Il 25 febbraio il ladro elettorale ha ordinato un attacco aereo statunitense contro la Siria che ha ucciso 17 iraniani. Gli attacchi statunitensi e israeliani alla Siria sono in corso da anni senza conseguenze se non le denunce siriane e russe delle violazioni statunitensi e israeliane del diritto internazionale. Chiaramente, l'agenda USA/Israele ha la priorità sul diritto internazionale. Si potrebbe pensare che dopo tutti questi anni il Cremlino se ne fosse accorto e avrebbe smesso di suonare come un disco rotto inefficace.
years of hesitation, Russia finally permitted Syria to obtain S-300
missiles, which, if they are permitted to be used, are capable of
preventing US and Israeli attacks. As the missiles are never used,
Washington regards them as just another bluff by a cowardly Russian
government that won’t fight.
Korybko, an American Moscow-based political analyst, tries to find a
Russian policy in Russia’s protection of US and Israeli attacks on
Syria. He acknowledges that while Russia officially regards Israeli and
US attacks on Syrian territory as violations of international law, “it
never does anything to stop them.” He points to “the objectively
existing and easily verifiable fact that the S-300s have never even once
been used to defend Syria since they were dispatched there in late 2018
for that explicit purpose” as evidence that Moscow is “passively
facilitating those strikes.”
postulates that the Kremlin’s toleration of the strikes is part of a
Russian “grand strategic ‘balancing act’ of trying to promote a
so-called ‘compromise political solution’ to the country’s conflict, one
which envisions the eventual withdrawal of Iranian forces and their
allies such as Hezbollah in possible exchange for Israel and the US
stopping their conventional aggression against the Arab Republic.”
other words, he suggests Kremlin complicity with Israel in driving out
Syria’s Iranian ally: “the Kremlin continues to deny the SAA the right
to use the S-300s for the purpose of defending its allies from Israeli
and American attacks against them. This observation very strongly
suggests that Russia is pursuing a Machiavellian strategy whereby it
unofficially hopes that Israeli and American strikes will result in Iran
and Hezbollah’s forced withdrawal from Syria.” https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-isnt-alt-media-asking-about-s-300s-biden-latest-strike-syria/5738437
Korybko is even partially correct, the Kremlin does not understand
American and Israeli aggression. The Kremlin’s failure to understand
the enemy is what will lead to war, not Syria’s use of the S-300s to
defend its terrority from attack.
is OK to attack Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria, Washington will
conclude that it is OK to attack Iranians in Iran, and Hezbollah in
Lebanon. This will expand violence and instability, not reduce it.
Hezbollah is all that prevents another Israeli invasion of Lebanon and
the partition of that country. The Russian posture in the Middle East
is so weak that it encourages more US/Israeli attacks.
In other words, instead of defusing the situation the Kremlin’s policy inflames it.
what Russian interest is served by driving Syria’s Iranian and
Hezbollah allies out of Syria? Only Washington and Israel’s interests
are served. Russia’s policy, as postulated by Korybko, implies that
Russia agrees that Iran and Hezbollah need to be curbed. Therefore,
Hezbollah can be attacked in Lebanon as well as in Syria, and Iranians
can be attacked in Iran as well as in Syria. Russia’s policy as
portrayed by Korybko can only be a failure.
Washington and Israel will continue their attacks, because they know that there will be no consequences but words.
Kremlin needs to consider which policy is the least risky: continuing to
fire off ineffectual words or missiles that make attacks costly. The
easiest and surest way to establish peace in the Middle East is the
announcement of a Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Syrian mutual defense pact
with NATO’s banner that an attack on one is an attack on all.
accusation that this would lead to war can be answered with a question:
why then hasn’t NATO led to war? If war is likely to be the result of
an attack, an aggressor thinks more than once about an attack. As long
as aggression is tolerated, it grows until it has to be resisted. This
has been the official narrative of World War II for three-quarters of a
Kremlin could begin by comprehending that 90% of US Middle East policy
is determined by Israel and Israel’s US agents, the zionist
neoconservatives. Biden’s regime is stocked up with them. Israel wants
Greater Israel, and the neoconservatives want US hegemony in the Middle
East in order to give Israel what it wants. Israel has been slowly and
patiently stealing Palestine for decades and now wants to move faster.
Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya moved the plan forward.
Syria’s destruction was in the works until Russia intervened and
prevented it. But Syria is still partly a partitioned country, and
Syria, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and Iran are the remaining
obstacles to US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. If this
hegemony is achieved, Russia can expect Washington’s subversion of
Muslims in the Federation and in the former Soviet Asian republics.
US General Tod D. Wolters again told the Russians three days ago,
apparently to no effect, the United States regards Russia as “an
enduring existential threat to the United States” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/26/americas-absurd-foreign-policy). The inability of Russia to come to terms with this fact will result in war.
Paul Craig Roberts • February 27, 2021