By Alexander Mercosuris
Source: Russian Insider
Russia’s partial withdrawal announcement is a logical step at this point in the Syrian conflict.

The Russians never promised an open-ended or unlimited commitment.

It is consistent with the policy of strengthening the Syrian army so it can fight jihadism in Syria by itself.

It will not undermine the struggle against the Islamic State or jihadism in Syria because the objective of preventing the collapse of the Syrian state has been achieved.

The Russian decision to withdraw part of their forces from Syria has come as a surprise.

It has triggered a huge amount of speculation as to the reason.

In reality the Russians – as they always do – have explained the reason carefully, though as always their explanations have gone unreported and are being ignored.

In fact a decision by the Russians to withdraw part of their forces now – when the regime change strategy has been defeated and the Syrian army is becoming increasingly strong and capable of fighting the Islamic State and the jihadis by itself – was pre-programmed from the start and was part of the original decision to intervene.

In this article, rather than engage in wild guesses about the intentions behind Russian actions, I shall set out what the Russians themselves say. At the end I will then offer my own opinion.

The Policy Framework – The Syrian Conflict

The starting point to any discussion both of the Russian decision to intervene in the Syrian conflict, and to the decision to undertake a partial withdrawal now, ought to be the overall approach the Russians have taken to the Syrian conflict since it began.

I first discussed this here back in 2012.

Russian policy has been to resolve Syria’s internal crisis through negotiations between the Syrian factions.

The objective is a comprehensive political settlement, with an agreement to set up a transitional government and a new constitution leading to fresh elections.

The Russians have consistently opposed, and have repeatedly warned against, any attempt to resolve the crisis by force.

Here is the policy in one sentence taken from Lavrov’s presentation during the meeting between him Shoigu and Putin which ended with Putin’s recent withdrawal announcement:

“We have consistently advocated establishing an intra-Syrian dialogue in accordance with the decisions made in 2012.”

The reference to 2012 refers to the Geneva Conference that was held that year, where an “intra-Syrian dialogue” was supposed to have agreed by all the parties

That dialogue never happened because – once more in Lavrov’s words, because “our suggestions were met with a lack of will on the part of all our partners working on this process.”

In fact what happened was that the attempt to set up an “intra-Syrian dialogue” was wrecked because the Syrian opposition backed by the US and its allies insisted on President Assad standing down as a precondition for that dialogue taking place.

When that did not happen the war began in earnest.

As to President Assad, the Russians have never at any time said that President Assad has their unqualified backing or that they will stick with him through thick and thin.

What the Russians have always said – and what they continue to say – is that it is not for them or for any other outside power to demand his removal, and that they will never make such a demand of him.

The Russians have also repeatedly rejected the Syrian opposition’s demand for President Assad’s removal as a precondition for negotiations.

They argue that that demand makes a possible outcome of the negotiations and of the internal Syrian political process that should follow them into a pre-condition, which given the strength of support for President Assad within Syria is not only unreasonable, but also guarantees that the war will continue.

The Russians have however also always rejected suggestions that they consider all of President Assad’s supporters “terrorists”. Claims they do so – which appear regularly in the Western media – are untrue. On the contrary, they have frequently used expressions such as the “legitimate Syrian opposition” and have on many occasions tried to engage President Assad’s opponents in dialogue.

In passing I should say that the repeated Western media claim that President Assad also says that all his opponents are “terrorists” is also untrue.

President Assad agreed to the Russian proposal for a dialogue between himself and his opponents back in 2011, and he renewed his agreement to the Russian proposal at the conference in Geneva in 2012. He has never gone back on that agreement.

The problem in the Syrian conflict is not that President Assad refuses to negotiate. It is that up to now his opponents – backed by the Western powers – have refused to negotiate with him.

The Policy Framework – Opposition to Regime Change

The Russians have also made repeatedly clear their fundamental disagreement and opposition to the regime change doctrine the West has assumed for itself even when or especially when it is decked out in humanitarian interventionist or neocon “democracy promotion” colours.

Again I discussed all this in detail in 2012 here.

The Russians have repeatedly said that the doctrine of regime change is an exceptionally dangerous departure from international law, which violates fundamental principles of international relations as set out in the UN Charter by privileging a small group of Western states over all the others in a way that creates a threat to peace.

They also say this doctrine has brought disaster wherever it has been applied, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, and they blame it for destabilising the Middle East and for sowing the seeds of militant jihadist terrorism there.

Putin once again said all this in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly which included his now famous rhetorical question “Do they realise what they have done?” Here is what Putin said:

“We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one centre of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions.

Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker.

Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change.

But what was the actual outcome?

Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.”

Regime Change and Syria

Since the Russians totally disagree with the doctrine of regime change, they have consistently opposed every attempt by the US and the West to impose it on Syria.

They have repeatedly blocked Western attempts to obtain UN Security Council Resolutions that would have allowed the Western powers to intervene in Syria to overthrow its government.

Again I discussed all this in 2012 here, and I also discussed in detail in October 2011 the diplomacy which preceded a Russian and Chinese veto of a Western proposed Resolution to the UN Security Council that was intended to pave the way for Western military intervention to achieve regime change in Syria here.

In August 2013 – consistent with their strong opposition to Western military intervention in Syria intended to effect regime change there – they rallied international opinion against a plan by the US to bomb Syria without the authorisation of the UN Security Council when it seemed that following the Ghouta chemical attack the US was about to do it.

This together with strong opposition to military intervention by the US and British public and President Obama’s own recently revealed doubts about the wisdom of the proposed bombing, succeeding in preventing it from taking place.

Russian Military Doctrine and Intervention in “the Far Abroad”

The Russians before last summer however never showed the slightest inclination to intervene militarily in the Syria.

Since their entire policy was not to help any side win the war but to promote negotiations leading to a peaceful settlement, there would have been no logic in their wanting to do so.

Beyond that there is the fact that the Russians as a general principle are strongly averse to intervening militarily in other countries.

Since Russia rejects the whole doctrine of regime change and in principle rejects the self-designated role of world policeman both for the US and for itself, there would be no logic in the Russians configuring their military to intervene beyond their borders.

They have not in fact done so and their military doctrine defines the role of their armed forces in the traditional way as a force to protect Russia and its people and Russia’s vital national and security interests, which are located in the territory of the former USSR, which the Russians still sometimes call “the near abroad”.

All this is thoroughly discussed by the Saker here.

The relevant Russian legal provision defining the role of the Russian armed forces isThe Federal Law N61-F3 “On Defense”, Section IV, Article 10, Para 2. It states that the mission of the Russian Armed Forces is

“to repel aggression against the Russian Federation, the armed defense of the integrity and inviolability of the territory of the Russian Federation, and to carry out tasks in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation“.

Russian actions have been fully unlike with this conservative traditional approach to the use of force. Until they intervened militarily in Syria in September the Russians had never acted militarily outside the territory of the former USSR.

On the rare occasions when they did act militarily beyond their borders, it was always done within the territory of the former USSR and the force used was used sparingly and with great circumspection.

For example, the Russians did not march on and occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi – as they could easily have done – during the short South Ossetia war in 2008, and they rejected Yanukovych’s request to intervene militarily in Ukraine to restore him to power as the country’s President.

Since Russia does not give itself the right to intervene in other countries, and rejects the self-appointed role of world or even regional policeman, it lacks the army of armchair warriors and geopolitical strategists who populate the media, NGOs and think-tanks in the West, and who can be relied on to demand war at every opportunity.

Russian Military Doctrine and Intervention in Syria

This explains why the Russians never considered the option of intervening military intervention in Syria before last summer. On the rare occasions when the possibility was brought up it was invariably and immediately rejected.

I remember a Russian official saying back in 2012 that Russia would not intervene to defend Syria if the West attacked it, but would prevent such an attack from receiving a mandate from the UN Security Council, which would legalise the attack under international law.

The real surprise in the Syrian conflict is not therefore the Russians’ recent withdrawal announcement. It was the decision the Russians took last summer to intervene in the conflict.

When initial reports of the intervention began to circulate they seemed so entirely out of character that I discounted them.

Many Russians remain skeptical about the intervention. Whilst Russian military action in Chechnya in 1999, in South Ossetia in 2008 and in Crimea in 2014 was overwhelming supported by the Russian public since it was obviously done in defence of Russia and its national interests, there has been notably less enthusiasm for the intervention in distant Syria.

A classic statement of the objections to the intervention, which accurately reflects the feelings of may Russians, is to be found in the two articles Russia Insider has published by Jacob Draizen here and here.

So Why did Russia Intervene in Syria?

Russia nonetheless intervened in Syria because the Russian leadership decided that it was necessary to do so in order to protect Russia’s national security.

The reason was that the Syrian civil war had created a vacuum which was being filled by violent jihadi terrorists – above all by the Islamic State – which a dangerous security threat to Russia.

Given Syria’s proximity to Russia’s southern borders, the fact that may of the violent jihadis operating in Syria had originally come from Russia, and that the Russians have themselves had to fight a violent jihadi insurgency in the northern Caucasus within their own territory, that concern is understandable.

The intervention in Syria was therefore in line with the Russians’ political philosophy and their military doctrine.

