority sect that is not even 20% of the population.

    Syria is about 55% Sunni Arab (Kurds are also Sunni but they seem to be allied to Assad, albeit loosely). Assad’s coalition includes not only Shiites but also Alawites and Christians, as well as middle-class, secular Sunnis. I’d guess it’s just a little less than half the Syrian people, around 45% or so, not a small minority.

    If the US, will all of the military and economic resources it poured into Iraq, was unable to build a unified state what chance has Putin, given the much smaller resources available to him, of being able to do any better in Syria especially since his ‘stooge’ represents the minority Alawites.

    The US – for obvious reasons – wasn’t willing to deal with a strong dedicated minority (that would be Shiite radicals) but wanted to create a new elite. Russia, on the other hand, is willing to deal with the well-established Assad. Arming and helping a local power is easier than creating one from scratch. Russia’s job in Syria will be easier than the USA’s in Iraq.

  72. Absurd: they already had nuclear weapons by 1967.

  73. I’m not denying Assad has his supporters in Syria and I agree there are thousands of dangerous outside troublemakers entering Syria to fight his regime.

    But there are also millions of Syrians who despise him and want him gone.

    Correct. There are millions of supporters on both sides – pro- and anti-Assad. I suspect the anti- Assad even outnumber the pro-, though not by much. But who supports whom? In Syria, the Christians and other minorities, as well as the educated, secular, “normal” Sunnis, support Assad. The Sunni villagers, many of whom are strict Islamists, oppose him. Which side is better?

    And as far as foreign support for opponents of his regime you fail to mention Assad’s foreign support, ie thousands of Hezbollah troops fighting for him on Syrian soil and aid from Russia and Iran.

    True, although Hezbollah came in after Assad was getting into trouble, due to Saudi etc. intervention.

    I agree the whole situation is a mess.

  74. [The Russia/Syria/Hezbullah/Iran axis is losing (and losing badly).

    You have been claiming that for how many years now?

    [The US is bombing ISIS day and night]

    No, they pretend to do so occasionally, in between sending them weapons and making their propaganda videos.

    • Replies:
  75. Why should anyone else admit them? Turkey was more responsible than any other state for their fleeing, and there is no war going on within Turkey.

  76. I stand by my text, because I relied upon an authentic real source, not on suggestions or reasoning. Facts beat logic.

    • Replies:
  77. […] “Russia and Syria: The Die Is Cast” by Israel Shamir.  Russia is certainly taking a revived interest in Syria, but this is a lot of supposition based on the musings of Thierry Meyssan. […]

  78. […] Traduction : Maria Poumier. Publication originale : Unz Review […]

  79. […] This report was first published in the Unz Review. […]

  80. Dude, you got some other line besides “little Jew”?

    It’s getting tiresome. Come up with new material.

  81. A few weeks back, Dr Webster Tarpley (links with Voltairenet’s Thierry Masson) was talking about an incident with the Turkish ambassador in Moscow. Putin accused Erdogan or running ISIS and vowed to create “a huge Stalingrad” in Syria fro the Turks if they refused to reverse policy.

    This didn’t get much coverage, if any, but it may be true. Recall that Prince Bandar reportedly told Putin to cease support for Assad or he could not guarantee there would not be a terrorist event at the Sochi Olympics.

    Tarpley also points to the policy split within the US apparatus, with Obama ranged against ISIS- supporting General John Allen.

    See tarpley.net

    • Replies:
  82. One reliable constant in all Western military interventions is the total information war. There is no victim of the Western regime intervention who is not going to be used for propaganda purposes.

    please keep in mind that all these “Western” wars and not wars to benefit the West or most certainly the Western people. Just look to those “Western” World Wars where the West and it’s flower of youth were ground up in trenches or blown to bits on battlefields where there was not one Western value at stake. Rather those were (decidedly not Western) bankers wars intended and fought to put a knife in the heart of the Western world. Which they did.

    All these wars on the Middle East are being fought, in part, with Western blood and treasure- but certainly not for Western values or to benefit the people of the dying (murderd) West.

    I’m sure you know it, but I just wanted to point out that these wars and war crimes and assorted atrocities are being foisted on the West by corrupt politicians and media in the pocket of non-Western banksters. (IE. the Fed and Rothschild and the deadliest, most intractable enemy the West ever had; the Zionists)

    That tragic little boy on the shore is a casualty of the bankers and Zionists and assorted war criminals in the West (a tiny handful of people like the arms manufacturers) and of course including the stone age head slicers of Islam who seem so crazed with hate for their Arab and Persian Muslim brothers that they’re willing to see the whole of the Levant turned into a blood-bath to benefit Israel so long as it kills the infidel Assad. And the little boy on the beach not to mention all those children who were casualties of the chemical attack that was perpetrated by Arabs upon Arabs so it could be blamed on Assad.

    The average Canadian or American for that matter or Icelander or Swede or Serb or Italian or Irishman has as much to gain from these wars as the man on the moon. Rather they suffer dead young men and women brought back in body bags in secret. They / we suffer the staggering costs of these illegal wars to benefit our enemies that we’re forced to fight. We suffer the righteous hatred of the world. We suffer the knowledge that we’re forced to kill innocents for the benefit of evil men. That’s why so many commit suicide when they come home. That horrible realization that they’ve put on the uniform to serve the devil himself.

    So I’m just pointing out that it isn’t the people of the West who are foisting these evil wars on innocent people in the Middle East. These wars are being foisted on us too by our worst enemies (and their bought corrupt politicians and soulless ‘defense” corporations) just as surly as they’re being foisted on anyone else.

    If you’re looking for someone to blame, don’t look at the working-class Canadian who lost his son in a war based on lies. Look at the liars and those who are benefiting from these wars; other Arab regimes and Israel and rotten, treasonous, lying politicians.

    For the record.

    • Replies:
  83. “If the Mexican army marched in and took Mexican-inhabited parts of the USA< one would say that Mexico intervened in the USA. Ethnic percentages, votes etc. wouldn't change that fact."

    You completely omitted a very important factor of an overseas involvement. The RF would not need the plebiscite in Crimea if not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at the RF door. NATO, as you certainly know, is to a large extend financed and directed by an overseas empire with a hegemonic plan for the world.
    As for the regime changes in the same hemisphere where Mexico is situated, there are plenty of instances (too many actually) when the US intruded to those countries that the US found important for the US strategic and other plans. Perhaps it was not your intent, but your post sounds too innocent (something like "the Lady doth protest too much").
    In case you were not aware of the US modus operandi worldwide, here is an easily available info:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States

  84. [Prince Bandar reportedly told Putin to cease support for Assad or he could not guarantee there would not be a terrorist event at the Sochi Olympics.]

    Hard to believe that he said that. The obvious response would be, “Now that you have spoken to me like that, Prince, if such an attack does take place your palaces, you, and your whole family will become radioactive ash.”

  85. We’re watching Step Two: Bibi’s hysterics are theatrics

    You do learn! Well, sort of. Before you were arguing that Israel would scupper the deal. I then pointed out that Bibi was just playing the bad cop. Now you’ve adjusted which is almost rational but somehow it’s still all part of a grand Jewish conspiracy…

    There will be no war with Iran. The Israeli war party is just not that powerful.

    Certainly they’ve got nothing on the camp of saints party currently surrendering our national borders…

  86. Not likely.

    Afghanistan is a mountainous nightmare while Syria is pretty flat. Sort of like whack-a-mole versus ducks in a pond.

    Yes!

    If Afghanistan is the graveyard if Empires then Syria is the graduation prize.

    Rome, Islam, Palmyra, Persia, Ancient Greece and those really ancient ones mentioned in the old testament.

    Still, I can’t see this happening.

  87. When foreign interests organize a coup, murder peaceful protesters, and chase the legally, democratically elected president out of the country threatening to murder him and his family, there is no longer a so-called “sovereign state”: it is an illegal gang of criminals who have taken over the country.

