The US drive to bring peace in the world has never been successful. At best, countries, where Americans had tried to bring democracy in its own image, were turned into pitiful raw material appendages of the West. At worst, the war continues to this very day in these countries.
On the eve of elections, America’s desire to feel like a messiah rises, which results in attempts to trace the main source of evil in the world and in convincing other nations in the exclusive rightness of American values. The question is, who gave American leaders the right to decide where good and evil lies, still remains unanswered. But, according to the US, all is fair for the sake of the world peace. And it is possible to sacrifice a few million lives and a couple of countries in the Middle East to achieve this goal.
America has positioned itself as a role model and vocal opponent of extremism, pinning labels on Russia and Syria and accusing them of aggression. At the same time, Pentagon, which is not harried by doubts, openly discusses a possibility of providing radical Syrian rebels with air defence systems. The military conflict in the Middle East and particularly in Syria has been going on for several years by the US efforts and Americans tried to arm one of the opposition sides a few times during this period. However, in most cases, their weapons disappear in Syria and, after that, heavily armed ISIS militants attack not only peaceful cities and Syrian troops, but also commit terrorist acts in neighboring countries and Europe.
For example, all news reported in October that the US had provided Jabhat al-Nusra militants with TOW anti-tank missiles. One of the militants shared this information about arms supplies and future plans with the Focus magazine.
What does the US government think this time? Because America has not been able to distinguish “bad” insurgents from “good” ones until now. The State Department promises to investigate or tries to ignore all reports of the Russian side on shelling of Syrian residential areas, school and hospitals. Against the backdrop of success of Assad, it decides that the Syrian opposition needs a support. And the Russian side has some problems in understanding the definition of “moderate opposition”. It is difficult to imagine “moderately” warring people. Fight only before lunch? Shoot but do not hit? Perhaps, the “moderate opposition” in the US understanding is the one they can control, but not entirely insane.
I think that even one who doesn’t have a clue understands that providing Syrian insurgents with air defence systems will entail an escalation of the conflict and can worsen the relationship between the US and Russia. Judging from the fact that Pentagon is not able to separate the moderate opposition in Syria from real terrorist groups, we can assume that the US statements about its ability to control Syrian rebels and ISIS do not correspond to reality. On the contrary, this situation is more like a partnership. ISIS had felt comfortable and free before the Russian troops came to Syria. Coalition’s airstrikes on ISIS positions led by the US sis did not show any results – ISIS was growing and getting stronger. Its terrorists do not hesitate to travel without visas to improve health in Turkey and Israel resorts and who are engaged in illegal business around the world. The US Military Transport Aviation regularly fails to drop ammunition to Iraqi armed forces, but it ‘accidentally’ supplies ISIS groups with weapons by dropping it in their areas.
The US has taken a position where it is making every effort to shift the blame onto the Russian Federation for their war crimes in the Middle East. The media and the army of various ‘human rights organizations’ are involved in posing Russia as a tyrant.
America is trying to destroy Syria and to change Assad’s political regime with the help of ISIS. The main goal of Pentagon and its allies is to create a hotbed of instability and terrorism in Syria, which would keep the Middle East, Russia and its partners in suspense. This situation is very convenient for the US, because it creates an image of a fighter for democracy and justice. In this case, the media always gets latest tragic news, the army has its own training ground and weapon production facilities get a steady market…In addition, there have always been slave-trading, oil and drug smuggling, which brings considerable income as well.
Do the American leaders realize that they confront the armed forces of the Russian Federation by providing “good” Syrian rebels with air defence systems? Because if you follow the logic of Americans, they have to send experts to the conflict zone with the supply of weapons, who will train the opposition how to handle these weapons. And even if we assume that the air defence system will fall in to the right hands to protect Syrian rebels from Russian Aerospace Forces attacks, Americans will have to shoot down Russian aircrafts. Of course, it will lead to response strike by the Russian Federation. Because as soon as the first missile will be used against Russian aviation, all American ‘partners’ among ’good’ insurgents and their curators, who control the work of the air defence system, will be destroyed.
Is Pentagon ready to lose its men in this war? The Washington Post has a very good point citing words of one of the Obama administration officials that “you can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against Russia”.
Ekaterina Martyanova, the DPR People’s Council deputy