The Russians have explained all this in great detail.

In his recent UN General Assembly Speech delivered shortly before the Russian bombing campaign started in September Putin explained how the chaos caused by the wars in Iraq and Syria – which he said were the result of the West’s regime change policy – had led to the rise of jihadi terrorism and of the Islamic State, and that this was a threat to everyone, including Russia.

Here is what Putin said in his own words:

“Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists.

The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes.

Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State.

Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.”

The Decision to Intervene – Threat of Collapse of the Syria State

In his speech to the UN General Assembly Putin said that for the war against the jihadi terrorists and the Islamic State in Syria to be conducted successfully the Syrian state would have to be preserved so that the Syrian army – the organisation which is actually fighting the jihadi terrorists and the Islamic State in Syria – could continue to do so.

Here again is what Putin said:

“Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups.

We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria.

Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.”

At no point however has Putin or any other Russian official gone back on their original policy that the conflict in Syria must be solved through negotiations held without preconditions by the Syrian parties.

On the contrary the Russians have always said that a political settlement is essential so that the country can unite all its forces and combine all its energies to fight the jihadi terrorists and the Islamic State on its territory.

Putin explained this clearly in answer to journalists’ questions whilst still for the UN General Assembly session

“We are considering what kind of additional support we could give to the Syrian army in fighting terrorism.

I would like to stress that we believe that these anti-terrorist efforts should be made alongside political processes within Syria.

No land operations or participation of Russian army units has ever been considered or ever could be.

This is a deep conflict, and a bloody one, unfortunately, which is why I said that alongside support to the official authorities in their struggle against terrorism we would insist on political reform and a political process to be conducted at the same time.

As far as I know, President al-Assad agrees with this.”

Putin said this again in a public discussion he held with Defence Minister Shoigu on 7th October 2015, shortly after Russia’s military intervention in Syria began, where he actually discussed the possibility of President Assad’s opponents uniting with the Syrian army to fight the Islamic State and the jihadis together. Here is what he said:

“At the same time, we realise that conflicts of this kind must end in a political settlement.

I discussed this matter just this morning with the Russian Foreign Minister.

During my recent visit to Paris, the President of France, Mr Hollande, voiced an interesting idea that he thought is worth a try, namely, to have President Assad’s government troops join forces with the Free Syrian Army.

True, we do not know yet where this army is and who heads it, but if we take the view that these people are part of the healthy opposition, if it were possible to have them join in the fight against terrorist organisations such as ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and others, this would help pave the way to a future political settlement in Syria.”

Since these comments were made we have learnt much more.

As Russia Insider has previously discussed, the event that triggered the Russian decision to intervene was confirmation from the US during the summer that the US was on the brink of declaring a no-fly zone over Syria.

That the US was on the brink of declaring a “no-fly zone” over Syria was not a secret and was confirmed by US officials and has been openly discussed by the Western media.

As we have previously discussed “no-fly zone” is today simply a euphemism for a US bombing campaign. The result of this bombing campaign would have been the overthrow of the Syrian government.

That this would have been the expected outcome of the “no-fly zone” has been confirmed – as we have reported – by Russia’s ambassador to Britain, who says that the Western powers told the Russians during the summer that the Syrian government would fall and that the Islamic State would be in occupation of Damascus by October.

Given the threat Russia perceives to itself from the violent jihadis in Syria, that was a catastrophe the Russians were not prepared to contemplate, which is why they intervened to prevent it.

Russia’s Objectives
The Russians have not only explained carefully why they intervened, but they have been painstaking in explaining what their intervention was intended to achieve.

Their objective was to do the things Putin said in his UN Speech: stop the Syrian government from collapsing and the Islamic State from reaching Damascus by October and gaining for the Syrian army the time and space it needed to recover from the losses it had suffered during the civil war so that it could prosecute the war against the jihadi terrorists and the Islamic State more effectively.

At no point however did the Russians commit themselves either to defeating the Islamic State and the jihadis by themselves, or to winning the civil war for President Assad.

Such a thing would have been contrary to their policy of seeking to end the Syrian conflict through negotiations by the parties, and of persuading Syria’s opposing parties to unite their forces and energies to fight the jihadi terrorists and the Islamic State.

Seeking to win the civil war for President Assad would also have gone against Russia’s political and military doctrines and philosophy of not intervening in other countries and of not seeking to shape their political destinies.

The intervention in Syria was carried out to protect Russian security and Russian national interests. It was not a grand US style geopolitical play, and it was never intended to be.

Back in November I discussed the limited nature of the Russians’ objectives in Syria based both on their actions in the country and on what they were doing diplomatically and on the things they had repeatedly said here.

Putin again explained it all clearly in a television interview he gave on 11th October 2015 to the journalist Vladimir Solovyov. Here is what he said:

“Vladimir Solovyov: The Syrian army has now gone on the offensive. What is their likelihood of success?

Vladimir Putin: This depends above all on the Syrian army itself and on the Syrian authorities.

We cannot commit ourselves to more than is reasonable and never have done so. I said from the start that our active operations on Syrian soil will be limited in time to the Syrian army’s offensive.

Coming back to your earlier question, our task is to stabilise the legitimate government and establish conditions that will make it possible to look for political compromise.

Vladimir Solovyov: Stabilisation through military means?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, through military means, of course. When you have ISIS and other such groups of international terrorists right next to the capital, who is going to want to look for a settlement with the Syrian authorities, sitting practically under siege right in their own capital?

On the contrary, if the Syrian army demonstrates its viability and, most important, its readiness to fight terrorism, and if it shows that the authorities can achieve this, this opens up much greater possibilities for reaching political compromises.”

Putin made it clear that the operation would be “limited in time to the Syrian army’s offensive” and that Russia was not making an open ended commitment and would not “commit (itself) to more than is reasonable and has never done so”.

Given the limited nature of the objective – to save the Syrian government, provide political space for the negotiations the Russians have called for since the start of the conflict in 2011, and to strengthen the Syrian army so that it could fight its jihadi enemies more effectively – it could not have been otherwise.

Putin himself never said how long the intervention was expected to last. However other Russian officials did that for him.

Back in October Alexey Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee of the State Duma – Russia’s parliament – estimated that it would last 3 to 4 months,

Given Russia’s military doctrine and philosophy, it is in fact a certainty the Russian military were promised the intervention would be limited in extent and duration.

The decision to start a partial withdrawal now when he objectives have in part been achieved (see below) and in rough accordance with the original timetable honours that promise.

Objective Achieved?

Have the Russians however achieved the objectives they set themselves in Syria?

If set against the limited objectives they actually set themselves – rather than the more grandiose objectives often attributed to them – the answer is – yes.

The US has been forced to abandon its plan for a no-fly zone. The Syrian government has been preserved. The Islamic State does not control Damascus. On the contrary it has been steadily losing territory, most of its routes to Turkey have been cut, its oil trade has been severely disrupted and its flow of volunteers has started to dry up.

More importantly the Syrian army has been considerably strengthened and has been able to go on the offensive. In his presentation to Putin where the withdrawal announcement was made Defence Minister Shoigu set out the results:

“The terrorists have been driven out of Latakia, communication has been restored with Aleppo, Palmyra is under siege and combat actions are being continued to liberate it from unlawful armed groups. We have cleared most of the provinces of Hama and Homs, unblocked the Kweires airbase, which was blocked for more than three years, established control over oil and gas fields near Palmyra: three large fields that, as of now, have begun to operate steadily.

In total, with support from our air force, the Syrian troops liberated 400 towns and over 10,000 square kilometres of territory. We have had a significant turning point in the fight against terrorism.”

The result – exactly as anticipated by Putin in his interview with Vladimir Solovyov in October – is that the Syrian opposition and its Western backers have finally agreed to sit down and talk to the Syrian government without imposing preconditions – something they had consistently refused to do up to now.

Here is how Foreign Minister Lavrov explained it all in his presentation to Putin at the same meeting.

“Our Aerospace Forces operation helped create conditions for the political process.

We have consistently advocated establishing an intra-Syrian dialogue in accordance with the decisions made in 2012. Our suggestions were met with a lack of will on the part of all our partners working on this process. But since the start of the operations by our Aerospace Forces, the situation began to change.

The initial steps were gradually taken, first based on your talks with US President Barack Obama: the Russian-American group began to prepare a broader process for external support for intra-Syrian talks.

An international Syria support group was created, which included all the key players without exception, including regional powers.

Agreements on the parameters for the Syrian political process achieved in this group were approved by two UN Security Council resolutions, which confirmed the three-way process of ceasing hostilities, broadening access to humanitarian supplies in previously besieged areas and starting intra-Syrian talks.

Thanks to these decisions, including your latest agreement with President Obama, today intra-Syrian talks between the Government delegation and delegations of multiple opposition groups have finally been launched in Geneva.

The work is difficult and we have yet to see how all these groups can gather at one table. For now, UN representatives are working individually with each of them, but the process has begun, and it is in our common interest to make it sustainable and irreversible.”

Given that what both Shoigu and Lavrov said to Putin is incontestably true, it was a forgone conclusion given the policy framework and the promises almost certainly given to the military, that Putin would order a partial withdrawal.