    Victoria ‘F___ EU’ Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine were discussing which puppet to install while President Yanukovych was still in office.

    btw: the fact that Yugoslavia was a sovereign state did not stop NATO/US from illegally attacking it and forcibly and illegally taking Kosovo from Serbs. What’s good for the Eagle is good for the Bear, No ?

    {“ They were also protecting Crimeans from Freemasons, a rejuvinated Hitler arriving from his Brazilian bunker, and Zionists. And of course Neocons too. Those are the ones who revived Hitler.”}

    What are you doing writing posts @UNZ ? You have a talent for sit-down comedy: you should pursue it.

    And I am sure when you look at the pictures of Azov battalion members sporting swastikas, and giving the Nazi salute, you see:
    a) Freemasons.
    b) Zionists.
    c) SorosaBrownShirts.
    d) Hitler-Jugend.
    e) Einsatzgruppen
    f) Neocons.
    g) Klingons.
    h) Jehova’s Witnesses.
    i) Brazilian beauties from Ipanema beach.

  88. What the hell are mujis?
    Afghanistan doesn’t export terror,at least from Afghans,why the hatred?
    I guarantee you they just want to be left alone in peace.

  89. When foreign interests organize a coup

    It’s a coup like Khrushchev signed over Crimea because he was binge drinking.

    Try: popular uprising representing a little less than half the country, including the majority of the capital, and opposed by about 1/5 of the country, supported by the winners of the popular vote int he most recent parliamentary elections and front-runners in the presidential polls

    murder peaceful protesters, and chase the legally, democratically elected president

    1. Which “foreign interests” chased Yanukovich out? There were certainly Russian citizens keeping Kiev forces out of Donetsk (commander Strelkov plus thousands of volunteers). Which Americans, Brits, etc. were chasing out Yanukovich?

    2. “Democratically elected president” was indeed elected democratically. He didn’t get control over parliament and the courts democratically, nor did he get extra powers democratically. I suspect if the latter things didn’t happen there would have been no uprising. People tend to get involved in troublesome uprisings when they see no other way to get rid of someone.

    Victoria ‘F___ EU’ Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine were discussing which puppet to install while President Yanukovych was still in office.

    I’m sure diplomats discuss whom they would like to see in power in any country. So which American troops put Nuland’s preferred option in power?

    btw: the fact that Yugoslavia was a sovereign state did not stop NATO/US from illegally attacking it and forcibly and illegally taking Kosovo from Serbs. What’s good for the Eagle is good for the Bear, No ?

    I agree Kosovo was a criminal action and I opposed it at the time. So do you think that two wrongs make a right? So because NATO forcibly detached Kosovo from Serbia it’s okay for Russia to forcibly detach Crimea from Ukraine (which btw never recognized Kosovo’s independence).

    There seem to be two “universal” principles here. Your principle is to support Russia and its interests no matter what, and you are consistent in that. So you think Kosovo was bad but Crimea was okay. Mine is to support the sovereignty of states no matter what, and I am consistent in that. So I oppose NATO/American invasions of Syria, Iraq and Yugoslavia, as well as Russian actions in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia (I realize the latter case is more complex).

    • Replies: , ,
  90. Well 97%of Crimeans wanted to be stolen.
    You are aware Crimea was given to the Ukrainian state of the USSR as a goodwill gesture by Krushchev?And Putin had no choice as a Russian leader to let it become a NATO base in the underbelly of Russia,and your tone obviously means you have an agenda,Russophobia,or some historical grievance like so many fools today.
    As far as I’m aware,I have not a drop of Russian blood,I’m a mostly western European mutt,but I can see Putin head and shoulders over our cruds.
    And I hope he refrains from intervening there more than they are already,as it might be a catalyst for US and Russian direct conflict,a most dangerous scenario.
    And of course,we are ISUS,to me its just an attempt to right the applecart of Iraq,which was a major balance of power(to the machiavellian idiots)to Iran,and the wackos in SD and CIA are again trying to balance?,and human lives be damned.
    Evil scum for Zion.

  91. [No, they pretend to do so occasionally, in between sending them weapons and making their propaganda videos]

    You have been claiming that for how many years now?

  92. http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-russian-military-intervention-in-syria-i-very-much-doubt-it/

    • Replies:
  93. That pos belongs in jail.CR.With her prada boots.Funny how all their recipes for the ME,a new one,the road map,Oslo etc are all hollow words belied by malevolent actions are never brought up as critiques by the ZioMSM.A potholed road of BS,dead and destruction countries long and not a mea culpa in sight.
    Zion,the nexus of our crisis.Since 48.

  94. As with 9-11,those who hate US don’t differentiate,unfortunately.
    We do have a responsibility,in some way,in combating the serial liars,or else more victims of the Ziomonsters will be killed.
    Do the jihadis have a legitimate reason for their struggle?
    I say yes emphatically.If we had let them find their own way 60 years ago,none of this crap would be here,not the Sunni Shia split,none of the undemocratic thugs and princes,or at least without our interference, they would be legitimate.Different strokes for different folks.
    Yankee come home.

    • Replies:
  95. Dear Israel, your source would not happen to be Mossad, ex-Mossad or a relative of a relative of Mossad, by any chance? Common, someone is blowing up the Russian involvement story big time. As I wrote, there is a grain of truth in The Russians are Coming (to Syria) story, but 80% of it is Israeli fluff. Where is your skeptical streak, com’on wake up man?

    • Replies:
  96. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Supporters of the sanctity of state sovereignty, practically demand perpetual civil war and eventual genocide, followed by international conflict.

    Any minority has the right to self-determination, unless they show intolerance to their own minorities. Thus IS or the Chechen crazies lose that right; same for the UCK, which murdered members of all Kosovo minorities.

    Rational regimes offer well-behaved minorities the right to secede.

    • Replies:
  97. “So I oppose NATO/American invasions of Syria, Iraq and Yugoslavia, as well as Russian actions in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia (I realize the latter case is more complex).”

    perhaps you need to take a look at a map of the world to understand why the US invasions in Syria, Iraq, and Yugoslavia are qualitatively different from Russia’s defensive measures in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO.
    You can see that the US are on the other side of the globe from the European part of Russia. With regard to the coup d’etat in Kiev, you have modestly omitted the presence of McCain (a US congressman and Chair of Committee on Armed Services) and the extraordinary important presence of the CIA Director Brennan blamed for initiation of the civil war in Ukraine: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

    NATO is owned by the US: https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/flashback-2010-wikileaks-reveals-natos-ww3-attack-plan-against-russia/

  98. Supporters of the sanctity of state sovereignty, practically demand perpetual civil war and eventual genocide, followed by international conflict.

    Yes. Let Syria split into multiple countries and conduct population transfers as peacefully as possible in order to pull the plaster off now as opposed to this ridiculous drawn out and entirely inhumane slow peel.

    • Replies:
  99. “Lavrov said last month the US should cooperate with Assad, a longtime Moscow ally, to fight Isis forces who have seized parts of northern and eastern Syria.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/05/john-kerry-fears-russian-military-in-syria-could-increase-refugee-flow

    A US-Syrian-Russian alliance? He must of spent decades in bureau and has bureaubrain. Compromise. Send Snowden to Syria and consider that US contribution to alliance. You die and we’ll cast. Go fish.

  100. Thank you for your concern about Syria.
    Below are excerpts from a comment posted by KA for “The Neocon Foreign Policy Walmart:”

    “Writing in The Guardian in 2013, Nafeez Ahmed discusses leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, that confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”
    He goes on to write that, according to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years,” starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/europes-refugee-crisis-and-the-depraved-morality-of-david-cameron/

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9616752/here-we-go-again-the-drumbeat-for-sending-troops-back-to-iraq-has-begun/

    The vultures return to the same spot.”

    In short, the ongoing humanitarian tragedy in the Middle East has been planned and initiated by the US and UK strategists. I agree with the author of the above comment that the dead children (and a lot of them – most likely in hundreds of thousands up to date) are a hallmark of neocon’s image and policies.
    More than half of the civilian victims of the Middle East conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Gaza, and Afghanistan are children. They are the collateral damage in a predatory grab for oil and gas resources and land by the US, EU, and Israel.

