So Obama Wants
Talks with Putin on Syria?
By Finian Cunningham
September 26, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "SCF"-
After more than a year of demonising
Russia as a threat to world peace, all of a sudden the United States
changes tack and wants to hold talks with Moscow over Syria. US
President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin
are set to hold talks in New York on the sidelines of the UN General
Assembly meeting. The leaders will meet on Monday, 28 September,
authorities from both the countries have confirmed. What a change
from Obama’s churlish tantrums towards the Russian president!
US Secretary of State
John Kerry speaking in London last weekend seemed to be overcome
with «shared goals» and objectives, seeking «common ground» with
Russia to defeat the jihadist terror group, Islamic State (IS), in
But only the week
before that, President Obama was condemning Russia for stepping up
military support for its long-time ally, Syria. Obama had said the
Russian military aid was «doomed to failure».
Suddenly, it seems,
however, there is an American turnaround. The New York Times
reported on how the Obama
administration has now «reached out to Moscow» to coordinate actions
in Syria «to avoid an accidental escalation».
«instructed» his Defence Secretary Ashton Carter to open dialogue
with Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu about «deconfliction» in
Syria. It was the first time in more than a year that such
high-level military talks between the US and Russia had taken place.
Contact was previously broken off by Washington after the latter
accused Russia of «annexing Crimea»in March 2014.
Three years ago,
Russian President Vladimir Putin
made a prescient comment about foreign policy, which is all too
relevant to the more recent developments in Syria. Back then Putin
said: «Everything we do will be based on our own interests and
goals, not on decisions other countries impose on us. Russia is only
treated with respect when it is strong and stands firm on its own
Indeed. For over four
years, since March 2011, Russia has seen the US and its clients tear
Syria apart with a covert war for regime change against President
Bashar al-Assad. The Western narrative of supporting a
«pro-democracy uprising» is an insult to common intelligence. Leaked
secret cables from the US embassy in Damascus reveal that Washington
was seeking regime change against the Russian and Iranian ally
as far back as 2006.
sponsoring of jihadist extremist groups like the head-choppers
of Islamic State was instrumental in this criminal enterprise of
toppling the Syrian government. That some 240,000 people have been
killed and millions more displaced by the US-fuelled covert war in
Syria is another abominable violation of international law committed
by Washington in a litany of imperialist crimes across the Middle
support earlier this month for the Assad government in Syria
certainly stunned Washington and its Western subordinates. It was a
huge reality check. The US and its clients have spun themselves into
ever-constricting contradictions over Syria – supposedly fighting
terrorism, while using terrorism for regime change. When Russia
asserted its own narrative – of aiding an ally in the actual fight
against terrorism – then suddenly the West tripped over its own
contradictions. This is affirmation of Putin’s earlier strategic
precept: «Russia is only treated with respect when it is strong and
stands firm on its own two feet».
reaction was to protest the Russian move, but then it couldn’t level
a credible objection because it’s supposed to be fighting terrorism
too. And, besides, everything Russia is doing as a bilateral partner
of the sovereign state of Syria is legal under international law.
When John Kerry talks
about the US and Russia having «shared goals» in defeating terrorism
in Syria the American diplomat’s unctuous words are utter, cynical
What the US does want,
however, is to inveigle Russia into a seeming partnership against
terrorism, whose abiding goal is regime change in Syria. This is
where the American and British practice of the dark arts of
deception come into play.
Here’s how the BBC
reported on Kerry’s agenda. «Speaking after talks in London
[with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond], he [Kerry] said
what he described as Russia's new focus on fighting Islamic State
militants could be an opportunity to push towards a political
settlement» what is meant is a framework insinuated by Washington
and its trusty British sidekick by which the objective of Bashar
al-Assad’s removal from power is put on the negotiating table. But
why should this outcome be even broached on the negotiating table?
By what authority does the US and Britain insist on Assad being
deposed – apart from their own conceited presumption of authority?
Kerry went on to say
with seeming sincerity: «We’re prepared to negotiate. Is Assad
prepared to negotiate, really negotiate? Is Russia prepared to bring
him to the table?»
The arrogance of Kerry
and his British counterpart Philip Hammond is astounding. «Is Russia
prepared to bring Assad to the table?» – as if Russia can be treated
like some kind of henchman to be deployed by the Western masters to
deliver the Syrian president’s head on a platter.
Kerry and Hammond
asserted that Assad must be removed, even though the Syrian people
re-elected him as president in 2014 with a huge majority. The
Anglo-American double act appeared to offer a magnanimous fig leaf
for their regime-change scheme by saying that Assad’s removal
«doesn't have to be on day one or month one… There is a process by
which all the parties have to come together to reach an
understanding of how this can best be achieved».
What process? Who says
so? Who are the Americans and British to determine «a process by
which all parties have to come together to reach an understanding»?
Who needs a process when the objective is to defeat terrorism and,
as Moscow has clearly stated, the Syrian government of Bashar
al-Assad is the primary force against such terrorism?
The bottom line is
that the Americans and the British want regime change in Syria by
hook or by crook. They haven’t succeeded so far with their covert
criminal war, and now Washington and London see an «opportunity» of
roping Russia into a «political process» under the guise of
defeating terrorists – terrorists that the West and its regional
clients unleashed on Syria in the first place.
A Pentagon spokesman
told the Guardian that Ashton Carter emphasised to Sergei Shoigu
in their talks that the putative fight against terrorism in Syria
was to be conditioned with a wider political objective. «He [Carter]
noted that defeating [terrorists] and ensuring a political
transition are objectives that need to be pursued at the same time».
«Still,» adds the
Guardian, «the White House cautioned Moscow against ‘doubling down
The New York Times
helpfully, albeit inadvertently,
draws out further the real purpose of Washington’s sudden desire
to engage with Moscow over Syria.
«But while Mr Carter’s
initial military-to-military talks were limited in scope, officials
indicated that the larger goal was to draw the Russians into a
political process that would ultimately replace Syria’s government
of President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime ally of the Kremlin,»
reported the Times.
Does Washington and
London really think that Moscow is that stupid?
Ukraine and Syria are
both part of a continuum of Western covert war to undermine, isolate
and destabilise Russia. The West has destroyed Ukraine and Syria to
get at Russia. And now, as Putin asserts Russian interests in Syria,
the West suddenly discovers «diplomacy». But still the opportunistic
West wants to engage with Russia in order to better achieve its
agenda of undermining Russia in Syria by expediting regime change
against Bashar al-Assad. Can you believe the monstrous arrogance of
Russia does not need
approval, consultation or «partnership» with Washington and its
Western minions. As Putin said, Russia must assert its own strategic
interests with confidence and without the toxic mediation of
Let Washington engage
if it wants. But it should be on Moscow’s terms.
© Strategic Culture Foundation