To have done otherwise would have breached the timetable and gone far beyond the policy, inviting criticism from the military and the foreign policy establishment and eventually from the Russian public.

A Partial Withdrawal from a Limited Commitment

The withdrawal is however far from total. The Russians are not abandoning Syria to its fate.

They will retain possession of the Tartus and Khmeimim naval and air bases. The naval and air defence forces – including the S400 anti aircraft missile system – will remain in place, preventing the resurrection of Western ideas for a no-fly zone, a fact grudgingly admitted in this bitter editorial in The Guardian.

Some supporters of the intervention – who assumed it was intended to be more extensive and open-ended than the Russians ever said it would be – are saying that the Russians lost their nerve and got cold feet and are being overly trusting and naive by pulling out prematurely before the jihadi forces in Syria have been completely destroyed, allowing the West to resume its regime change strategy.

What I would say about that is that people who say these things have clearly not familiarised themselves with the situation on the ground in Syria or with the things the Russians have said. Besides nothing has happened over the course of the intervention to make the Russians lose their nerve, and Russia’s leaders do not come across as trusting or naive people.

The continued presence of a significant Russian force in Syria – one far stronger than anyone would have imagined possible before last summer – anyway disproves this criticism.

It seems moreover that a reduced force of aircraft will – at least for the time being – continue to operate from Khmeimim air base.

In his presentation to Putin Defence Minister Shoigu spoke of “combat actions being undertaken to liberate (Palmyra)”. Reports from the Iranian Fars news agency have in fact confirmed Russian aircraft carried out bombing raids on Tuesday after the withdrawal announcement in support of the Syrian army as it fights to liberate the city.

Fars is also reporting further heavy Russian air strikes in Homs province, possibly in support of the Syrian army as it advances on the Islamic State’s capital of Raqqa.

A senior Russian military official at Khmeimim air base has in fact been reported as confirming that Russian bombing raids on jihadi terrorists would continue despite the partial withdrawal, though obviously at a reduced tempo.

What is perhaps being overlooked is that following the recent declaration of the truce the tempo of Russian bombing in Syria had already declined markedly even before the announcement of the partial withdrawal was made.

The reason for that almost certainly is that because of the truce the Russians now have fewer targets to bomb.

What this has means is that at the time of the partial withdrawal announcement the greater part of the Russian strike force at Khmeimim air base was actually standing idle.

The choice was whether to leave the aircraft standing idle at Khmeimim air base or to bring them back to Russian.

Not surprisingly, in light of everything previously said, the decision was taken to bring them back to Russia.

The Way Forward
What happens now?

It has been suggested that with the greater part of their objectives achieved the Russians are now going to switch emphasis from the military to the diplomatic approach and will concentrate on the diplomatic process in Geneva.

That is an exaggeration. As I have explained previously, the Russians do not separate diplomatic from military action in the way the Western powers do.

Not only is there no general ceasefire in Syria, but as Lavrov’s comments in his presentation to Putin show, the Russians are only too well aware of the fragility of the peace process. They are not therefore investing all their hopes in it.

The option of returning the strike force to Syria and resuming the bombing has not been ruled out, which is why the Russians are retaining the air base at Khmeimim.

Whilst the Russians would no doubt be very loathe to do that, if the situation ever becomes as critical as it did last summer no-one should doubt that they will.

More importantly the influx of Russian advisers and weapons – which has played a key role in transforming the Syrian military over the last few months – is going to continue.

It is this influx of advisers and weapons – almost as much as the bombing campaign itself – which has caused the situation in Syria to change so dramatically over the course of the last 5 months.

The Russians will also continue their peace-building effort on the ground in Syria to consolidate the truce and to win over local fighters to the anti-jihadi cause. Shoigu in his presentation to Putin gave the details:

“Organisations involved in this work as a result of the negotiation process have begun taking active steps to ensure the ceasefire (there are currently 42 such organisations); plus, an additional 40 towns that joined the ceasefire.

There is monitoring over observance of the ceasefire; a fairly large number of unmanned aerial vehicles – over 70 – are being used for this purpose, as are all means of gathering intelligence, including electronic intelligence and our satellite constellation.”

Critically, it is in conjunction with this effort, and with the continuing bombing to help Syrian troops in places like Palmyra, that the diplomatic effort and the peace process in Geneva are being pursued.

Will it Work?

The main criticism of the Russian withdrawal decision is that it has left the work half-done.

There is no guarantee the peace process in Geneva will come to fruition.

The jihadi opposition, though badly battered, is still standing and its morale is going to increase now that it thinks the Russians are withdrawing.

The Syrian opposition factions have not given up on their obsession to see President Assad removed, and have consistently shown throughout the conflict that they are far more motivated to remove him than they are to make peace with him or to make common cause with his army to fight the jihadis and the Islamic State.

The Turks, the Saudis and the hardliners in the US remain completely unreconciled and will undoubtedly try to exploit the opportunities created by the truce and the partial Russian withdrawal to put their regime change strategy back on track.

As for counting on the UN Security Council Resolutions that the Russians through painstaking diplomacy have secured (see here and here), previous experience shows that the US and its allies pay no heed to them.

There is force to all these arguments and the discussion between Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu at the meeting where the partial withdrawal was announced shows that the Russians are aware of them.

Against that the Russians have over the last 6 months demonstrated in the clearest possible way that the violent overthrow of the Syrian government – whether through outside action or internal insurgency – is for them a red line, and that they will act decisively to prevent it.

They have also shown in the clearest possible way that there is nothing anyone can do to stop them doing so.

What that means is that everyone except the most fanatical neocons or jihadis now must realise that President Assad cannot be removed by force, and that any attempt to do so will merely prolong the war and will end in defeat.

That provides a powerful incentive to compromise which did not exist before.

President Assad’s opponents both inside Syria and outside must also now reckon with the steady increase in strength of Syrian army, which over the last few days has shown that it is capable of continuing offensive operations on its own.

A refusal to compromise now risks eventual defeat, and that too is a powerful reason to compromise.

The truce and the US-Russian agreement which brought it about show that more and more people are coming round to accepting these facts. Whilst the announcement of Russia’s partial withdrawal might briefly stir hopes amongst some of them of a reversal, it will not take long before reality sinks in again, which is that none of the facts the Russians have created over the last 6 months have really been changed.

Since the Russians objective all along has been to look for ways to end the conflict through negotiations, it is understandable if for the moment they seem broadly satisfied with what has been achieved and seem more optimistic than they have been at any previous time in the conflict.

As for the Islamic State and the jihadis, I repeat what I said recently on Crosstalk, that if the Syrian government succeeds through its military efforts and through compromise with its opponents in consolidating its control of Syria’s cities it will find itself in a position of overwhelming strength.

At that point the jihadi movement and the Islamic State, left controlling what will be little more than empty desert and with their supply lines to Turkey largely cut, will find themselves in an untenable position and will quickly collapse.

I repeat what I have previously said here, that I think that the widely mooted option of partitioning Syria is simply unworkable and that it will not take long for those states that might be considering it to come to the same view (for an intelligently argued opposing view see here).

Conclusion

On balance I think therefore that the prospects for a degree of political stabilisation in Syria along the lines the Russians want are reasonably good.

It is probably expecting too much that there will be a complete end to the conflict. President Assad’s opponents – or at least those who claim to represent President Assad’s opponents and who are turning up to negotiate on their behalf in Geneva – are simply too intransigent for that.

However the politicians negotiating in Geneva are not necessarily representative of the opposition on the ground.

The fact the truce – against most expectations – has generally held suggests there has indeed been a shift in attitudes on the ground and that the realisation is spreading that because of Russian backing President Assad cannot be overthrown by force.

If so then it is possible that the bulk of the people who have been fighting him and who are not jihadis now understand that they have no alternative but to do a deal and compromise.

If that is correct then the politicians in Geneva may find that if they remain intransigent they risk losing their political base.

The elections President Assad has called for next month – almost certainly after consulting the Russians – may be intended to consolidate this process.

Certainly the prospects of a political stabilisation in Syria look to me better than they have ever been at any point since the conflict began.

If the political stabilisation takes place, then the Syrian army will finally be free to focus all its energies on fighting the Islamic State and the jihadis – as the Russians intend that it should.

In that case – with the Syrian government’s control restored over Syria’s cities – victory over the Islamic State and the jihadis would be only a matter of time.

The alternative would have been for the Russians to make an unlimited and qualified commitment to the Syrian government until final victory was achieved through military means against all of President Assad’s opponents and until all the armed jihadis in Syria had been crushed.

Whilst that might have delivered victory, it would have run greater risks of provoking a hostile international reaction – and possibly even a clash with the US and the Turks – and would have involved making a commitment to Syria that was far greater than the one the Russians promised or were prepared or were able to make.

It would also have run the risk of entrenching the Syrian regime in its pre-2011 form, which might have stored up more trouble for the future.

It is anyway ultimately unrealistic to expect the Russians to behave in ways that are contrary to the fundamental principles that govern their behaviour or to expect them to change those principles for Syria’s sake.