    • Replies:
  101. {“I agree Kosovo was a criminal action and I opposed it at the time”}

    That’s very nice of you: what were you doing about it then and what are you doing about it now?
    Fact is Kosovo was illegally, forcibly taken from Serbs, and the same people/interests/countries who are lecturing Russia about Crimea are the ones who did it.
    You opposing it then does not change the fact Kosovo is now recognized by Western countries.
    So they have enshrined their illegal act by recognizing it, while at the same time organizing an economic and political warfare against Russia because of Crimea.

    {” So do you think that two wrongs make a right? “}

    What is this, a kindergarten lesson is good manners ?
    What kind of world do you think we live in ?
    When Anglo-Americans (US & UK), who run around the world lecturing everybody and his brother about law & order, international law, territorial integrity, etc, etc, illegally invade a country 1000s of miles away, and which had not threatened either, much less attacked either, destroy it totally – then what are we talking about here ?
    We live in a jungle.
    Those who rule the jungle, at the moment the Anglo-American empire, violate laws and rules all the time.
    Those rules and laws were made for weaker countries.
    If there was such a thing as international law, Bush and Blair would be in jail as war criminals, not Milošević.

    {“Mine is to support the sovereignty of states no matter what, and I am consistent in that. “}

    No matter what ?
    Really ?
    Even if the state murders its own citizens ?

    There are two UN charters: one is sovereignty and the other is the self determination of people.
    Oftentimes, these two charters are mutually contradictory.
    You can’t _always_ support sovereignty, because sometimes it violates the right of self determination.
    I personally consider the artificial concept of state sovereignty rights inferior to the rights of human beings, because that right is natural (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …”).

    A corporation cannot possibly have rights that are the same or superior to the rights of a human being. (SCOTUS came up with a “clever” way to circumvent that inconvenient truth by declaring that corporations are ‘people’)

    If you always support sovereignty, then you must necessarily support the dissolution of United States, and reconstitute it as one of the members of United Kingdom: same as Scotland, for example.
    Subject to be ruled by London.
    After all, King George, who was the legal sovereign of the Colonies, considered Americans who declared Independence rebels and criminals.
    Right ?

    • Replies: ,
  102. They are the collateral damage in a predatory grab for oil and gas resources and land by the US, EU, and Israel.

    While many assume the wars in the ME are for oil, Mearsheimer and Walt demonstrate that for Iraq, at least, this was not the case. The driving force was to enhance the security of Israel.

  103. If there was such a thing as international law, Bush and Blair would be in jail as war criminals, not Milošević.

    Agree. I’ve tried to make this point in several previous posts, as well.

  104. Supporters of the sanctity of state sovereignty, practically demand perpetual civil war and eventual genocide, followed by international conflict.

    In general, there has been more bloodshed caused by imperialism and invasion, than by nasty local governments. That being said, this principle isn’t a universal absolute, I can think of a few exceptions, such as Pol Pot.

    Any minority has the right to self-determination, unless they show intolerance to their own minorities.

    Well, do you believe that once Mexicans achieve majority status in certain American regions, they gain the right to secede?

    Rational regimes offer well-behaved minorities the right to secede.

    It depends on traditions and context. Russian newcomers in Crimea, Albanian newcomers in Kosovo, Mexican migrants in Texas, are not the same things as native Serbs in Kosovo, or Tatars in Crimea.

  105. {“I agree Kosovo was a criminal action and I opposed it at the time”}

    That’s very nice of you: what were you doing about it then and what are you doing about it now?

    Same thing I did about the invasion of Iraq and what I’m doing about Crimea: condemning it in online discussions and discussions with friends. I’m not in politics nor do I have the time to do more than that.

    Fact is Kosovo was illegally, forcibly taken from Serbs, and the same people/interests/countries who are lecturing Russia about Crimea are the ones who did it.

    Fact is Crimea was illegally, forcibly taken from Ukraine and the same people/interests who are lecturing the West about Kosovo are the ones who did it.

    How does it feel to be the moral equal of the West whom you claim to condemn? Yeah, it’s a jungle for you. That’s a convenient excuse to do to an innocent country (Ukraine) what was done to Serbia.

    What is this, a kindergarten lesson is good manners ?

    I’m not the one making the excuse, “Jimmy (or NATO) did it,” to defend a criminal act.

    We live in a jungle.
    Those who rule the jungle, at the moment the Anglo-American empire, violate laws and rules all the time.

    Let’s extend this moral reasoning to other situations. In a lawless place where the strong have gotten away with rape and murder, is it okay for anyone to rape and murder because, you know, it’s a jungle and someone else did it and got away with it? Is that acceptable? That seems to be your approach here. Or do you only apply this “law of the jungle justification” only to political crimes.

    {“Mine is to support the sovereignty of states no matter what, and I am consistent in that. “}

    No matter what ?
    Really ?
    Even if the state murders its own citizens ?

    Every state murders its own citizens. So? That being said, I admit it isn’t a universal principle. I would make an exception in the case of genocide. So Pol Pot ought to have been taken out. But if you believe 43 people dead in Odessa as a result of a brawl gone bad is “genocide” I’ll point out that far more Albanians were killed in violence from the Yugoslav state than pro-Russians were killed in Ukraine prior to Russia’s Crimean intervention.

    • Replies: ,
  106. In each of your long posts you present yourself as a defender of human rights and you name Russia as the main abuser of the human rights and a provocateur of the RF/US conflict in Ukraine. The latter is not true; RF does not need a cvil war on her borders. As for the attempts at presenting yourself as an arbiter of morality, that have not been convincing. For instances, if you insist on comparing the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia and basically bloodless solution to Crimean dilemma, here is an opinion of a highly informed person:
    “James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria. He wrote in the Ottawa Citizen last year, “The current crisis in Ukraine threatens global security and at worst has the potential for nuclear catastrophe. At best, it signals a continuation of the Cold War. Sadly, the crisis is completely unnecessary and the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the United States-led NATO powers. The almost virulent propaganda onslaught blaming Russia for the instability and violence in Ukraine simply ignores reality and the facts.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/09/russia-ukraine-and-u-s-hegemony/
    You have been mysteriously blind to the fact that the US are thousands of miles away from the conflict in Ukraine and yet the US are the main arsonist of the conflict: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/02/want-to-escalate-u-s-russia-tension-arm-ukraine/

    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies:
  107. RF does not need a cvil war on her borders.

    Faced with a hostile NATO-friendly Ukraine, RF would prefer that this state have a civil war rather than be strong. This isn’t unique. For similar reasons, I suspect Israel would prefer civil wars among its potential rivals. Better a chaotic violent Iraq than a unified wealthy one.

    here is an opinion of a highly informed person:
    “James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria.

    James Bissett has been working for the Russian government since leaving the Canadian civil service. Do you really believe he is objective with respect to Ukraine?

    You have been mysteriously blind to the fact that the US are thousands of miles away from the conflict in Ukraine and yet the US are the main arsonist of the conflict

    I don’t recall thousands of America citizen volunteers in Ukraine. No US troops on leave going to fight in Ukraine. I don’t recall the USA giving Ukraine offensive weapons. No American military commanders fighting in Ukraine either (remember Strelkov and Motorola?)? How about Borodai, a native of Moscow, who was PM of one of the Donbas republics. Remind me which American is PM of Ukraine?

    • Replies: ,
  108. Faced with a hostile NATO-friendly Ukraine, RF would prefer that this state have a civil war rather than be strong.

    As Annamarina has pointed out:

    In each of your long posts you… name Russia as … a provocateur of the RF/US conflict in Ukraine.

    Rather than the RF being the provocateur, it is the neocons who have initiated the crises in Ukraine:

    There is a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme.

    If the Palestinians and Lebanon’s Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with “regime change” – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your “regime change” in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

    Just when you think you’ve cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear program.

