A Russian
White Knight or an Interventionist Power?
The
imperialist Violence in Syria, Part
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -7
“It
is noteworthy that the only government objecting
to the substance of our initiative is the United
States, which for many years has stood in almost
complete isolation trying to block successive
efforts of the international community to
prevent an arms race in outer space.”1
–
statement by Russian Foreign Ministry on
resolution for no first deployment of weapons
into outer space which was approved by UN
General Assembly on 8 December 2015.
By Kim
Petersen and B. J. Sabri
January 16,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- Unlike the 4-year US active involvement in every
aspect of the Syrian conflict, Russia's direct
intervention started just recently (30 September
2015). Russia's intervention is important to
distinguish under international law: unlike the US
illegal bombardment of Syria, unlike the antics of
states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar who
operate in Syria in contravention to international
agreements between sovereign states, Russia was
invited by the legitimate government of Syria to
assist in defeating the mercenary insurrection. Do
we need to debate that the US, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia were not invited to assist—which would be
ludicrous on its face: a regime asking states
seeking its overthrow to assist it? (The latest news
is that Obama is putting US boots on Syrian soil
unbidden by that sovereign nation. Imagine the
response by the US regime if, for example, in
solidarity with Black Lives Matter, Africa
unilaterally placed troops on US soil to protect
African-American lives?)
It is also
important to note that if the US regime and its
anti-Assad instruments had not participated in the
aggression against Syria, then there likeliest would
have been no Russian involvement, and Syrians might
have been able to settle the matter for themselves.
Logically, any blame for casualties resulting from
Russian military involvement must be directly
attributed to the anti-Syrian regime coalition—it is
the law of action and reaction. In the end, we see
that the ultimate culpability for all those who died
in Syria rests exclusively with those who initiated
the violence in the first place.
About Russia:
it can be argued that from the time of Gorbachev
until the overthrow of the legitimate Ukrainian
government by the CIA and its Ukrainian operatives,
Russia had allowed the world to be damaged through
passivity against American imperialist expansions.
The present authors understand why that happened and
realize the constraints put on Russia since the
Yeltsin years. But when the imperialist heat reached
its borders, Russia awakened. Honestly, we cannot
ask too much of Russia (all countries threatened by
the US's march to absolutist empire must take their
share of responsibility) and we cannot blame Russia
for the treason committed by Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
But we can blame it, under the first Putin
presidency, for consenting to the joint US-British
occupation of Iraq after strenuously opposing the
planned invasion of 2003. We are also extremely
critical of Russia's consent, under the second Putin
presidency, to UN Resolution 2216 that sanctioned an
already started
American-Saudi aggression
against Yemen—an aggression that has thus far
killed thousands of Yemenis,
and
destroyed much of the country.
We have other problems with Russian policy, but this
is not the forum.
Still, from
our viewpoint as inflexible opponents of American
imperialism, we are convinced that Russia's entry to
the side of the Syrian government has great
potential for finally stopping the US from treating
the world as a stepping-stone to unchallenged global
hegemony. What was Russia supposed to do: wait for
the US (and its anti-Assad allies) to enact regime
change in Damascus and moving thereafter to its
borders? Above all, what could be more dictatorial
than outsiders determining by military means and
violence who should govern a sovereign nation?
Russia's
intervention has another angle—it exposed the cruel
geopolitical game the United States has been playing
in Iraq and Syria. For openers, the United States is
not bombing both countries to rid them of so-called
ISIS; gargantuan evidence points to the contrary.
This could not be otherwise—the US founded, armed,
and trained this "state," and it needs it as a means
to destabilize and break up all Arab states.
Strong
suspicions surround the US conduct toward ISIS thus
leading to one unavoidable conclusion: ISIS is a
multinational enterprise that the United States, the
West, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar created,
financed, and armed to fight both the Syrian and
Iraqi governments according to predefined
objectives. For instance, when ISIS emerged as a
military power and crossed into Iraq from Syria, the
US did nothing to stop it. And when it moved its
convoys to occupy the city of Mosul, then descending
south to occupy the city of Baiji that houses Iraq's
largest oil refinery, the US and vassals just
reported the news. And when ISIS occupied Tikrit and
Ramadi, the only reaction coming from the US and its
regional supporters was to portray the
American-trained Iraqi army as inept. And when ISIS
was almost on the gates of Baghdad, the US and
company just spoke of its imminent fall.