Contrary to what is often said pre-2011 Syria was not an ally of Russia. Its relations were much closer to the US and western Europe (especially France) than they were to Russia. The importance of the Tartus dockyard facility (it is not really a base) to Russia has been wildly overstated and Syria is not an important political or economic partner or even a close friend of Russia’s.

It is not therefore surprising that the Russians are not prepared to go beyond the traditional constraints on their policy on behalf of a government that was not especially friendly to them to start with.

Indeed the wonder is that they have gone as far as they have.

That they have been prepared to do so is because – as the Russians themselves say – doing so has been in Russia’s national interests.

Russia’s actions have however been shaped by the traditional framework within which the Russians carry out their policies.

It could not realistically have been otherwise, and that explains both why the Russians intervened when they did, why they did not intervene before and why they are partially withdrawing now.

A different country in the same situation might have acted differently and perhaps the outcome would have been better. It should not however cause surprise that Russia has instead acted like itself.

It is unrealistic to expect otherwise and given that the prospects of peace in Syria and the defeat of jihadism have never looked better one should be grateful for what has been given rather than regret what has never in fact been offered and which was never in reality possible.

Source: TASS
Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed to the proximity of positions Moscow and New Delhi take on acute international issues.

MOSCOW, December 24 /TASS/. Russia and India have voiced staunch support for Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a joint statement after talks in Moscow.

The sides agreed that the internal armed conflict in Syria cannot be resolved by force and can be settled only by political and diplomatic means – through substantive intra-Syrian dialogue without any preliminary conditions or external interference and on the basis of the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012.

The Joint Statement on results of multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of October 30, 2015 and a statement of the International Syria Support Group adopted on November 14, 2015, the document said.

Russia and India voiced resolute and decisive support for the people and government of Iraq in their efforts to overcome the current crisis and defend the country’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Russian and Indian leaders said in their joint statement stressing the importance of reaching national reconciliation and unity in Iraq by forming an inclusive state system and strengthening national democratic institutions by creation of relevant opportunities.

Moscow, New Delhi stand close on acute international issues Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed to the proximity of positions Moscow and New Delhi take on acute international issues.

“It is important Russia and India make similar approaches to key international problems. Our countries are for a political settlement of the conflict in Syria and promotion of national reconciliation in Afghanistan,” Putin told the media after talks with India’s visiting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“We are certain that it is in the interests of the world community to form a wide anti-terrorist coalition operating on the basis of international law and under the auspices of the United Nations,” Putin said.

The Russian leader said that Moscow would like to see India’s still greater role in addressing global and regional issues. “We believe that India is a great power that conducts a balanced and responsible foreign policy and is one of the most worthy candidates for taking the seat of a permanent member on the UN Security Council,” Putin said. He recalled that Moscow had “strongly supported India’s accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and that the two countries were actively cooperating within the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), where India will take the rotating presidency in February 2016.

Source: SANA
Damascus – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the Spanish EFE news agency in which he stressed that the Russians’ values and interests in their policy towards Syria are not in contradiction, noting that as long as the US is not serious in fighting the terrorists, the West won’t be serious.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Question 1: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your hospitality and for giving the Spanish News Agency EFE the opportunity to understand what is the situation in your country. Okay, on November 14th, the world powers, including Russia and Iran, agreed in Vienna on a timetable for a political solution for the Syria crisis. According to this timetable, the negotiations between your government and the moderate opposition should start on January 1st. Are you ready to start those negotiations?

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria. Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, we adopted the dialogue approach with every party that is involved in the Syrian conflict, and we dealt positively, responded positively, to every initiative that has been launched by different states around the world regardless of the real intention and the genuineness of the people or the officials who started those initiatives. So, we were ready, and we are ready today to start the negotiations with the opposition. But it depends on the definition of opposition. Opposition, for everyone in this world, doesn’t mean militant. There’s a big difference between militants, terrorists, and opposition. Opposition is a political term, not a military term. So, talking about the concept is different from the practice, because so far, we’ve been seeing that some countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United States, and some Western countries wanted the terrorist groups to join these negotiations. They want the Syrian government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don’t think anyone would accept in any country.

Question 2: Would you be ready to negotiate, to dialogue, with the opposition groups that are right now gathering in Riyadh?

President Assad: It’s the same, because they are a mixture of political opposition and militants. Let me be realistic; regarding the militants in Syria, we already had some dialogue with some groups, not organizations, for one reason, and the reason was to reach a situation where they give up their armaments and either join the government or go back to their normal life, having amnesty from the government. This is the only way to deal with the militants in Syria.

Whenever they want to change their approach, give up the armaments, we are ready, while to deal with them as a political entity, this is something we completely refuse. This is first. Regarding what they call political opposition, you as a Spanish [person], when you look at the opposition in your country, it’s self-evident that the opposition is a Spanish opposition, is related to the Spanish grassroots, Spanish citizens. It cannot be opposition while it’s related and beholden to any other country, to a foreign country, no matter which country. So, again, it depends on which group are we talking about in Saudi Arabia. People that have been made as opposition in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in France, in the UK, in the US. So, as a principle, we have to, we are ready, but at the end, if you want to reach something, to have successful and fruitful dialogue, you need to deal with the real, patriotic, national opposition that has grassroots in Syria and is only related to the Syrian people, not to any other state or regime in the world.

Question 3: Will the Syrian delegation attend the conference in New York in case this conference was confirmed, in the next weeks?

There’s no point of meeting in New York or anywhere else without defining terrorist groups

President Assad: It’s not confirmed yet. The recent Russian statement said they preferred it to be, I think, in Vienna. This is first. Second, they said it’s not appropriate before defining which are the terrorist groups and which are not, which is very realistic and logical. For us, in Syria, everyone who holds a machinegun is a terrorist, so without defining this term, reaching a definition, there’s no point of just meeting in New York, or anywhere else.

Question 4: Okay, Mr. President, in your opinion, what can be done to put an end to “Daesh?”

President Assad: This is a very complicated issue, not because of ISIS, because ISIS is an organization. There’s something more dangerous to be dealt with, which is the reasons. First of all, the ideology, something that’s been instilled in the minds of the people or the society in the Muslim world for decades now, because of the Wahabi institutions, because of the Saudi money that’s been paid to support this kind of dark and resentful ideology. Without dealing with this ideology, it’s just a waste of time to say we are going to deal with Daesh or al-Nusra or any other organization that belongs to Al Qaeda. Daesh-Al Qaeda and al-Nusra-Al Qaeda, and you have many other organizations that have the same ideology.

So, this is something that should be dealt with on the long term; how to prevent those Wahabi institutions and Saudi money from reaching the Muslim institutions around the world in order to have more extremism and terrorism spreading around the world. This is first. Second, we have to talk about the short term and dealing with the situation now, Daesh in Syria and Iraq, mainly. Of course, fighting terrorism is another self-evident answer to that question, but we are talking about an ideology and an organization that has unlimited ability to recruit terrorists from around the world. In Syria, we have more than 100 nationalities fighting with the extremists and terrorists,

Al Qaeda and al-Nusra and others. The first step we should take in order to solve this problem is to stop the flood of terrorists, especially through Turkey to Syria and to Iraq, and of course we have to stop the flowing of money, Saudi money and other Wahabi money and Qatari money to those terrorists through Turkey, and the armaments, and every other logistical support. This is how we can start, then later, if you want to talk about the rest, it could be political, it could be economic, it could be cultural, it has many aspects, but for the time being, we have to start with stopping the flow, and at the same time fighting terrorists from within Syria by the Syrian Army and by whoever wants to support the Syrian Army.

Question 5: Who buys the oil from Daesh? Which countries are behind Daesh?

Turkey is the only lifeline for ISIS

President Assad: The Russians last week published on TV pictures and videos of trucks carrying oil crossing the Syrian-Turkish borders. Of course, the Turks denied this, it’s very easy to deny, but let’s think about the reality. Most of the oil in Syria is in the northern part of Syria. If they want to export it to Iraq, that’s impossible, because every party in Iraq is fighting ISIS. In Syria, it’s the same. In Lebanon, it’s very far. Jordan in the south is very far. So, the only lifeline for ISIS is Turkey. Those trucks moving the oil from Syria to Turkey, and Turkey selling this cheap oil to the rest of the world. I don’t think anyone has any doubt about this indubitable reality.

Question 6: Which countries are behind Daesh?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are the main perpetrators in the atrocities of ISIS

President Assad: You have states, mainly Saudi Arabia, because both this country and this organization do the beheading, both following the Wahabi ideology, both of them reject anyone who is not like them; not only not Muslim, but who is Muslim but not like them. That Muslim could belong to the same sect, but if he’s not like them, he’s rejected. So, Saudi Arabia is the main supporter of this kind of organization. Of course, you have figures, you have different people who have the same ideology or same belief, they send money privately, but it’s not only who sends the money, who facilitates the reaching of the money to those organizations. How could organizations considered [to be] terrorist around the world like ISIS or al-Nusra have hundreds of millions, to have this recruits, to have a nearly full army like any other state, if they don’t have direct support, source of money, and direct support like Turkey in particular. So, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Qatar are the main perpetrators in the atrocities of ISIS.