    So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

  109. “For similar reasons, I suspect Israel would prefer civil wars among its potential rivals. Better a chaotic violent Iraq than a unified wealthy one.”
    You mean, the Russians in Ukraine are for Russia the same as Arabs in Iraq for Israel? Could you elaborate?
    “I don’t recall thousands of America citizen volunteers in Ukraine. No US troops on leave going to fight in Ukraine.”
    What should the US troops fight for in Ukraine? Could you give any reason to why the US citizens should fight Ukrainian federalists?

    • Replies:
  110. >>> Izzies — Henry Morgenthau, Jr — funneled millions of US taxpayer dollars to Russia to slaughter the German army and rape 2 million German women.

    Ah yes – those poor defenseless German soldiers who were only trying to bring Christmas cheer to Stalingrad !

    >>> the Six Day war that Israel launched with a surprise attack on Egyptian air force

    nope. First, Nassar blockaded Eilat – breaking the ceasefire. Egypt started a fight, Israel finished it.

    • Replies:
  111. Actually, here are some recent publications explaining why the US citizens would not fight on a side of Kiev’s army: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-12/ukraine-s-neo-nazis-won-t-get-u-s-money http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11834839/Kiev-protests-against-separatists-turn-violent-as-grenade-thrown-at-police.html

  112. nope. First, Nassar blockaded Eilat – breaking the ceasefire. Egypt started a fight, Israel finished it.

    Nice try, Karl. This myth has been debunked years ago. As you well know, this was a pretext for going to war when the Israelis felt they were in the best position to defeat Egypt:

    In The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State University, presents a clear and compelling case that the orthodox story is wrong. Quigley’s book draws on evidence recently declassified by the four main powers involved in the lead up to the war: France, Britain, Russia, and the United States. He concludes that, contrary to the orthodox story, Israel’s army substantially outnumbered the Arab troops at the borders, and that Israel did not expect an attack. In short, Quigley asserts that Israel’s invasion of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967 cannot be justified as self-defense; Israel seized upon an opportunity to wage a war of aggression in violation of international law and in violation of the commitment Israel had made by joining the community of nations under the auspices of the UN Charter. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters

  113. No Americans or US assets in the svidomite puppet government? Your employers are not getting value for money when you write such things.

  114. I remember the Yugoslavian case, after Lord Owen made a mess of it Milosevic and Tudjman made a deal to partition Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia and also for Serbia to partition Macedonia with Greece, but the Americans didn’t like the idea of partitions and annexations in order to solve territorial disputes (they are very much idealists on those subjects, or rather act solely in their own interests rather than the peoples’ involved, that’s why they are in such a trouble in Ukraine). Crimea is Russian now as is the Donbass, the question is should Kharkov, Odessa etc. be as well?
    Besides in regards to Yugoslavia Bill Clinton needed a war to bury the Paula Jones story, which was inspiration for the “Wag the Dog” movie.

    History is full of examples of leaders making a mess because of their obsessions either with order or idealism or sex. It’s best to keep those things out of foreign affairs, all the great diplomats like Kissinger, Bismark, Talleyrand, Mazarin, Richelieu had no problem doing deals with their worst enemies at any time. At least Kerry seems to be rising to the challenge, quite impressed with him and he needs all the help he can get to face down the neocons and R2P crowd in DC.

  115. Like I stated. Similar accusations about trickery, unfair parliamentary games, legal manipulations, etc can be found for any number of western countries. But this still does not merit funding an illegal overthrow of the elected officials. Except if you wish to spark off a civil war, which is what the west (purposly or accidentally) did in Ukraine. You can nitpick any number of irregularities of Yanukovich’s rule and I am by far no fan of his. But that does not change the fact that the overthrow of his government was violent, unconstitutional, illegal and backed up by foreign interests and direct meddling. All the mess that followed was the result of this. Had democratic standards been followed, a peaceful solution of the crisis could have and should have been found and a peaceful and legal solution should have been insisted upon by EU and US as well, rather than forcing an overthrow of the government and planting handpicked new rulers in its place. That’s a coup in any book. Whether someone is popular or unpopular always depends on who you ask. Current Ukrainian leadership has a much lower support than Yanukovich ever had, but imagine anyone trying to overthrow them by force now. They’d be labelled (just like you apparently like to label) “Pro-russian apologists” or “Kremlin agents” immediately.

    • Replies:
  116. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Israel flourishes because it is parasite draining the United States since its founding. It is firmly attached to its host and wittingly or not about to kill it. When the US collapses, and it will very soon, Israel can reap what it has sown in the Middle East. American jews should take heed of the increasing anger of Americans who know how corrupt the jewish lobby has made the US government. How ridiculous that a demographic group, accounting for less than 2% of Americans, has their interests and agenda undemocratically pushed onto the nation. An agenda that is NOT even in the interest of their home country but a foreign militaristic racist regime. An agenda parroted by the mainstream media to the American population through outright lies and propaganda. There is a day of reckoning for every liar and traitor. I pray it comes very soon to the Zionists and their criminal regime in Israel.

  117. it should have continued only supplying weapons

    Modern weaponry is too sophisticated to pass on to untrained operators. And Russian soldiers do need some real-war training.

  118. Dear Kiza, I understand your concern. No, this is a very good Moscow source. And I rely upon it. I shall rather be skeptical to $20 bill ))

    • Replies:
  119. Dear Israel, with sincere apology, I was upset but I did not intend to offend. You are absolutely right about my concern about possible stupid moves. Many people made Putin into a God-like creature, but he and his advisers make mistakes like all leaders do. Just recall the impressive Sochi Olympics whist the neo-conmen and neo-conwomen were cooking him up the Ukraine Coup. Since Peter The Great, the Russians keep trying (almost desperately) to present themselves to the West as a modern and capable nation, a good business partner, a reliable supplier, not ever understanding that the majority of the West will always consider Russia an enemy to be nuked by a First Strike at worst, an economic competitor to be crushed at best. Thus, the coup in Ukraine should have been prevented, the secession of Crimea was just pulling chestnuts out of an already started fire. In other words, it would have been “cheaper” to have crushed the covert US coup in Ukraine then to have to feed Russia’s US and EU enemies with good UN-clobbering material (endlessly repeated “Annexation of Crimea”, “Putin is Hilter” etc). What I mean is that returning Crimea to Russia was a necessary but a politically expensive move, because Yeltsin accepted to give it away to Ukraine and signed off on it (whilst someone guided his drunken hand).

    Moving militarily into Syria in the middle of US/Israeli intervention there is beyond reasonable risk, in my view, no matter how much the European Natural Gas market is important to Russia in the short-to-medium term (until Russia can start supplying Asia). We should view what is going on in Syria as a second half of the Southern Stream game, where Bulgaria and Macedonia were used to sabotage the EU-Russia supply route.

    Finally, you may have noticed that the Russian MiGs in the Syrian sky have evaporated. It was just another example of the now standard social media manipulation, just like on MH17. I am most impressed by how easily they switched propaganda by 180 degrees – from a lie “Russia has given up on Syria”, to an opposite lie “The Russian are Coming to Syria”. Just snapped their fingers and voila – a brand new, opposite reality; it is totally amazing that they can do such turns into the face of their domestic cattle at no cost to “credibility”. Obviously, the social media have been completely integrated into the intelligence-propaganda-military system for population control in the West. MSM feed off social media and vice-versa.

  120. Hello Sonic,

    Yes, it could be that Russia has no intention of escalating an engagement in Syria. But what they do is float balloons. They put stuff out there to get a reaction, see? And sometimes depending on the reaction they either decide to go forth or hold their coarse.

    Also, with all due respect, I was trying to denigrate your arguments as fatuous. Which they seemed to me to be.

    Best regards ; )

    • Replies:
  121. As with 9-11,those who hate US don’t differentiate,unfortunately.

    911 was an inside job

    We do have a responsibility,in some way,in combating the serial liars,or else more victims of the Ziomonsters will be killed.

    that’s why I’m here my friend

    and why I’m grateful to Mr. Unz

    I say yes emphatically.If we had let them find their own way 60 years ago,none of this crap would be here,not the Sunni Shia split,none of the undemocratic thugs and princes,or at least without our interference, they would be legitimate.Different strokes for different folks.
    Yankee come home.

