"Russia can't stop the war with Assad there because Assad attracts the foreign fighters. Assad is a magnet for terrorists, because they're coming to fight Assad. So if you want to stop the war in Syria, and we do, if you want to fight Daesh and stop the growth of terrorism, you have to deal with the problem of Assad. Now, that doesn't mean we want to change every aspect of the government; we don't." ("US not after regime change in Syria, but Assad must go" -- Kerry to Russian TV," RT)
Got that? So the US doesn't support regime change, but Assad's still got to go.
How's that for hypocrisy? The truth is the Obama administration is just as committed to toppling Assad as ever. Kerry was just misleading Putin to get his approval for his ridiculous resolution at the UN. As a result, Assad's name was never mentioned in the resolution which, Kerry seems to think, is a big victory for the US. But it's not a victory, in fact, all of Russia's demands were met in full through the passing of UN Resolution 2254 (three resolutions were passed on Friday) which reiterates all Putin's demands dating back to the Geneva Communique' of 2012. Assad was never mentioned in 2254 either, because naming the president wasn't necessary to establish the conditions for 1--a transitional government, 2--outlining the terms for a new constitution and a non-Islamist Syrian state, and 3--free and fair elections to ensure the Syrian people control their own future.
In 2012, the US rejected these three provisions saying that they would not agree unless Assad was excluded from participating in the transitional government. Now the US has reversed its position on Assad which means that 100 percent of Moscow's demands have been met. UN Resolution 2254 is complete capitulation on the part of the US. It is a humiliating diplomatic defeat which no one in the media is even willing to acknowledge.
So what did Kerry gain by all his globe-trekking and backroom maneuvering?
Nothing. In fact, he gave away the farm by making a number of concessions to gain Russia's support.
What "concessions" are we talking about?
Here's a short list: Kerry met with Putin in Moscow on December 15. On December 16, the IMF ruled in favor of Russia in its $3 billion claim against Ukraine. Here's the story:
"The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has recognized Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia as official and sovereign -- a status Kiev has been attempting to contest.
"'In the case of the Eurobond, the Russian authorities have represented that this claim is official. The information available regarding the history of the claim supports this representation,' the IMF said in a statement." ("IMF recognizes Ukraine's contested $3bn debt to Russia as sovereign," RT)
How many strings do you think Washington had to pull to seal that deal?
Also on December 16, the US announced that it would remove its F-15 fighters stationed in Turkey immediately. Here's the story:
"Twelve U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters sent to Incirlik airbase only last month to guard Turkish airspace and hit ISIS targets in Syria were suddenly flown back Wednesday to their home base in Britain, U.S. European Command announced.
"The redeployment of the fighters came amid a flurry of diplomatic and military-to-military activity in the region and with Russia ...
"A day before the planes left, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of United Nations Security Council meetings in New York Friday on Syria and U.S. efforts to ease out President Bashar al-Assad."("US Air Force Begins Withdrawing F-15 Fighter Jets From Turkey," Military.com)
Another coincidence?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
3