Question 7: Yesterday we saw the mortars falling near Damascus. It seems that this fighting is far from ending. When do you think that the war will be over in Syria?

Pressure Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and this conflict will end in less than a year

President Assad: If you want to talk about the Syrian conflict as an isolated conflict with the same situation now, the same Syrian troops and Syria’s allies, and the terrorists from the other side, we could end it in a few months. It’s not very complicated in either meaning, whether militarily or politically. It’s not complicated. But as long as you’re talking about a lifeline that isn’t being suffocated for those terrorists, having recruits on daily basis, in every sense, money, armaments, human resources, everything, that will make it much longer. Of course it’s going to have a heavy price. But at the end, we are making advancement. I’m not saying that we’re not making advancement. The situation on the military level is much better than before, but again, the price is very high. That’s why I said earlier if you want to end it shorter, and most of the world is saying now they want to see an end to this crisis, okay, make pressure on those countries that, you know them, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, then this conflict will end in less than a year, definitely.

Question 8: Is there any kind of military coordination between the Syrian Army and the bombing attacks of the US-led coalition?

Russian and Syrian armies achieved in a few weeks much better than the US-led alliance

President Assad: Not at all, not at all, not a single connection regarding this sector, let’s say, military sector. That’s why, for more than one year now, they’ve been bombing ISIS, and at the same time ISIS is expanding, because you cannot deal with terrorists from the air. You have to deal with them from the ground, and that’s why when the Russians came and started their participation in the war against terrorism, the achievement of the Russian and Syrian armies in a few weeks was much better than the alliance has achieved during more than a year, and actually didn’t achieve anything to say more, because they were supporting ISIS, maybe indirectly, because it was expanding, and you have more recruits coming. So, we cannot say that they achieved something in reality.

Question 9: What do you think about Obama’s role in this crisis?

As long as the US is not serious in fighting the terrorists, the West won’t be serious

President Assad: Let’s talk about the American administration, because Obama, at the end, is part of the administration. You have lobbies in the United States. From the very beginning, the United States provided those terrorists with different political covers. At the very beginning they called them “peaceful demonstrations” then when they appeared that they are terrorists they said they are “moderate terrorists,” then at the end they have to say that you have ISIS and al-Nusra, but at the end, they’re not objective, they don’t dare to say that they were wrong. They don’t dare to say that Qatar at the very beginning, and then Saudi Arabia, have misled them. This is first. Second, as long as the United States is not serious in fighting the terrorists, we cannot expect the rest of the West to be serious, because they are the allies of the United States, and so far, in brief, let’s say, the role of the Americans in that situation is not to destroy ISIS or the extremism or the terrorism, and Obama said it; he said he wants to contain it. What does it mean? It means to allow you to move somewhere, while not to let you go somewhere else. It’s like to define the border of the harmful effect of ISIS. So, we don’t think that the Americans are genuine in fighting the terrorism.

Question 10: And what about French President Francois Hollande? He has talked about destroying ISIS. Do you think that at some point at the end, the French will cooperate with your government?

President Assad: Look at what he did after the recent shootings in Paris last month. They started, the French aircrafts, started attacking ISIS with heavy bombardments. They said they wanted to fight – he said we’re going to be in a war with terrorism. What does it mean? It means before the shootings, they weren’t in a war with terrorism. Why didn’t they do the same before the war? It means this heavy bombardment is just to dissipate the anger within the French public opinion, not to fight terrorism. If you want to fight terrorism, you don’t wait for a shooting in order to fight terrorism. Fighting terrorism is a principle. It’s not a transient situation where you feel you’re angry and you want to attack the terrorists. You have to have value, principle, in order to defeat it, and it should be a sustainable kind of fighting. So, this is another proof that the French are not serious in fighting terrorism.

Question 11: And what do you think about the EU in general? The EU position on this conflict? Could Europe do something more inside Europe against Jihadist groups?

Europe can play a role, but it is now just a satellite to the US policy

President Assad: Of course they can, definitely. They have the ability, but it’s not only about the ability; it’s about the will. The question that we’ve been asking – not only during the crisis, before the crisis, for the last, let’s say, more than ten years, especially after the war on Iraq: does Europe exist politically anymore, or is it just a satellite to the United States policy? So far, we don’t see any independent political position. Some, you have some cases, let’s say, we don’t put everyone in one basket, and the proof is the relation between Europe and Russia. The United States pushed Europe to do something against its interests, to make embargo on Russia. This is not realistic, not logical. So, of course it can, of course it has interest to fight terrorism like we have the same interest, and the recent shooting and what happened in Madrid in 2004 and 2001 in New York and then in London, and recently in California, this is proof that everyone has interest to do, but who has the will and who has the vision? That is the question that I don’t have an answer about it now, but in the meantime, I’m not optimistic about this will.

Question 12: What has President Vladimir Putin asked of you in return for Russian military aid?

President Putin didn’t ask for anything in return for Russian military aid

President Assad: He didn’t ask for anything in return for a simple reason; because it’s not a trade. Actually, the normal relation between two countries is a relation about mutual interest. The question is what is the mutual interest between Syria and Russia? Does Russia have interest in having more terrorism in Syria? The collapse of the Syrian state? Anarchy? No, they don’t have. So, let’s say in return, Russia have the stability of Syria, of Iraq, of our region – we’re not far from Russia, of Russia, and let me go far beyond that, of Europe. Russia now, in Syria, they are defending Europe directly, and again, the recent terrorist events in Europe is the proof that what’s going on here will affect them positively and negatively.

Question 13: Okay, has Putin asked you to resign your position of president at some point?

Staying in or leaving office depends on the Syrian people’s option

President Assad: First of all, the question is: what is the relation between the president staying in power or resigning with the conflict? That is the first question we have to ask. This kind of personalizing the problem just to be used as a cover to say that “there’s no problem with the terrorism, no country interfering from the outside, sending money and armaments to the Syrian rebels in order to make chaos and anarchy. Actually, this is a president who wants to stay in power and people who are fighting for freedom, and he’s oppressing them and killing them, and that’s why they are revolting.” This is a very romantic picture for, let’s say, teenagers, like a love story for teenagers. Reality is not like this. The question is if it’s part of the solution in Syria. Political solution, that means when I say political solution doesn’t mean Western or external; it should be a Syrian solution. When the Syrian people doesn’t want you to be a president, you have to leave the same day, not the other day. The same day. This is a principle for me. If I think that I can help my country, especially in a crisis, and the Syrian people still support me – I don’t say the Syrian people; the majority of the Syrian people to be more precise – of course I have to stay. That’s self-evident.

Question 14: As a hypothesis, would you accept the possibility of leaving Syria in the future and leaving to a friendly country if this was the condition for a final political arrangement?

President Assad: For me leaving the position?

Question 15: Leaving the position and leaving Syria.

President Assad: No, leaving Syria, I never thought about leaving Syria under any circumstances, in any situation, something I never put in my mind, like the Americans say “plan B” or “plan C.” Actually, no. But again, the same answer: that depends on the Syrian population; would they support you or not? If you have the support, it means you’re not the problem, because if you are the problem as a person, the Syrian people will be against you. What’s the point of the people, of the majority, supporting you, while you are the reason of the conflict? This is the first aspect. The second aspect, if I have a problem with the Syrians, with the majority of the Syrians, and you have the national and regional countries being against me, and the West, most of the West, the United States, their allies, the strongest countries and the richest countries in the world against me, and I’m against the Syrian people, how can I be president? It’s not logical. I’m being here after five years – nearly five years – of the war, because I have the support of the majority of the Syrians.

Question 16: Is it true that Russia will have another military base in Syria?

If there will be another Russian military base in Syria, they would have announced it

President Assad: No, that’s not true, and two days ago, they denied this allegation. If there is, they would have announced it, and we would have announced it at the same time, so no.

Question 17: Are the Iranians planning to build here their own military base?

President Assad: No. They never thought about it, never discussed this.

Question 18: Okay. Is it possible to include President Erdogan in solution for the crisis? What is the role of Turkey in this crisis?

Erdogan is a Muslim Brotherhood ideological person, we don’t expect him to change

President Assad: As a principle, if he’s willing to get away from his criminal attitude that he’s been adopting since the beginning of the crisis by supporting the terrorists in every way, we don’t have a problem. We don’t have a problem. At the end, we will be ready to welcome any help or positive participation from anywhere. That’s in principle. So, whoever’s been complicit against Syria, we don’t havea problem with, but do we expect Erdogan to change? No, for one reason, because Erdogan is a Muslim Brotherhood ideological person, so he cannot go against his ideology. He’s not a pragmatic man who thinks about the interests of his country. He’s working against the interests of his country for the sake of his ideology, whether it’s realistic or not. So we don’t expect Erdogan to change in that way.

Question 19: Mr. President, US Secretary of State John Kerry has announced recently that he will travel to Moscow to see President Putin and the Russian Foreign Minister. Don’t you fear that a kind of trade between the US and Moscow, Ukraine against Syria, could be in preparation?