    I couldn’t agree more. The ravages of Zionism has wrought unimaginable suffering in the Muslim world, and the Christian world too. It has destroyed countries in the Middle East, and it’s destroying America too as we speak. Thousands of American boys and girls are dead. Their families grieve just as do the families of murdered Muslims. We are all the victims of this collective madness imposed by Zionism and their vile sycophantic goyem. The Zionist laughs just as heartily at the slaughtered children of Muslim and Christians. Middle Eastern and Western.

  122. Similar accusations about trickery, unfair parliamentary games, legal manipulations, etc can be found for any number of western countries.

    Not really, not even in Italy. Imagine if after Obama got elected he put the guy in Chicago who fixed his tickets onto the Supreme Court, and then having every ruling in his favor, with no new elections flipped a Republican congress Democratic, then with the new courts and new congress made new election laws that resulted in him keeping control over the congress despite easily losing the popular vote. And he was given additional powers by the new court too. All while his popularity was plummeting. That’s what happened in Ukraine under Yanukovich.

    ….Except if you wish to spark off a civil war, which is what the west (purposly or accidentally) did in Ukraine.

    The uprising wouldn’t have happened if not for the factors I described. The West didn’t do those things. As for Civil War – as in Syria, the government would have established in control if not for massive assistance to rebels.

    You can nitpick any number of irregularities of Yanukovich’s rule and I am by far no fan of his. But that does not change the fact that the overthrow of his government was violent, unconstitutional, illegal and backed up by foreign interests and direct meddling. All the mess that followed was the result of this.

    With no legal options available due to the nature of the government, which itself was operating outside the laws as they had been prior to the Yanukovich’s court changing them to suit him, an uprising was quite likely. If you want the root cause, it was Yanukovich’s own rule, not Western meddling.

    Had democratic standards been followed, a peaceful solution of the crisis could have and should have been found and a peaceful and legal solution should have been insisted upon by EU and US as well

    Had democratic standards been followed, Yanukovich would have been a president with the limited powers given to him at his election, constrained by an elected Opposition-led parliament. There probably would have been gridlock, but there would have been no uprising. But because democratic standards had not been followed, Yanukovich had total power and the people reasonably had no expectation of removing him from power using legal means.

    rather than forcing an overthrow of the government and planting handpicked new rulers in its place.

    The new rulers were the same guys who had won the popular vote in the recent parliamentary elections, and actually who were leading in the presidential polls. That means there were not “handpicked” for the job, unless you believe that under Yanukovich the West made fake elections giving the people they liked a popular vote victory.

    Current Ukrainian leadership has a much lower support than Yanukovich ever had, but imagine anyone trying to overthrow them by force now.

    Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. There are several big pro-Western parties while Yanukovich had only the Communists on his side among pro-Russian ones, so perhaps no individual pro-Western politician scores as highly as Yanukovich. But recent polls show an easy over 50% vote for pro-Western parties, much better than Yanukovich plus his Commie allies had had.

    At any rate, an uprising is not about popularity (Yushchenko got into the single digits) but lack of belief in being able to change things through elections. There is no widespread feeling in Ukraine that Poroshenko will hold onto power forever no matter what the people want.

    • Replies:
  123. Yes, it is true that “The Russians are Coming” (to Syria) could have been a work of the Russians and not of Israel (the country), a trial balloon, as you say. The Russian intelligence could have fed the story to social media, to Thierry Messiaen and to Israel Shamir! Yet, I personally discounted this possibility because in my view it does not make much sense. What would Russia gain by testing the US alliance on their faux war against ISIS? Do Russians not understand that anti-ISIS is an excuse for anti-Assad, a porky mostly for the consumption by the domestic Western cattle? If yes, then Putin better sack those advisers who needed a balloon to prove this.

    Russia fighting ISIS would be the real thing and this would shatter the whole pretend-ISIS-war. Russia being so clueless (!?), well I would rather hope not.

    Of course, the most relevant story of the moment is the US pulling its IMF lever on overflights of Greece by Russian transport planes. That Greece has ZERO sovereignty, is that a surprise too!? Just proves that the Western blocking of the Southern route was multi-layered: even if Bulgaria accepted the Southern Stream, even if Macedonia did not (almost) have a color revolution, then Greece would have been used to block the Southern route for the Russian gas.

    I always considered a Lavrov’s and Putin’s joke calling the West “our partners”, are you saying they were serious?

  124. With no legal options available due to the nature of the government …

    Well, there was at least one legal option available to the pro-EU/NATO parties in Ukraine: they could have simply voted against Yanukovich at the next election. The night before the coup, Yanukovich had even agreed with EU to move up elections a full year to May 2014. But Nulands probably concluded that, owing to the utter failure of the ‘Orange’ govt. from 2005 to 2010, the Banderites probably could not beat Yanukovich, so he had to be overthrown.

    • Replies:
  125. That Greece has ZERO sovereignty, is that a surprise too!?

    well we all did watch as the whole of Europe scrambled to prove, not just their contempt for international law and sacrosanct diplomatic protocols, but their obeisance to ZOG when they force-landed Evo Morales’ presidential jet to search for Snowden. There is no more sovereignty in Europe and hasn’t been since the Federal Reserve banksters claimed their spoils of war following their victory of WWII.

    I always considered a Lavrov’s and Putin’s joke calling the West “our partners”, are you saying they were serious?


    “our partners”

    : )

    it really seems to me that Putin and his regime are the only adults on the Western world’s stage today. And they’re not even considered part of the ‘West’, but stand for Western values more than England or North America. In fact it seems to me that Putin may be the last great hope of Western Civilization, as the rest of us sink into the Orwellian abyss.

  126. Well, there was at least one legal option available to the pro-EU/NATO parties in Ukraine: they could have simply voted against Yanukovich at the next election.

    Heh. The problem is that there was a parliamentary election in 2012. Yanukovich and his party allies were trounced, but due to his new election rules he still kept control over the parliament. This demonstrated his commitment to democracy. understandable, given that all of the opposition parties promised to investigate him and his family. The stakes were such that he would never leave power voluntarily. So now the people were going to trust him and give him time to prepare for the new elections?

    Yanukovich’s track record was such that nobody in Ukraine assumed that his election would be free or fair. Moreover, as the presidiential election approached Yanukovich had already passed a new law designed to bar the frontrunner (Klitschko) from running in that election due to living abroad, and was already starting an investigation of the second most popular opposition leader (Yatsenuk) for activities during the protests, raiding the party offices and taking the computers, probably in order to Tymoshenkoize him. Both of these were leading Yanukovich by double digits in numerous polls.

    That new election was still months away but there were many other options for him to hold onto power, such as turning the presidency into a ceremonial one while assuming control of parliament (which he controlled despite losing the popular vote by a large margin thanks to his “reforms”, and whose elections would be years away), cancelling the second round and making it first-past-the-post, etc. He also could have used that time to beef up security and bring in more loyalists to better prepare for a showdown (to a certain extent the overthrow was possible because Yanukovich wa caught by surprise), to cover his tracks and steal more, etc.

    But, it didn’t get that far. The people simply overthrew him.

    • Replies:
  127. […] militärisch in Syrien tätig wird, war eine Frage, die dieser Tage beispielsweise hier, hier, hier, hier, hier und hier erörtert […]

  128. The problem is that there was a parliamentary election in 2012. Yanukovich and his party allies were trounced, but due to his new election rules he still kept control over the parliament.

    Trounced? Party of Regions went from the 32% of the seats to 30%. Moreover, POR was still the largest party in the Rada, so they were able to form a coalition government with smaller anti-Banderite parties (which had picked up seats in the election). None of that suits my definition ‘trounced’.

    Both of these were leading Yanukovich by double digits in numerous polls.

    If that were true, then taking on Yanukovich at the next election would have been the way to go. Or were those polls perhaps conducted by the Kyiv Post?

    • Replies:
  129. Trounced? Party of Regions went from the 32% of the seats to 30%.