Something
disrupted this chain of events though. In Iraq, ISIS
sacked the Yezidi areas and moved their Toyota
convoys toward Erbil, which the Kurds consider their
provisional capital, and almost seized the oil-rich,
multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk that the Kurds consider
their future capital. In Syria, ISIS entered Ain
al-Arab (Kobane) thus disrupting the connection
between Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds. At that point,
the US, the West, European volunteers, and the Kurds
made their combined moves to drive ISIS out of
Kirkuk, Erbil, and Kobane. In the meanwhile, no
action was taken to remove ISIS from the cities and
territory it occupied in Iraq and Syria.
This must be
by design. In fact, once the US started pounding
ISIS forces entrenched near Kirkuk and Erbil, the
Kurds—who have been claiming Kirkuk as theirs since
the US invasion of Iraq—moved their Peshmerga forces
to occupy the city immediately. At which point, the
Baghdad government, itself a servant of Washington,
declared the Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk null and
promised to retake it once it finishes its business
with ISIS.
What to
conclude from all this is simple: For the US,
disrupting the scheme to create a Kurdish state
extending from Iraq to the Mediterranean while
taking territory from Turkey and Syria was a red
line that ISIS crossed. This explains why Turkey
supports ISIS against Kurdish separatists. And it
explains why Saudi Arabia supports ISIS under the
pretext to fight Iran in Iraq and Syria. And when
the Kurds declare that any area they "liberate" from
ISIS become a Kurdish territory (as when they took,
with American air support, the multi-ethnic cities
of Duhok and Sinjar), then we cannot but conclude
that ISIS is a player created by the West and
regional powers to facilitate the partition of the
Arab states in Western Asia. Kurds should not
rejoice. The history of imperialism and colonialism
warns that the final aim of the US and the West is
not about caring for the national aspirations of the
Kurds. Creating a Kurdish state at the service of
American and Israeli objectives is the target. And
the Kurds are moving into this trap. (Discussing the
Kurdish issue goes beyond the scope of this work.)
Let us recap
the ISIS move against Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian, and
Yezidi areas in Iraq and Syria areas. Although ISIS
is an American (and Saudi creation)—it provided the
United States with the operational rationales for
massive intervention in Iraq and Syria—its moves and
attacks suggest one of two things: either it has
developed a separate agenda, or it is following
American orders as a part of a plan to rein in the
moves of the Kurds. In the end, the US reasons for
allowing ISIS to survive and expand despite
pretentious bombardment and publicity balloons is
all too evident: the US and Israel want to create a
Kurdish state from parts taken out of Iraq, Iran,
Turkey, and Iran,2
and ISIS is the means to implement it.
Are the Kurds
and ISIS enemies? There is a plenty of evidence to
suggest they were not when ISIS occupied Mosul only.
In fact, once Mosul fell to ISIS and the weakness of
Baghdad's central government was exposed, it gave
Kurds the opportunity to move instantly to occupy
Kirkuk (with its Arab, Kurdish, Turkoman, Assyrian,
and Armenian population) which Kurds have been
claiming as theirs since the American invasion of
Iraq. This is reinforced by the fact that when ISIS
attacked Ain Al-Arab (a Syrian own with a Kurdish
majority), Iraqi Kurds crossed into Syria to fight
it.3
One can surmise, therefore, that the US has been
effectively coordinating with ISIS to execute the
strategic purpose of creating a de facto
expansionist Kurdish state.
Overall, the
US strategy regarding ISIS is apparent. 1) Keep the
"islamic state" in Iraq viable to harass the Iraqi
government—under US control, anyway—thus browbeating
Iraq's regime to give in to Kurdish demands to
secede and form an independent state. 2) Keep “ISIS”
strong enough in Syria to help with the toppling of
the Assad government. 3) Keep spreading the
propaganda that the "Islamic state" is real and here
to stay; this will allow for protracted Western
military intervention. 4) Continue with current
strategy to keep the region—with the exception of
Israel—afire and permanently unstable. Ponder: how
could we explain the fact that ISIS seems more
intent on fighting Arab Muslims than fighting
European Zionist Jews or American interests? What
drives the rage to re-Islamize Arabs who have been
Muslims for over 1500 years unless this drive was
designed by Washington and Tel Aviv to discredit
Muslims and prepare the path for the final conquest?