No Russia-West deal against Syria, Russia’s policy towards Syria is based on values and interests

President Assad: No, because it’s been now nearly five years, and we’ve been hearing that argument, or let’s say, kind of, how to say, idea, by the Western officials, just to make a wedge, a kind of wedge between Syria and Russia. The Russians are pragmatic, but at the same time they are adopting a moral policy based on values and principles, not only on interests, and the good thing in their position is that there’s no conflict or contradiction between their values and their interests. This is first. Second, The Russians know very well that any solution, if there’s a trade for example for the solution, any solution cannot be implemented if it’s not a compromise between the Syrians. So, Russia and the United States and any other country in this world cannot make a deal; we can make the deal with ourselves, Syrians can make a deal with the Syrians, can make dialogue with the Syrians. That’s what the Russians know very well. That’s why they don’t make such mistakes, beside the values that they have.

Question 20: In relation with Turkey again, what do you see about the downing of the Russian aircraft by Turkey? Was it an accident or premeditated?

President Assad: Since the Russian military participation in Syria regarding fighting against the terrorists’ organizations, the situation on the ground has changed in a positive way, and for Erdogan, that would bring his ambitions to failure, and if Erdogan failed in Syria, as he looked at it, that would be his political demise; it is like sounding the death knell of his political future, his ambitions to make Turkey the hub for the Brotherhood in the region by having a Brotherhood government and having following or satellite Brotherhood governments around the world. He thinks the last bastion of his dream is Syria. If he failed in Syria, as he failed in Egypt and as he failed in other places, he will think that this is the end of his career. So, his reaction was an unwise reaction but reflected not his way of thinking, but actually his instinct, his visceral instinct towards the Russian issue. This is the first part of the shooting. The second one, he thought the NATO would help him, and he would bring the NATO to conflict with Russia and the result would be more complicated situation in Syria on the ground, and may be his dream of having a no-fly zone where he can send those terrorists to Syria and they can use them as another state in front of the legitimate state here in Syria. That was his ambition, his way of thinking, as we think, and his plan in Syria.

Question 21: Mr. President, the US holds you responsible for the civil war and the rise of terrorism in Syria. Your enemies blame you for the death of 250 thousand in Syria since the beginning of the war. They also accused you of attacking opposition groups and civilians. How you defend yourself against those accusations?

President Assad: Actually, you cannot shoot yourself in the foot. Now the whole war in Syria, since the beginning of the conflict, was about who is going to bring more Syrians to his side. That was the war from the very beginning. How can you shoot the people and get their support? This is impossible. But at the same time, there is no good war; every war is a bad war. So whenever you have a war – something you should avoid but you cannot avoid – any war, will have civilian casualties, will have innocent casualties. This is a very bad and dangerous aspect in any war. That is why we have to end the war. While to say that the government attacked the civilians, what is the point, what do you get from attacking the civilians? Actually, the reality if you want to go around in Syria, you will be surprised that most of the families of the militants, they don’t live with them, they live under the umbrella of the government, and they get the support of the government, which is another proof that we don’t work against the civilians or kill them, otherwise they would not come to the government’s side. So, those allegations are false allegations.

Question 22: Mr. President, we want you to send a message to the Syrian refugees that have fled the country, many of them fled to Europe and even to Spain. What message do you have for them?

European governments’ embargo and support to terrorists created the migration issue

President Assad: Most of those refugees have contact with their families in Syria, so we’re still in contact with them. The majority of those refugees are government supporters, but they left because of the situation created by the terrorists, the direct threatening, killing, and because the terrorists destroyed the infrastructure, and by the embargo by the West on Syria where the basic life needs are not affordable anymore. So, actually, I don’t have to send them a message to them because they are going to come back when the situation is better. Most of them like their country, they love this country. Actually, the message I would like to send is to the European governments: they brought them, they created the situation, they helped the terrorists, and they made the embargo that has played directly into the hands of those terrorists and helped those people leaving Syria to other countries. So, if you are working for the sake of the Syrian people, as you said, the first thing you do is to lift the embargo. The second thing to do is to stop the flooding of terrorists. So, I think the message to the western governments who helped them going and live in their countries.

Question 23: Would you pardon the terrorists if they lay down their weapons?

President Assad: Of course, that is already happening in Syria. What we called “the reconciliation” is the only real political solution that has reached fruitful solution and positive reality in different places in Syria. The crux of the reconciliation is based on them giving up their armaments as terrorists and the government gives them amnesty or pardon. Of course, this the only way, and this is the good way I think to solve the problem.

Question 24: Okay, two last questions; if you go back to March 2011, would you make any different decisions?

President Assad: On daily basis, as a human, every day you have something you wish you did it in a better way. That is natural, because you have a lot of details, but if we want to talk about the pillars of our policy, it depends on two things. First of all, dialogue from the very first day, although we believed that it wasn’t about political problems at the very beginning, in spite of that we said we are ready for political dialogue, we are ready to change the constitution, we are ready to change many laws, and we did it, we did in 2012, the next year after the conflict has begun. At the same time, from the very beginning we said we are going to fight terrorism and terrorists. There is no way to change either to adopt dialogue or fight terrorism. Anything else is not a pillar, I mean if you talk about the daily practice, of course you have to do a lot of mistakes in daily practice whether my practice and other institutions’ practice or other official’s practice, that’s self-evident, there’s nothing in my mind now, but maybe one of the things I wouldn’t do it again is to trust many officials, Western or regional, Arabs, or like Turkish or others, to trust them, to think that they really wanted to help Syria at some point. This is one of the things that I wouldn’t do gain.

Question 25: How do you explain to your children what is happening in Syria? Would you like them to follow your footsteps?

President Assad: To follow my steps in politics you mean?

Question 26: Yes.

President Assad: I think politics is not a job, and it is not a book you read, and it is not a specialty you do at the university. So, you cannot teach your children to be politicians; you can teach them a job. Actually, politics is everything in life; it is the sum of economy, society, culture, everything, and the fact that you live on a daily basis. So as a result, that depends on the path of your children if they go in that regard. For me, the most important thing is to help them in helping their country, but how? Should they be politicians in the future, or should they be in any other job? This is not a very important issue for me. But I wouldn’t try to influence them; they have to choose their path. I have to explain as much as I can from our reality about our country so that they can read it very well and they can decide which path they want to follow.

Journalist: Thank you very much Mr. President for the interview and for your time.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria

By Pepe Escobar
Source: CounterPunch
The so-called Islamic State should have learned by now: they’ve picked a fight against the wrong guys. We have entered “take no prisoners” territory. For Russia, now all the gloves are off.

Especially after online terrorist magazine Dabiq published a photo of the alleged bomb that downed the Metrojet: a crude device inside a can of Schweppes Gold, placed under a passenger seat. Also published were photos of passports of Russian victims, allegedly taken “by the mujahedeen.”

Their collective fate was sealed the minute the Director of the Federal Security Service Aleksandr Bortnikov told President Putin, about the Metrojet crash on October 31 in Egypt that: “We can say with confidence that this was a terrorist act.”

Caliphate goons may run – in the deserts of ‘Syraq’ and beyond – but they can’t hide, as per Russia’s presidential message: “We will search for them everywhere – wherever they are hiding. We will find them in any spot on the planet and we will punish them.” The message comes with extra enticement; the $50 million bounty offered by the FSB for any information leading to the perpetrators of the Sinai tragedy.

Putin’s message instantly turned heavy metal in the form of a massive, impressive Russian barrage over 140 Caliphate targets, delivered via 34 air-launched cutting-edge cruise missiles and furious action by Tu-160, Tu-22, and the Tu-95MC‘Bear’ strategic bombers. This was the first time the Russian long-range strategic bomber force has been deployed since the 1980s Afghan jihad.

And there’s more coming – to be stationed in Syria; an extra deployment of 25 strategic bombers, eight Su-34 ‘Fullback’attack aircraft, and four Su-27 ‘Flanker’ fighter jets.

The tanker truck riddle

At the G-20 in Antalya, Putin had already, spectacularly, unveiled who contributes to Daesh’s financing – complete with“examples based on our data on the financing of different [Daesh] units by private individuals.”

The bombshell: Daesh’s cash, “as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them.” It doesn’t take a Caltech genius to figure out which members. They’d better take the “you can run but you can’t hide” message seriously.

Additionally, Putin debunked – graphically – to the whole G20 the myth of a Washington seriously engaged on the fight against Daesh: “I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil.” He was referring to Daesh’s oil smuggling tanker truck fleet, which numbers over 1,000.

Apparently acting on Russian satellite intelligence, the Pentagon then miraculously managed to find tanker truck convoys stretching “beyond the horizon,” smuggling out stolen Syrian oil. And duly bombed 116 trucks. For the first time. And this in over a year that the ‘Coalition of the Dodgy Opportunists’ (CDO) is theoretically fighting Daesh. The only such bombing that happened before was by the Iraqi Air Force.

The US “strategy”, which Obama recently turbocharged, is to bomb (aging) Syrian oil infrastructure currently expropriated and exploited by Daesh. Technically, this is the property of Damascus, and thus belongs to “the Syrian people.”

And yet Washington seemed so far to be more focused on other “people” who could make a bundle rebuilding the devastated infrastructure, disaster capitalism-style, in case “Assad must go” works.