    The new elections ruled designed by the Party of Regions resulted in an inflated number of seats. He changed the rules so that parliamentary seats were first-past-the-post. This means that in a certain district if, say, 30% of the people voted for Yanukovich’s party or for one of his allies, 25% for Yatsenuk’s Party, 25% for Klitshko’s Party, and 20% for Svoboda (three opposition parties) the district would be represented by Yanukovich’s man despite the fact that 70% of that district’s voters hated Yanukovich and voted for one of his enemies.

    Yanukovich’s party got 30% of the popular vote but ended up with 41.5% of the seats in the parliament. Together with his Communist allies he had over 50% of the parliament, despite those two parties easily losing the popular vote in those elections.

    Both of these were leading Yanukovich by double digits in numerous polls.

    If that were true, then taking on Yanukovich at the next election would have been the way to go. Or were those polls perhaps conducted by the Kyiv Post?

    The fact that the people weren’t willing to wait for the elections despite everyone knowing Yanukovich would lose any free elections is simply evidence for the complete lack of faith in the electoral process under Yanukovich.

    Here’s one of the polls:

    http://ratinggroup.com.ua/en/products/politic/data/entry/14080/

    If in the second round of the presidential election there were V. Yanukovych and V. Klitschko, for the acting head of the state would vote 25,2% (among all respondents) and for V. Klitschko – 42,7%. Thus, 19,6% – wouldn’t take part in the second round of elections and 12,5% – didn’t decide. The result of the second round among those who will participate in elections and decided on a choice would make 63,3% on 36,7% in favor of V. Klitschko.

    If in the second round of the presidential election there were V. Yanukovych and A. Yatsenyuk, for V. Yanukovych would vote 25,8% (among all respondents) and for A. Yatsenyuk – 35%. Thus, 24,4% – wouldn’t take part in the second round of elections, and 14,8% – didn’t decide. The result of the second round is 58,2% on 41,8% in favor of A. Yatsenyuk.

    If in the second round of the presidential election there were V. Yanukovych and P. Poroshenko, for V. Yanukovych would vote 25% (among all respondents) and for P. Poroshenko – 33%. Thus, 25,7% – wouldn’t take part in the second round of elections, and 16,3% – didn’t decide. The result of the second round is 57,5% on 42,5% in favor of P. Poroshenko.

    If in the second round of the presidential election there were V. Yanukovych and Y. Tymoshenko, for V. Yanukovych would vote 26,6% (among all respondents) and for Y. Tymoshenko – 32,1%. Thus, 25,8% – wouldn’t take part in the second round of elections, and 15,5% – didn’t decide. The result of the second round is 55,8% on 44,2% in favor of Y. Tymoshenko.

    If in the second round of the presidential election there were V. Yanukovych and O. Tyagnibok, for V. Yanukovych would vote 27,1% (among all respondents) and for O. Tyagnibok – 28,8%. Thus, 27,6% – wouldn’t take part in the second round of elections, and 16,5% – didn’t decide. The result of the second round is 52,9 on 47,1 in favor of O. Tyagnibok.

    • Replies:
  130. Why would Russian intervention be dangerous? Taking out ISIS? IF Russia loses Assad and Syria it has ) influence in that region. Losing Syria means Lebanon and Iran will go down like dominoes. Putin has no choice but to go there or at least get involved at some level. Who is going to replace Assad? ISIS? These guys are a clown show, albeit with guns, created by both the CIA and Saudi intelligence as a means to a back door to war and maybe to bring in Russia. The powers that be want WW III, because frankly all their QE tricks are not working at all and they are all out of excuses, so get the world’s people frothing over a nice new war. Shoot, they will probably take out untold millions in the nuclear exchange that is bound to occur. De population is a big part of what they want in the post industrialized world. There is no use for bottom feeder consumers anymore.

  131. > ” turning these motherfuckers into molten Mohammedans”

    Maybe turn a bunch of Bibi’s Chosenite tribesters into toast at the same time, eh wot?

  132. Right on. Yanukovich would have lost the next election for sure. Polls in the East even had him losing. His support in the East was fractured. No need for a war.

    • Replies:
  133. Well, had there been a guarantee that elections would have been free and fair and that Yanukovich would have abided by the result, there indeed would have no need for an overthrow and no need for a war. Unfortunately, for good reason nobody thought this would have been the case and the people weren’t willing to entrust Yanukovich with running the elections and the country. So he was thrown out while he was weak and caught off guard.

    • Replies:
  134. Unfortunately, for good reason nobody thought this would have been the case and the people weren’t willing to entrust Yanukovich with running the elections and the country. So he was thrown out while he was weak and caught off guard.

    Well, OK. At least you admit it was basically a coup. I’ll give you some credit for that.

    • Replies:
  135. There’s a difference between a coup and an uprising. Not all overthrows are “coups.”

    • Replies:
  136. When a foreign State, in this case United States, is an active instigator and manipulator of the internal affairs of a foreign State, and is actively involved in the illegal removal of a democratically elected President before his term ends – it is a Coup (with a capital C).

    It is on record: US Assistant Secretary Nuland discussing with US Ambassador to Ukraine which puppet to install in Kiev even _before_ the Neo-Nazi goons had chased Yanukovich by threatening to murder him and his family.

    You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

    • Replies:
  137. In your opinion, was the American Revolution am uprising or a French coup?

    The fact is that a plurality of the Ukrainian people supported the uprising (about twice as many as who opposed it), the political parties who had won the popular vote in the preceding election supported it, and the political leaders who came to power were the ones who would have won elections, had there been free and fair elections (which nobody in Ukraine believed would have happened, had Yanukovich remained in power). The fact that the USA supported the uprising doesn’t make it a coup. A coup isn’t defined as “any violent government change that the USA likes).

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d’%C3%A9tat

    “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group”

    So if some general backed by the USA took over the country, this would have been a coup.

    If you recall, the overthrow of Yanukovich was a mass movement involving the country’s most popular political parties, elected regional assemblies in many of the regions, and 100,000s of people in the streets. Violent yes, but not a “small group.”

    This abuse of the word “coup” coming from anti-neocons is every bit as distasteful as neocon use of buzzwords such as “regime” which they try to mean as “any government neocons don’t like” or “insurgent” (rather the “resistance”) for people fighting foreign neocon invaders, etc. etc.

    But then, Putin is sort of a Russian version of a neocon, so it all makes sense.

    • Replies: ,
  138. There was “mass protests” by the 99% in USA against the proverbial 1%.
    The Occupy Wall Street protests, which were violently suppressed by law enforcement.
    What say you ?

    President Bush was _selected_ by the SCOTUS, when it illegally interfered in the state elections of the sovereign state of Florida.
    It is on record.
    Also on record is that Gore won the popular vote: yes I now about the Electoral College.
    Also on record that Republican dominated SCOTUS stole the Florida electoral vote for Bush Jr.
    Bush Jr, who was an illegal POTUS was allowed to serve out his 1st and 2nd terms.
    How about that popular vote thing ?

    The Neo-Nazi putsch in Kiev broke all bargains.
    Russia and Russian patriot Putin have a Carte Blanche to do what they must to stop the Neocon scum from threatening Russia.
    West broke the rules: Russia can now break all rules and then some.
    The “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander” Universal Law.
    Deal with it.

    And No, President Putin is not the Russian version of Neocons.
    President Putin is a Russian patriot who is doing is his best for Russia and Russian people.
    (American) Neocons are treasonous scum who are working against the interest of the American people.
    (American) Neocons are treasonous anti-American scum.

    Try again.

  139. Why are you rambling on about Bush II becoming president? What does Bush’s gaining office have to do with events in Ukraine? Are you suggesting that was a coup, also? Or that because the American people got stuck with Bush, despite Bush losing the popular vote, the Ukrainian people had to stay stuck with Yanukovich. No thanks. They overthrew him in a popular uprising.

    Russia and Russian patriot Putin have a Carte Blanche to do what they must to stop the Neocon scum from threatening Russia.
    West broke the rules: Russia can now break all rules and then some.

    Glad to see you support the law of the jungle in international relations. Of course the victims here aren’t rule-breakers such as the USA but small countries such as Ukraine. For you, the rape of a place like Serbia makes the rape of Ukraine okay.