What should one make of an organization that has no
program about anything except making people worship
in the regressive and oppressive Wahhabi way? This
seems a premeditated plan for the total destruction
of the Arab Muslim mind.
Keeping the
preceding arguments in perspective, and tying them
to the Russian intervention in Syria, we see this
intervention in positive way. Unlike all the other
uninvited interlopers, Russia intervened at the
behest of Syria and its legitimate government. Yet,
this is war, and war causes casualties including
civilian deaths. However, since it became clear that
Russia's approach to eradicate Western-controlled
violence was resolute, fake sources were formed to
cast doubt on Russia's role including the accusation
of causing more civilian deaths than those caused by
the US and its terrorist allies. Because we support
Russia's intervention to end violence in Syria, as
is happening now, some might think that we are
defending Russia. This is not the case. A balanced
investigation, however, posits that when propaganda
and disinformation contradict facts, we must debate
it.
One dubious
source is Airwars.org. This site reports of “104
incidents of concern in Syria in which Russian
aircraft allegedly killed between 528 and 730
non-combatants.” Of those “incidents as fairly
reported” there “are likely to have killed between
255 and 375 civilians.”4
The reliability of such reporting does not improve:
“The number of Russian airstrikes which caused
non-combatant deaths has to an extent been
exaggerated.” This is self-contradicted somewhat
later by the claims: “Even so, credible allegations
of civilian fatalities inflicted by the Russan [sic]
Air Force are worryingly high.”
A number of
questions arise from such sources. First, for
example, what denotes “fairly reported” and who
determines what this is? What is the difference
between a “credible allegation” and a “fact”?
Second, what is one to make of imprecise, waffling
phrases as “likely to,” "to an extent," and again
who determines this extent and likelihood? Third,
who is Airwars.org?
From the
source site: “Airwars.org is a collaborative,
not-for-profit transparency project aimed both at
tracking and archiving the international air war
against Islamic State, in both Iraq and Syria. With
a dozen nations reportedly bombing – along with the
air forces of Iraq, Iran and Syria – there is a
pressing public interest need for independent,
trustworthy monitoring.” Airwars.org's “data is
drawn heavily from US and allied militaries. In
addition to tracking the strikes, we also seek to
report – and where possible follow up on – credible
allegations of civilian casualties.”
Credible? What
is the verisimilitude of information disseminated by
US and allied militaries?
Nonetheless,
even if the present writers were to accept, on its
face, everything reported by US propagandists; it
does not change the thesis of our argument:
regrettably, in warring, civilian casualties are
bound to occur. However, casualties occurring
after the entrance of Russia to the violence in
Syria have to be weighed against the quarter million
people killed prior to Russia coming on the scene.
Any subsequent deaths attributable to Russia's air
warfare against violent armed groups have to be
weighed against those who would not have been saved
if Russia didn’t enter the fray. Yes, Russia
weaponry may have caused civilian deaths, but how
does one calculate all the civilians saved from
death at the hands of mercenaries and other killers?
Moreover, we
are arguing that all deaths since Russia
intervention are to be blamed on US-, Saudi-, Gulf
state-, Turkey-, and other western-backed
mercenaries and terrorists. Had these forces and
proxies never invaded Syria and Iraq, and had they
never received protection in Turkey and Jordan, then
Russian warplanes would not be fighting today.
To conclude
our note on Russia, although it entered the war on
the side of the legitimate government, Russia has
never declared any strategy or long-term objective
in Syria except the one supporting a legitimate U.N.
member from not being overrun by
American/Saudi-supported terrorists and mercenaries.
Consequently, Western imperialists and their media
stenographers have no moral underpinning or legal
standing to criticize Russia.
Kim
Petersen is a former
editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be
reached at
kimohp@inbox.com
B. J.
Sabri is an observer of
the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism,
Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be
reached at
b.j.sabri@aol.com
Next: Part 7 of 7
NOTES
-
Matthew Bodner,
UN Approves Russia-led Proposal
To Limit Militarization of Space,"
Moscow Times, 2 December 2015.
-
Read article "Blood
Borders" and see map by Ralph Peters.
-
Read "Iraqi
Kurdish forces enter Syria to fight Islamic
State."
-
See Chris Woods, “International
airstrikes and civilian casualty claims in Iraq
and Syria: October 2015.”
|