Russia once again went straight to the point. Bomb the transportation network – the oil truck convoys – not the oil infrastructure. That will eventually drive oil smugglers out of business.

The key reason the Obama administration had not thought about this before is Turkey. Washington needs NATO member Ankara for the use of the Incirlik air base. And then there’s the sensitive subject of who profits from Daesh’s oil smuggling.

Turkish Socialist party member Gursel Tekin has established that Daesh’s smuggled oil is exported to Turkey by BMZ, a shipping company controlled by none other than Bilal Erdogan, son of “Sultan” Erdogan. At a minimum, this violates UN Security Council resolution 2170. Under the light of Putin’s message of going after anyone or any entity engaged in facilitating Daesh’s operations, Erdogan’s clan better come up with some really good excuses.

That jihadi boot camp

Putin’s vow to go after anyone or any entity that facilitates/collaborates with Daesh should logically imply a trip back to‘Shock and Awe 2003’: the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq that created the conditions for the establishment of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, “directed” by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi up to 2006.

The next significant step was Camp Bucca, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq; a mini-Guantanamo where at least nine members of the future metastasis of al-Qaeda – Islamic State (IS) – was spawned.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was born in an American prison. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a.k.a. Caliph Ibrahim did time there, as well as Daesh’s previous number two, Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, and most of all Daesh’s conceptualizer: Haji Bakr, a former colonel in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force.

Hardcore Salafi-jihadist meet former Ba’athist notables and find a common purpose; an offer the Pentagon could not refuse and in fact – willfully – let prosper. GWOT (the Global War on Terror), after all, is a Cheney-Rumsfeld-coined“Endless War”.

The US neocon regime change obsession ended up bolstering Daesh’s reach in Syria.

The whole process exhibits multiple ramifications of imperial folly, past and future, that can be identified like splinters from a suicide bomb; from CIA-trained/weaponized, Wahhabi-drenched mujahedeen (“Reagan’s freedom fighters”) metastasizing into ‘Al-CIAada’, to Hillary Clinton admitting Saudi Arabia is a top source of terrorist financing.

Paris 2015 – as well as Sinai 2015 – essentially is a side effect of Baghdad 2003. Putin knows it. For now, the task is to smash those mongrel imperial offspring once and for all.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). His latest book is Empire of Chaos. He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

By Finian Cunningham
Source: Sputnik News
Almost everyone now recognises that Russia’s military intervention in Syria to defeat the so-called Islamic State terror group was the right call to make. Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t crowing about it. He doesn’t have to.

Putin’s vindication was made clear by the enthusiastic reception afforded to him at the summit of G20 leaders in Turkey last weekend. The Financial Times headlined: “Putin transformed from outcast to problem solver at G20”.

The paper went on to note that: “An audience with the Russian president was one of the hottest tickets in town, as Western leaders were forced to recognise the road to peace in Syria inevitably runs through Moscow.”

Even US President Barack Obama was seen to confer with Putin as the two leaders held an impromptu and earnest face-to-face discussion on the sidelines of the summit.

It was a constructive encounter with none of the antagonism that Washington has all too often displayed towards Putin over the past year. The Paris terror assault – with 129 dead and hundreds wounded in simultaneous gun and bomb attacks – no doubt concentrated the minds of world leaders attending the G20 conference, held in Turkey’s Antalya only two days after the mass killings.

The atrocity was claimed by the Islamic State terror network (also known as ISIS or ISIL), with seven of its operatives killed in the suicide attacks. Days later, the conclusion by Russian investigators this week that a terrorist bomb was the cause of the

Russian civilian airliner crash on October 31 over Egypt’s Sinai desert – with the loss of all 224 people onboard – has only added to the grim public realisation about ISIL and its affiliates. French President Francois Hollande – who skipped the G20 summit due to the emergency situation unfolding at home – appealed this week for a “global coalition to defeat Islamic State”.

This was made during a special address to both upper and lower houses of the French parliament at the Palace of Versailles. The French leader called on the US and Russia to join forces, along with France and other countries. Hollande is to fly to Washington on November 24 to discuss with Obama how to coordinate efforts at combating ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

Two days after that, the French president is due in Moscow to hold the same discussion with Putin. Putin has already acknowledged the appeal from Hollande, saying that he welcomes closer cooperation, adding that Russia has been consistently calling for a greater joint effort in combating terrorism.

Putin has even reportedly offered Russian naval coordination with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the eastern Mediterranean for future airstrikes against ISIL. Within days of the Paris massacre, French warplanes launched extensive strikes against Islamic State bases in eastern Syria.

Russia and its Syrian ally have pointed out that previous military strikes by the US and France are in violation of international law since these operations do not have consent from the government in Damascus. It remains to be seen then how Russia would coordinate military operations with France in Syria owing to the legal implications.

Since the Paris mayhem, several French political figures and former military intelligence personnel have urged Hollande to re-think policy on Syria.

Opposition leader Nicolas Sarkozy, among others, said that “to not coordinate with Russia is absurd”. A think-tank, CF2R, with close links to French military intelligence, also advised the Hollande government to view the Syrian leader not as the enemy, and to dedicate efforts, in conjunction with Russia, on destroying the ISIL and related groups.

In other words, Russia is being proven right about its intervention in Syria. The most effective way to defeat the terror networks of ISIL and other jihadist groups like the Nusra Front is to support the Syrian state, to coordinate with the Syrian Arab Army on the ground, and to target the militants with a full-on campaign.

That is why Putin was received at the G20 summit with a newfound respect among other leaders. When Putin ordered the Russian military intervention in Syria, beginning on September 30, it was not done in half-measures. In a matter of weeks, the Russian air force has achieved more in terms of wiping out terror groups than the US-led coalition did in more than a year of airstrikes.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted in an interview this week that the US-led bombing supposedly against the Islamic State has been ineffective due to its conflicting priorities. Lavrov said that since August 2014, the Western so-called anti-ISIL coalition was focused on “weakening” the Damascus government and therefore it did not strike decisively at ISIL formations because they are seen as assets in the Western effort for regime change.

Some analysts go further and argue that the Islamic State and associated jihadist mercenaries are the result of covert Western sponsorship of these groups.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf Arab states are also known to have been major funders and facilitators of the jihadist brigades. Putin highlighted these links at the G20 summit when he announced that the financing of the terror networks in Syria has come from “40 states, including members of the G20”.

Thus, while Russia has been vindicated in its strategy and tactics on Syria, the appeal for a “global coalition” against terror has intrinsic limits. This is because key Western powers and their regional allies are committed in principle against such a Russian-defined front.

The United States, Britain and France are among those states insisting that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to relinquish power, sooner or later. Russia rejects that demand as a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

These Western states are also known to have supplied weapons, at least indirectly, to the jihadist terror groups.

British leader David Cameron complained at the G20 summit that Russia has hit “non-ISIL opposition to Assad – people who could be part of the future of Syria.” But who or where are these “non-ISIL” groups that Cameron says “could be part of the future of Syria”?

When Russia has asked the West for information and locations on “moderate rebels” to avoid in its airstrikes, the West has refused to provide any details.

France is as guilty as any other of the foreign states for fuelling a covert war in Syria that has spawned the terror problem of Islamic State and its affiliates. A problem that has, in turn, rebounded with horrific results outside of Syria’s borders, killing hundreds of French and Russian citizens in only the past three weeks.

Vladimir Putin has demonstrated true leadership on tackling terrorism in Syria and beyond. As the old English proverb goes: cometh the hour, cometh the man.

However, the more troubling problem is this: how many other statesmen are ready and willing to do the decent thing and follow the Russian lead? Russia’s policy on Syria is the morally and legally correct one.

The Paris and Russian airliner massacres, as well as other recent terrorist atrocities in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and other countries, cry out for a real anti-terror effort based on respecting sovereignty and abiding by international law.

That challenge will expose those states that have built their policies on Syria out of deeply criminal objectives and methods.

By Mike Whitney
Source: CounterPunch
Why is John Kerry so eager to convene an emergency summit on Syria now when the war has been dragging on for four and a half years?

Is he worried that Russia’s air campaign is wiping out too many US-backed jihadis and sabotaging Washington’s plan to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad?

You bet, he is. No one who’s been following events in Syria for the last three weeks should have any doubt about what’s really going on. Russia has been methodically wiping out Washington’s mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. That, in turn, has strengthened Assad’s position in Damascus and left the administration’s policy in tatters. And that’s why Kerry wants another meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pronto even though the two diplomats met less than a week ago. The Secretary of State is hoping to cobble together some kind of makeshift deal that will stop the killing and salvage what’s left of Uncle Sam’s threadbare Syrian project.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Iran had been invited to the confab which will be held in Vienna on Thursday. The announcement is bound to be ferociously criticized on Capital Hill, but it just shows to what extent Russia is currently setting the agenda. It was Lavrov who insisted that Iran be invited, and it was Kerry who reluctantly capitulated. Moscow is now in the drivers seat.