    President Putin is a Russian patriot who is doing is his best for Russia and Russian people.

    Neocons claim they are American patriots and that they do what is best for the USA and the American people. Their followers believe them. Maybe some of them believe this about themselves, too. Unlike the far left, neocons do wave the American flag after all and call the USA the greatest country on Earth.

    Let’s review Putin’s patriotism: allows the capital to be flooded by Muslims, gives Chechens first-class status in comparison to ethnic Russians, allows epic corruption by his cronies (see: Serdyukov, a furniture salesman whom Putin made defense minister), rather than really solving these problems cleverly diverts the people’s attention and improves his rating by fomenting a war abroad (worked for Bush in Iraq), hangs the pro-Russians in Donbas out to dry cause it’s more convenient for him.

    You remind me of some European, disappointed in is own country’s elite’s lack of patriotism, who saw Bush draped in the American flag and decided,”that’s a real patriot!”

  140. In your opinion, was the American Revolution am uprising or a French coup?

    It was neither. It was a war of independence. In the 1770s there was no official head of state in America that could be overthrown; the head of state–like the rest of the government–was in far away London. Really dumb analogy, AP.

    The fact is that a plurality of the Ukrainian people supported the uprising …

    A plurality is not a majority. And even if there were a few hundred thousand protesters on the Maidan–sounds like a high-ball figure to me–that still wouldn’t amount to a representative sampling in a country of roughly 45 million.

    All your other statements in that paragraph are either unsubstantiated claims, or sheer speculation about what might have happened under other circumstances, so we are free to disregard them.

    “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group”

    Good definition. And it describes the Maidan situation very well.

    But then, Putin is sort of a Russian version of a neocon, so it all makes sense.

    Look, if Putin were backing a Maidan type movement in Ottawa with the intention of inveigling Canada into the Warsaw Pact, your characterization of him as a neocon might make sense. But of course, that isn’t the reality we inhabit, is it?

    I call BS on AP.

    • Replies:
  141. Why are you rambling about American Revolution “uprising” or a French “coup”.
    What does the legitimate American declaration of Independence from the colonial rule of an unelected King have anything to do with an illegal coup against a duly, democratically, legally elected president of a sovereign state.

    The rest of your ramblings about Putin are too confused to warrant a proper retort.
    But keep rambling: UNZ.com does not charge extra.

    • Replies:
  142. In your opinion, was the American Revolution am uprising or a French coup?

    It was neither. It was a war of independence. In the 1770s there was no official head of state in America that could be overthrown; the head of state–like the rest of the government–was in far away London. Really dumb analogy, AP.

    Actually there were legal governors in the colonies. For example, New York was governed by William Tryon. They and their representatives were overthrown by a popular local uprising that probably enjoyed the support of about half the local population and not much more than that; it may have even been less. This uprising was given diplomatic and even physical assistance by the French. Actually the French were probably more active in the American Revolution than the Americans were in Ukraine.

    The fact is that a plurality of the Ukrainian people supported the uprising …

    A plurality is not a majority. And even if there were a few hundred thousand protesters on the Maidan–sounds like a high-ball figure to me–that still wouldn’t amount to a representative sampling in a country of roughly 45 million.

    A few hundred thousand protesters were present, on the ground. Tens of millions supported the uprising. The parties that won the popular vote in the previous parliamentary election – that would be millions of votes – supported the uprising. Politicians winning the presidential polls – having millions of votes – supported it and were present during it, on the ground.

    The idea that this was not a popular uprising but a coup (remember the definition – “the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group“) is simply inaccurate.

    Your comment about plurality versus majority is silly. As in much politics, there is no such thing as a majority. Only about 60% of Ukrainians took sides during the uprising. Of these, 2/3 (40% of the total population) supported the uprising and 1/3 (or 21% of the total population) supported the government.

    Comparing this to voter participation, more Ukrainians supported the uprising than voted for Yanukovich in 2010. In that election turnout was 69% and Yanukovich got only 49% of the vote in the second round – thus, about 34% of the voters voted him into office.

    In 2008 Obama won with 53% of the vote and a turnout of 61.6%. That would be about 33% of voters. In contrast about 28% of voters supported McCain.

    Amazing, and convenient, that for you the 40% of Ukrainian supporting Maidan vs. only 21% supporting Yanukovich isn’t a landslide of popular support.

    But then, Putin is sort of a Russian version of a neocon, so it all makes sense.

    Look, if Putin were backing a Maidan type movement in Ottawa with the intention of inveigling Canada into the Warsaw Pact, your characterization of him as a neocon might make sense.

    Russia hardly has the means to project its power beyond Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc. It is struggling to help Syria.

    • Replies:
  143. What does the legitimate American declaration of Independence from the colonial rule of an unelected King have anything to do with an illegal coup against a duly, democratically, legally elected president of a sovereign state.

    Read a little more into Yanukovioh’s post-election activities before you describe him simply as a “duly, democratically, legally elected president.”

    Obama and Bush (the second time) won their elections. Now if Obama (or Bush) without new elections remade congress controlled by the other party so they had power over it, illegally changed the Supreme Court justices to have their people on board, gave themselves a lot of new presidential powers with the help of this new unelected congress and new, illegal Supreme Court majority, changed the elections rules so their party could stay in power, made new laws barring popular opponents from running, etc. etc. would that be okay? Should the people not have the right to revolt because, you know, the guy won an election once? Does winning an election as a president with limited powers and a hostile parliament entitle somewhat to get dictatorial powers, and a new (unelected) friendly parliament?

    The rest of your ramblings about Putin are too confused to warrant a proper retort.
    But keep rambling: UNZ.com does not charge extra.

    Translation: Avery has no rebuttal to the facts about his beloved Putin.

    Here is what the Russian people thought of the patriot Putin’s patriotic government before they got distracted by Putin’s actions in Ukraine:

    http://rbth.com/society/2013/07/11/pugachev_murder_triggers_popular_unrest_over_governments_ethnic_polic_27981.html

    Shall I provide links about Putin’s buddy, the furniture salesman placed in charge of the defense ministry?

    • Replies:
  144. Minor correction:

    I wrote “Tens of millions supported the uprising.”

    40% of Ukraine’s 46 million people would be about 18.4 million people. Supporting the government were 20% of the population or about 9.6 million people.

    • Replies:
  145. You still rambling ?
    Keep at it: any day now somebody will buy the incoherent torrent of ramblings spewing forth from your mighty keyboard.

    • Replies: , ,
  146. 40% ?
    why not 50%. or even better 80%.
    if you are going to manufacture percentages out of thin air, make it believable.
    round numbers don’t work too well.
    so you should manufacture decimal numbers.
    tenths work OK; but hundredths even better.

    you can use these for your next Ukraine related rambling:
    “48.12% of Ukraine’s…”
    “67.53% of Ukraine’s….”

  147. 40% ?
    why not 50%. or even better 80%.
    if you are going to manufacture percentages out of thin air, make it believable.

    40% were the poll results. Here is the KIIS/Levada poll:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=231&page=1

    Rereading the article, I realize my memory was off by 3% in terms of pro-government support. It was about 40% supporting the protesters, and 23% Yanukovich’s government.

    The only one manufacturing ideas out of thin air is you.

    But please go back to your fantasies about countries you have probably never even visited, Russia and Ukraine, and people whom you are clueless about. Let me guess: in your world the poll is part of the Big Neocon Conspiracy?

    • Replies:
  148. Hint: Your failure to understand something does not mean that it is “incoherent.” It means that you have reached your cognitive limit. Or conveniently pretend to have done so.

    Meanwhile, we can enjoy the spectacle of someone ignorant of Russia, calling Putin a Russian super-patriot, despite Putin placing Chechens above Russians, allowing his cities to be flooded by Muslims, persecuting those who object to that, placing corrupt cronies such as furniture-salesman Serdyukov in charge of huge government ministries (Have you looked him up yet? Didn’t think so), and distracting the Russian people from these problems with a foreign war and nice empty patriotic slogans.

