U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took part in a 10-hour negotiation on the Syrian conflict with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Geneva on Friday—but the lengthy talks fell far short of a desired ceasefire agreement, the Guardian reported Saturday.
U.S. takes page from Israeli 'peace' negotiations playbook: Use the pretense of negotiations as a tool to buy time to continue doing what the negotiations are meant to stop.
"We are close [to a ceasefire]," Kerry attempted to reassure observers, according to the Guardian. "But we are not going to rush to an agreement until it satisfies fully the needs of the Syrian people."
Did anyone ask the Syrian people?
Hillary is full of crap. Obama is full of crap. And Kerry is full of crap.
What Obama and Kerry are up to is accomplishing something that Hillary has wanted for a long time.
Namely setting up "safe zones" in northwest Syria and elsewhere along the Turkish border.
"No fly zones" are effective (Hillary wants those as well) but "safe zones" are, in effect, "no fire zones."
Those fighters that the US and Turkey wants to protect can flood these zones and then be infiltrated back into contested territory to carry out military operations.
Neither Assad, Russia, Iran or Hezbollah will agree to such murderous intent on the part of the US and Turkey.
So the war will continue and the war profiteers will get richer.
Which they'll have little troubling doing if Assad and Russia agree to Hillary's "safe zone" idea.
This war is so complicated it almost defies description. One aspect is that it is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran with the Saudis backing ISIS and other Sunni groups and Iran backing Assad and Hezbollha which is helping Assad. Then there is a domestic civil war between Assad and rebels backed by the US and ISIS. The rebels are also fighting ISIS. Then there is almost a cold war aspect between the US and Russia. And there is the really complicated situation of Turkey which is mainly fighting the Kurds which are backed by the US but also fighting ISIS which the US is fighting. It appears that as long as Assad is in power he will be opposed by the Sunnis in some form since they have been repressed by Assad and his father for decades. Therefore, it appears there is no solution without Assad leaving. But Russia wants to keep its military bases in Syria so if Assad leaves they need assurance that their bases will remain. It is quite a mess to sort out.
"Saudi Arabia and Iran," Shiite versus Sunni. Al Qaeda was a Sunni group and ISIS is a Sunni group.
The so-called "civil war" was started by the CIA with the support of Hillary while she was at State. The majority of Syrians did not want the war.
Russia has had a major military base in western Syria for 50 years.
There is nothing "complicated" about any of this.
The US was attempting to satisfy Israeli military policy and got caught.
The majority of the people who still support Assad are Sunni. And thanks CD for throwing in the barrel bomb line. It's always a good heart string tug.
Thanks for the Neocon Party line.
The Lrx also gives us this last sentence: "It is quite a mess to sort out" without even mentioning it's a mess the current neoliberal leadership caused.
And the future one will exploit.
Slightly OT, but this article 'Biden's Baltic Bombast' talks about how Trump is going to ask nato allies to pay for the defense themselves, or stop defending them. About time, imo, will never happen under Clinton. Meanwhile, the US army misplaces 7.5 trillion dollars.
I'll bet they know exactly what they spent it on.
" The war profiteers will get richer."
Yep, if you or I were a war profiteer, the last thing we would want is peace that would cut off the orders to supply more weapons!
It is heartbreaking seeing kids in these war zones created by a few powerful individuals for their ends of power.
This is a little long but to the point.
Of course the situation is complicated, and responses are apt to be. Oddly, the problem is not, so much.
The US position appears incoherent if one assumes that the US government acts from peaceful or stated interests, from humanitarian interests, for the good or security of its people, or even to nab oil. It becomes coherent if one assumes that the US government plans aggressive action against Russia and China in the economic interest of whoever might be directing that, and wishes to shut off access to hydrocarbons and resources to abet that. Once one accepts that the people making decisions are monstrously deranged and paranoid, the rest becomes a matter of money and control..
I suppose it would make some sense for someone to argue that this is not true and provide some alternate explanation. Perhaps the best argument from a social point of view when one finds US actions "incoherent," is to ignore this possibility. It's a pity: I, for one, would surely like to see a few more brains working on it.
To attempt the coherent (drum roll), US government and whoever is directing it want the war. That is why the US press started by addressing ISIS as "Islamic moderates" and US intelligence directed some $15bn US to them, with the Saudis contributing a larger amount that to my knowledge remains undisclosed, and that may or may not have been channeled from US or NATO sources. This was done to destabilize Assad, not because he is a dictator, but because he occupies part of an area that the US wants to occupy or control to surround Russia.
I do not have a phone to the oval office, and if I did, I assume someone would hang up. I can't tell you the details of all this. Sadly, however, it is coherent.
Unless one wishes to imagine Vladimir Putin to be a great philanthropist with an abiding hatred of terrorism and a willingness to expend Russia's powers to save Syrian lives from American aggression, one has to imagine that Putin feels is a real threat serious enough to risk putting Russian planes in embattled skies and troops on a battlefield with non-uniformed US intelligence, troops, and allies.
That is an enormous risk, but if you look at a map of recent American aggression, it is easy to see what considerations might motivate it. Russia is being systematically cut off by a ruthless, even arguably insane foe. There is, at the very least, an argument that at some point any risk would be better than capitulation.
This does not mark US actions as incoherent, only very twisted in terms of values and very far from stated goals.
What this means, altogether, is a centuries-old story: the Euro-American empire has to be disarmed, probably disassembled in some sense. That part will not be simple.
"But we are not going to rush to an agreement until it satisfies fully the needs of the Syrian people."
* The needs of the Syrian people are for the bombing, the raids, the shelling, the executions to stop; for some peace to descend on that tortured land. They need food, water, shelter.
* The only way for peace to descend on that tortured land is for the
US Fourth Reich to stand down and get out of, not only Syria, but all of the Middle East! That includes its huge cadres of US trained and armed mercenaries fighting on all sides of the slaughter.
* The billionaire arms manufacturers and their bought and paid for political and military lackeys that promote and profit from endless war should be in the dock or behind bars for war crimes and war profiteering.
* If that were done, it might be possible for the Dove of Peace to approach planet earth without being hit by a surface to air missile.
Jill Stein, Green, 2016! That could well be a start.
Clinton is both a neoliberal and a neocon. She's the worst of both.
Yeah, but if we all support Jill and the Greens, so the Oligarchy is facing a strong opposition for a change, We the People might finally have some leverage again.
* Sure beats getting a choice between a red or a blue Oligarchy Sock Puppet every four years. We might even feel empowered! We could even get a chance to elect actual representatives of the people to Congress and the Senate. That would be a first step in changing the course of the RMS Titanic before we hit the iceberg.
Jill Stein, Green, 2016!