Respite, Not Ceasefire in Syria
- Tough negotiations between America and Russia’s
top diplomats have managed to produce a tentative
ceasefire plan for Syria. But Washington doesn’t
really want a ceasefire. More likely, a respite for
its regime-change proxies.
than 13 hours of intense discussions in Geneva this
weekend, on top of months of back-and-forth talks,
US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov emerged in a joint press
announce that a cessation in fighting would
begin this week.
attempt at implementing a truce back in February
failed within days of that initiative because
anti-government insurgents affiliated with the
al-Qaeda terrorist network refused to abide by that
There is no
reason why this second ceasefire attempt should
otherwise succeed in holding.
well be a temporary lull in violence simply because
opposition militia will avail of the opportunity
to regroup and repair. But the core of the
insurgents are dominated by terrorist groups like Jabhat
Fatah al Sham (formerly al-Nusra Front) and Daesh
and numerous other affiliates.
proscribed terror groups have no interest
in negotiating a political transition in Syria
with the incumbent government of President Bashar
Assad. Their whole purpose is to overthrow the state
and turn it into a so-called caliphate ruled
to the kernel of why the ceasefire deal worked
out by Kerry and Lavrov is fatally flawed.
Russian side is negotiating in good faith with the
genuine intention of achieving a peaceful resolution
to the nearly six-year-old conflict, which has
resulted in 400,000 dead and millions displaced
from their homes. But not so the American side.
always keep firmly in mind that the conflict
in Syria was instigated in the first place by the US
and other foreign powers for the objective of regime
change against the Assad government – a long-time
ally of Russia and Iran.
former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed
in 2013 that the foreign conspiracy for regime
change in Syria was hatched at least two years
before the violence erupted in March 2011.
criminal agenda for regime change has not changed.
When John Kerry talks about getting Russia to sign
up to a “political transition” he means a process
which will culminate in the ouster of the Assad
At the Geneva
press conference this weekend, the US diplomat
clearly said that he was coordinating his efforts
with those of the exiled opposition group called the
High Negotiations Committee. Days before, the
Saudi-backed HNC unveiled yet another “vision”
demanding “transition” and Assad’s departure.
Geneva meeting this weekend, the Washington Post
reported: “Kerry acknowledged the truth of the
Russian charge that some opposition groups are
fighting in tandem with the [al-Nusra] Front and
said it was incumbent on them to now make a choice.”
also noted: “Both Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that
outside supporters of all non-terrorist [sic]
belligerents would have to bring their allies
putative separation of “moderates” and “terrorists”
then there can be no feasible premise for a
substantive cessation of violence. The proposal
for US and Russian forces to subsequently cooperate
in carrying out air strikes against terror groups is
therefore a non-starter.
confidence for this assertion is because, as Kerry
half-acknowledged, there is no distinction between
“moderate rebels” and “terrorists”. They are all
part of the same regime-change proxy army that the
US and its NATO and regional allies orchestrated
from the outset of this reprehensible conflict.
these proxies to somehow sort themselves into “good
guys” and “bad guys” is a ludicrous conception
of how and why the war was instigated and
the Western news media engage in euphemisms of how
these groups are “intermingled”, “overlap” and
“marbled”. But such attempts at differentiation are
either deluded or deceitful. For virtually all the
anti-government insurgents are integrated into the
same terrorist front. That’s why months of Russian
admonitions to the US to segregate its supposed
moderates from the terrorists have resulted in no
Kerry to propose at this late stage for
“non-terrorist belligerents” to get onboard with the
ceasefire is nothing but a cynical ruse.
So what is
Washington really seeking? Part of the proposed deal
involves Russian and Syrian forces calling off their
offensive against eastern Aleppo – the so-called “lifting
of the siege” and supplying “humanitarian aid”
to insurgent-held areas.
but realistically, those provisions are less
about halting violence and humanitarian effort and
more about giving the foreign-backed regime-change
forces a much needed breathing space.
since Russia sent its forces into Syria at the end
of last year, the US-led regime-change war has
turned into a losing campaign.
Washington and its other foreign co-conspirators –
Britain, France, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia –
badly need is to give their proxies a respite
from the withering offensive of the Syrian army and
its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
reasonable conjecture is that the Pentagon and CIA
war planners – Kerry’s ultimate bosses – want a
holding and reorganizing position until Hillary
Clinton is elected as the new president. Lame-duck
Obama has been too much of a ditherer and not
sufficiently gung-ho about regime change in Syria.
on the other hand, has vowed to step up American
military intervention in Syria. She has called
for setting up of no-fly zones and a tougher stance
towards Assad and Russia.
But if Syrian
and Russian forces continue their rate of attrition
against the regime-change proxies, there may be
little of these foreign assets left by the time
Clinton takes office early next year. Hence, the
insurgents must be salvaged from their precipitous
defeat – and this is what really pertains to the
“ceasefire” that Kerry has appeared so keen
conjecture of a “holding, reorganizing position”
also tallies with the recent invasion by Turkish
military forces into northern Syria and the joint
US-Turk annexation of territory. It suggests that a
greater war effort for regime change is being
anticipated for when Clinton takes office. (Assuming
Donald Trump’s candidacy can be wrecked by the
relentless US media vilification he is being
Which begs the
question: why have Russia and the Syrian government
apparently gone along with this latest ceasefire
arrangement? If, that is, it is a cynical ruse
for regime change?
Syria and Russia just drive on with their very
effective offensive to defeat the terrorist
Syria and Russia have their own calculations
for regrouping and refining tactics for resuming
even greater offensive power.
Russia knows all too well, privately, that the
Americans are full of claptrap. This latest
ceasefire proposal has no chance of working because
of the inherent flaws. But Russia’s international
reputation has little to lose from “giving peace a
Washington’s proposal for “separation” of insurgents
fail, fail, and fail again, and let the world come
to see the utter fallacy and criminality of American
trouble, however, is that more delay gives more
leverage to a Clinton presidency and what promises
to be a far more warmongering next White House
Cunningham is a Master’s graduate in
Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge, England. For nearly 20
years, he worked as an editor and writer in
major news media organisations, including The
Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.