    As I tried to explain to you, Putin is a patriot as Bush and Cheney were patriots.

    But feel free to bury your head in the sand and exclaim, “incoherent rambling.”

    • Replies: ,
  149. {40% were the poll results. Here is the KIIS/Levada poll:}

    You are joking, right ?
    Or rambling.

    [Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) was founded in 1990 as a research center of the Sociological Association of Ukraine. In 1992, a partnership was established with the Paragon Research International and thus the research center became a Ukrainian-American research company under the name of KIIS]

    What a surprise: an -American research company comes with poll results that support American government’s putsch in Ukraine.
    Are you that disconnected from reality, or pretend everybody else is.
    Why don’t you cite some poll results conducted by CIA: that would be more believable.

    • Replies:
  150. Hint: my failure to understand incoherent nothing ramblings means you have reached your limit of expressing coherent sentences is standard English.

    Or conveniently pretend to have reached said limit so as to ramble on incoherently in order to give the appearance of sophisticated prose, which in fact is incoherent vacuous rambling devoid of any meaningful substance.

    • Replies:
  151. Someone else more knowledgeable than you describing Putin’s “Russian patriotism”:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/so-what-are-the-russians-really-doing-in-syria/#comment-1136681

    • Replies:
  152. Sure, someone posting under the name “Angry Slav’ is obviously Russian, right ?
    What else could it be ?
    Have you conducted a poll of authenticated Russian posters from Russia how they feel about Putin, or a sample of one is all you need.
    What happened to the 40% ?
    You are getting desperate: an anonymous poster @unz.com is your “knowledgeable” source for Russia ?

    You like polls ?
    Then ask your “knowledgeable” friend ‘Angry Slav’ to explain this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/jul/23/vladimir-putins-approval-rating-at-record-levels

    [Vladimir Putin’s approval rating is at record levels, with nine out of 10 Russians saying they have a positive view of their president. Putin had an approval of 87% in July, and an all-time high of 89% in June, according to Levada Centre polling.]

    Now, TheGuardian would not promote hated Putin, so the Putin 87%-89% approval rating by the Russian people must be true, No ?

    • Replies:
  153. my failure to understand incoherent nothing ramblings means you have reached your limit of expressing coherent sentences is standard English.

    You responded to various points but suddenly, when you were backed into a corner and couldn’t rebut the facts, things got “incoherent” and you no longer responded.

    You claim Putin is a patriot. Here are inconvenient facts for you about Putin, again. Go ahead and hide from these facts again, you only further confirm your dishonesty:

    1. He allowed Russia to be flooded with Muslims.

    2. He treats ethnic Russians as second-class citizens compared to his Chechen allies.

    3. He prosecutes Russian nationalists who challenge his love of “diversity.”

    4. He hires corrupt incompetent cronies into his government, lets them steal and pardons them (have you looked up Serdyukov yet?)

    5. He diverts people’s attention from these problems by engaging in foreign adventures that result in a short-term (several years) boost in popularity but potential long-term negative consequences. Yet:

    6. He abandons pro-Russians in Donbas, giving them just enough help to keep their struggle alive in order to keep Ukraine unstable, yet not enough to insure victory and to end the misery and suffering as civilian casualties continue.

    But he wraps himself in the Russian flag and says nice things about Russia, so in your little mind he must be a patriot, right?

  154. What happened to the 40% ?

    I posted the link the KIIS/Levada poll with that figure. Were you unable to read it? How convenient.

    [Vladimir Putin’s approval rating is at record levels, with nine out of 10 Russians saying they have a positive view of their president. Putin had an approval of 87% in July, and an all-time high of 89% in June, according to Levada Centre polling.]

    Bush also enjoyed sky-high approval ratings during the Iraq war. In your little mind does that make him a patriot?

  155. As predicted, you will claim the poll was part of a neocon plot.

    The problem is that the poll results correspond to electoral patterns, including under Yanukovich. No doubt in your little mind this is also part of the same neocon plot.

    Also apparently in your little mind any connection to America or Americans implies a CIA plot. You wouldn’t happen to be in America, would you? Hmm…

    You forgot that the poll was conducted with Levada.

  156. … and distracting the Russian people from these problems with a foreign war and nice empty patriotic slogans.

    So let me get this straight: Putin knocked over Yanukovich and started up a campaign to overthrow Assad just so he could have foreign wars with which to distract the Russian people? RIIGGGHHHT. Got it.

    Do you write for the Kiev Post, by chance?

    • Replies:
  157. yet more incoherent ramblings.
    the torrential downpour of nonsense keeps spewing, and spewing, and spewing,……
    each new post more shrill and disconnected from reality.

    someone who is desperate enough to latch on to some anonymous poster with the handle ‘Angry Slav’ to make his/her case against Putin is beyond redemption.
    pathetic really.
    feel almost sorry for your side, that the best they could press gang into the disinformation and propaganda service is someone whose desperation compels him/her to rely on a bogus post by a fake ‘Slav’.

    maybe one of your tag-team pals is the fake ‘Slav’: the ‘Slav’ posts something against President Putin, and you use it for reference.
    that works: sure it does.
    desperate and pathetic, but you have nothing else other than desperate and pathetic ramblings.

    • Replies:
  158. “Putin knocked over Yanukovich and started up a campaign to overthrow Assad just so he could have foreign wars with which to distract the Russian people?”

    Yeah, because even after AP himself noted that Yanukovich was overthrown by an uprising of Ukrainians, you’re saying that the allegation A) that Putin’s annexation of Crimea and sending troops to Syria (and let’s face it, Donbass) is a bid to distract from local troubles is in fact equivalent to allegation B) that Putin “knocked over Yanukovich” and started up a campaign to overthrow Assad?

    That’s the extent of your reading comprehension?

    Incoherent rambling, indeed. I’m guessing even the people on your side of this argument will admit (to themselves, at least) that you’re not doing that side any favors with arguments like that.

  159. You failed to address either the facts presented by me, or those presented by the angry Slav guy. You have been reduced to empty insults, and yes “incoherent rambling.” Very cute.

    If you knew something about Russia you would understand that Russian nationalists are not very crazy about Putin (just as people like Buchanan were never crazy about Bush). But then, you don’t.

  160. You are a liar or a fool.
    Assad won re-election overwhelmingly.
    The Incarceration rate in his country is less than that of Sweden, equal to that of Switzerland and less than a tenth of that of the murderous thugs: the US.

  161. It appears you are the correct one.

  162. Avery, I admire your efforts with this commenter but I don’t think it’s really worth the effort. He simply will not listen. I’ve plodded through numerous posts of his and it shows clearly that he just is not interested in learning.

    But, again, I admire you for trying.

    • Replies:
  163. Dear Mr Shamir,

    I would be interested in your take on the recent meeting between President Putin and Bibi the other day. According to some, a sort of “agreement” was worked out between them. That news gives me an uncomfortable, ominous feeling.

    For Mr Putin to work out an agreement with one of those responsible for destroying the country he is trying to help protect does seem self-defeating.

    Any thoughts?

  164. Thanks for the kind words [schmenz ].

    Allow me to explain.
    I comment at a lot of different web sites.
    Every so often someone will ask me not to waste my time trying to “educate” the many who spread disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda about various things.
    I know you and they mean well.

    But there is a method to my madness.

    I am not trying to change the minds of those posters.
    I know who and what they are.
    They are not posting to educate or get educated.
    They are posting to spread disinformation.

    For everyone who takes the time and effort to post at UNZ.com and similar sites, there are hundreds of readers who just read comments to get information and possibly get educated.
    My effort is directed at that impartial “jury”, if you will.
    If we do not counter the disinformation being spread in the blogosphere, the neutral audience might take propaganda as fact.

    We cannot afford to let that happen.

  165. says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Obama administration’s new strategy may help ease Americans back into the realities of war, but regional experts as well as some of Obama’s political allies say his slow ramp-up may be insufficient to defeat the fast-moving militants.

  166. […] This report was first published in the Unz Review. […]

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone



 
Remember
My Information
Why?

 Email Replies to my Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS