Aleppo will fall and the US-backed effort to topple the Assad government using a proxy army of Islamic extremists will fail.
A few things need to be said about the ceasefire to set the record straight.
First, there was never any chance that the US was going to abide by the terms of the agreement. The US has no way of separating the "moderates" from the extremists, which was one of the main requirements of the deal. That was never going to happen. But, more importantly, the Pentagon -- which opposed the agreement from the get-go -- had no intention of complying with its demands.
Why?
Well, for one thing, as Syrian President Bashar al Assad said himself:
"...the United States doesn't have the will to work against al-Nusra or ISIS, because they believe that this is a card they can use for their own agenda. If they attack al-Nusra or ISIS, they will lose a very important card regarding the situation in Syria. So, I don't believe the United States will be ready to join Russia in fighting terrorists in Syria."
Bingo. Assad is not suggesting that al-Nusra or ISIS are controlled by Langley. He's merely saying that-- inasmuch as the goals of these groups coincide with US strategic objectives (which they certainly do in Syria) Washington will continue to support their activities. In other words, Obama would rather see a "Salafist principality" emerge in Syria then allow an independent, secular government to remain in place. Everyone who has followed events closely in Syria for the last five years, knows this is true.
The other reason the Pentagon opposed the agreement was because they didn't want to comply with the military-to-military coordination plan. The western media has been particularly opaque on this issue. For example, according to the New York Times deal would be "an extraordinary collaboration between the United States and Russia that calls for the American military to share information with Moscow on Islamic State targets in Syria." ("Details of Syria Pact Widen Rift Between John Kerry and Pentagon," New York Times)
Okay, but why is that a problem? Wouldn't that be the most effective way to defeat ISIS and Al Qaida? Of course, it would. So, what's the rub? Here's more from the NYT:
"Chief among Pentagon concerns is whether sharing targeting information with Russia could reveal how the United States uses intelligence to conduct airstrikes, not just in Syria but in other places, which Moscow could then use for its own advantage in the growing confrontations undersea and in the air around the Baltics and Europe."(NYT)
This is complete baloney. The fact is the Pentagon doesn't want to have to get approval for its target-list (identify and verify) from the Russian military. That's what's really going on. And the reason for this is obvious, the strategic objectives of the US are exact opposite of Moscow's. Washington has no interest in defeating terrorism in Syria; in fact, as we pointed out earlier, Washington is just fine with terrorism as long it helps them move the ball closer to the goalpost. What the US wants is to topple the regime, replace Assad with a US-stooge, splinter the country into multiple parts, and control vital pipeline corridors. These goals cannot be achieved if the Pentagon has to get a green-light from Moscow every time they go on a bombing raid. How are they going to assist their jihadist assets on the ground if they have to follow that rule?
They won't be able to, which is why it's no surprise that SECDEF Ash Carter put the kibosh on the deal by bombing the SAA positions at Deir Ezzor. The massacre effectively ended all talk about "coordination" with the Russians. Mission accomplished.
But even this does not completely explain why the Pentagon launched this unprecedented attack that killed 62 Syrian soldiers and moved the two superpowers closer to a direct confrontation. To grasp what's really going on behind the endless recriminations, we need to understand that the Obama administration has abandoned its original plan to oust Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and moved on to Plan B; partitioning the country in a way that establishes a separate Sunni state where US troops will be based and where vital pipelines will be built to transfer natural gas from Qatar to the EU.
This ambitious plan is more than a redrawing of the Middle East and a pivot to Asia. It is a critical lifeline to a country (USA) whose economic prospects are progressively dimming, whose credit card is maxed out, and who is counting on a Hail Mary pass in Syria to save itself from cataclysmic economic collapse and ruination. Washington must succeed in Syria because, well, because it must, because the red ink has finally penetrated the pinewood hull and is fast filling the galley. A defeat in the Middle East could be the straw that broke the camel's back, the tipping point in the agonizingly-protracted unipolar-new-world-order experiment. In other words, it's Syria or bust. Here's a little background that will help to clarify what's going on:
"Washington has previously made it clear that if it cannot achieve its plan A; regime change, it will go for its plan B; to balkanize the country and help to create a Kurdish and/or Sunni state in eastern Syria...
"Attacking the Syrian Army, and allowing ISIL to capture the city will make Deir Ezzor a probable target for the US-backed proxies to attack and annex." ("The Ceasefire Failed; What happens now?" The Vineyard of the Saker)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
10
7
4