And don’t be surprised if the summit produces some pretty shocking results too, like a dramatic 180 on Washington’s “Assad must go” demand. As Putin has pointed out many times before, Assad’s not going anywhere. He’s going to be a part of Syria’s “transitional governing body” when the Obama team finally agrees to the Geneva Communique which is the political track that will eventually end the fighting, restore security, and allow millions of refugees to return to their homes.

The reason the administration is going to agree to allow Assad to stay, is because if they don’t, the Russian Airforce is going to continue to blow US-backed mercenaries to smithereens. So, you see, Obama really has no choice in the matter. Putin has put a gun to his head and made him an offer he can’t refuse.

That doesn’t mean the war is going to be a cakewalk for Russia or its allies. It won’t be. In fact, there have already been some major setbacks, like the fact that ISIS just seized a critical section the Aleppo-Khanasser highway, cutting off the government’s supply-lines to Aleppo. This is a serious problem, but it is not a problem that can’t be overcome nor is it a problem that will effect the outcome of the war. It’s just one of the obstacles that has to be dealt with and surpassed. Taking a broader view, the outlook is much more encouraging for the Russian-led coalition which continues to cut off supply-lines, blow up ammo dumps and fuel depots, and rapidly eviscerate the ability of the enemy to wage war. So, while the war is certainly not a walk in the park, there’s no doubt about who’s going to win.

And that might explain why the US decided to bomb Aleppo’s main power plant last week plunging the entire city into darkness; because Obama wants to “rubblize” everything on his way out. Keep in mind, that the local water treatment plants require electrical power, so by blowing up the plant, Obama has condemned tens of thousands of civilians to cholera and other water-born diseases. Apparently, our hospital-nuking president isn’t bothered by such trivial matters as killing women and children. Now check this out from the Daily Star:

“U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq and Syria carried out a large-scale attack on Syria’s Omar oil field as part of its mission to target ISIS’s ability to generate money, a coalition spokesman said Thursday.

Operations officer Maj. Michael Filanowski told journalists in Baghdad that airstrikes late Wednesday struck ISIS-controlled oil refineries, command and control centers and transportation nodes in the Omar oil field near the town of Deir el-Zour. Coalition spokesman Col. Steven Warren said the attack hit 26 targets, making it one of the largest set of strikes since launching the air campaign last year.

The refinery generates between $1.7 and $5.1 million per month for ISIS.

“It was very specific targets that would result in long-term incapacitation of their ability to sell oil, to get it out of the ground and transport it,” Filanowski said.

ISIS seized a number of oil refineries and other infrastructure in Iraq and Syria as it sought to generate revenue to build a self-sufficient state. (“US-led forces strike ISIS-controlled oil field in Syria“, Daily Star)

Isn’t it amazing how– after a year of combing the dessert looking for ISIS targets– the USAF finally figures out where the goddamn oil refineries are? No wonder the western media chose to ignore this story. One can only conclude that Obama never had any intention of cutting off ISIS’s main funding stream (oil sales). What he really wanted was for the terrorist group to flourish provided it helped Washington achieve its strategic goals. Putin even pointed this out in a recent interview. He said:

“The mercenaries occupy the oil fields in Iraq and Syria. They start extracting the oil-and this oil is purchased by somebody. Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil?

Do you believe the US does not know who is buying it?

Is it not their allies that are buying the oil from ISIS?

Do you not think that US has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they don’t wish to influence them?

Putin was never taken in by the whole ISIS oil charade. He knew it was a farce from the get-go, ever since Financial Times published their thoroughly laughable article on the topic which claimed that ISIS had its own group of “headhunters” offering “competitive salaries” to engineers with the “requisite experience” and encouraged “prospective employees to apply to its human resources department.”

The ISIS “human resources department”?? Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? (Read the whole story here.)

In an interview with NPR, FT fantasist Erika Solomon (who wrote the article) explained why the US could not bomb the oil fields or refineries. Here’s what she said:

“What ISIS has done is managed to corner control of the extraction process, which is smart because they can’t get bombed there. It would cause a natural disaster. So they extract the oil, and then they immediately sell it to local traders – any average person who can buy a truck that they can fill with a tank of oil.”

Well, that sure didn’t stop Maj. Michael Filanowski, now did it? He seems to have blown up those ISIS refineries without batting an eye, which just proves that Solomon’s “natural disaster” fairytale is pure bunkum.

But if it was all baloney, then why did the USAF decide to hit the targets now? What changed?

Here’s a clue from an article that popped up on RT just one day before the attacks:

“Russia’s airplanes cut off routes used by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) to deliver supplies to Syria from Iraq by bombing a bridge over the Euphrates River, the Russian General Staff said

“The bridge over the Euphrates River near [the Syrian city of] Deir ez-Zor was a key point of the logistics chain [of IS]. Today Russian pilots carried out a surgical strike against the object,” the deputy chief of the General Staff of Russia, Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov, said on Thursday during a news briefing, adding that the terrorist group’s armament and ammunition delivery route had been cut off.” (“Russian Air Force cuts off ISIS supply lines by bombing bridge over Euphrates“, RT)

There it is: The Russians blow up a critical bridge over the Euphrates making oil transport impossible, and the next thing you know, BAM, the US goes into scorched earth-mode leveling everything in sight. Coincidence?

Not bloody likely. The whole incident suggests the mighty CIA is rolling up its pet project in Syria and headed for the exits. (It’s worth noting that ISIS has never been a self sustaining corporate franchise netting over a million bucks a day on oil receipts as western propaganda would have one believe. That’s all part of the public relations coverup used to conceal the fact that the Gulf allies and probably CIA black ops are funding these homicidal maniacs.)

In any event, the Russian intervention is forcing Washington to rethink its Syria policy. While Kerry is bending over backwards to end the fighting, Obama is busy tweaking the policy in a way that appeases his critics on the right without provoking a confrontation with Moscow. It’s a real tight-wire act, but the White House PR team thinks they can pull it off. Check this out from NBC News:

“Defense Secretary Ash Carter today revealed that the U.S. will openly begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria.

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee on Tuesday, Carter said “we won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL…or conducting such mission directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.” (“Sec. Carter: U.S. to Begin ‘Direct Action on the Ground’ in Iraq, Syria“, NBC News)

This sounds a lot worse than it is. The truth is, Obama has no stomach for the type of escalation the hawks (like Hillary Clinton and John McCain ) are demanding. There aren’t going to be any “safe zones” or “no-fly zones” or any other provocations which would risk a bloody conflagration with Moscow. What Obama is looking for is the best face-saving strategy available that will allow him to retreat without incurring the wrath of the Washington warmongers. It’s a tall order, but Sec-Def Ash Carter has come up with a plan that might just do-the-trick. This is from The Hill:

“Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Tuesday described new ways the U.S. military plans to increase pressure on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, after months of criticism that the administration is not doing enough to defeat the terrorist group.

“The changes we’re pursuing can be described by what I call the ‘three R’s’ — Raqqa, Ramadi and Raids,” Carter testified the Senate Armed Services Committee.

First, Carter said the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS plans to support moderate Syrian forces to go after Raqqa — the terrorist group’s stronghold and administration capital.

The secretary also said he hopes to pursue a new way of equipping the Syrian Arab Coalition, which consists of about a dozen groups.

“While the old approach was to train and equip completely new forces outside of Syria before sending them into the fight, the new approach is to work with vetted leaders of groups that are already fighting ISIL, and provide equipment and some training to them and support their operations with airpower,” he said.

He also said the coalition expects to intensify its air campaign with additional U.S. and coalition aircraft, and to target ISIS with a higher and heavier rate of strikes.

“This will include more strikes against ISIL high-value targets as our intelligence improves, and also its oil enterprise, which is a critical pillar of ISIL’s financial infrastructure,” Carter said, using a different acronym for ISIS.” (“Pentagon chief unveils new plan for ISIS fight“, The Hill)

See anything new here? It’s a big nothingburger, right?

They’re going to kill more “high-value targets”?

Big whoop. That’s always been the gameplan, hasn’t it? Of course, it has.

What this shows is that Obama is just running out the clock hoping he can keep this mess on the back-burner until he’s out of office and working out the terms of his first big book deal. The last thing he wants is to get embroiled in a spitting match with the Kremlin his final year in office.

Unfortunately, the problem Obama is going to encounter is that Putin can’t simply turn off the war machine with the flip of a switch. It took Moscow a long time to decide to intervene in Syria, just like it took a long time to marshal the forces that would be deployed, build the coalition and draft the battleplan. The Russians don’t take war lightly, so now that they’ve put the ball into motion they’re not going to stop until the job is done and the bulk of the terrorists have been exterminated. That means there’s not going to be a ceasefire in the immediate future. Putin needs to demonstrate that once Moscow commits its forces, it will persevere until it achieves victory. That victory could come in the form of “liberating Aleppo” and a subsequent sealing off of the Turkish-Syria border or he might have some other goal in mind. But it’s a matter of credibility as much as anything. If Putin pulls back, hesitates or shows even the slightest lack of resolve, Washington will see it as a sign of weakness and try to exploit it. So Putin has no choice but to see this thing through to the bitter end. At the very least, he needs to prove to Washington that when Russia gets involved, Russia wins.

That’s a message Washington needs to hear.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.