The notion that the United States is in Syria – albeit illegally – to bring “stability” to the nation by chasing out remnants of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) fighters is just plain nuts.

Just in recent days, the Islamic State has seized 700 hostages in a part of Syria controlled by US-backed forces and are executing some ten a day until unspecified demands are met.

How could that be, if the US insists it has IS on the run? Going back to the Obama administration, the US has a history of protecting such jihadi fighters. The intent is to create a Sunni enclave inside Syria to impede any western Iranian or Shia militia advancement into Syria.

Those high-level officials of the Trump administration including National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and soon-to-depart US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley espouse this crazy narrative of being in Syria to defeat IS as a cover for more nefarious reasons than they will ever admit.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/441940-us-presence-syria-nuts/

 

See also:

why khashoggi was murdered by a little psychopatic prince...

 

It's all linked...

by Igor Ogorodnev

By coming to Saturday’s summit in Istanbul, European leaders are admitting that Russia is now dictating the terms on Syria. But Vladimir Putin’s 3-year gambit won’t be vindicated until a resolution comes in Idlib and beyond.

While all parties in the so-called quadrilateral talks have been given equal billing, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron’s role will be to salvage the best deal for Europe from the accord that was struck without them by Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan last month.

In 2018, sitting at the table headed by the Russian and Turkish presidents seems like pragmatism, as Europe outspokenly quakes in fear of a new wave of refugees in the aftermath of the inevitable government assault on Idlib, the last substantial rebel stronghold in Syria. But did such a scenario seem plausible after the Syrian conflict broke out in 2011, and the West demanded nothing but Bashar Assad’s removal, in the summer of 2015 when the Syrian president’s forces reached a point of depletion, or November the same year, when Turkish forces shot down a Russian Su-24, setting off a 9-month diplomatic rift between the countries?

This much “give” from Europe is unprecedented. Often lectured and castigated by those sitting across them, Erdogan and Putin can allow themselves a moment of self-congratulation, more so the latter, whose ally Assad looks poised to take back control of his country.

In Syria, the past three years have served as proof of concept for Russia’s foreign policy for the future. Crimea may have galvanized Putin’s domestic audience more, but it is Syria that gave Moscow its new-found international standing, and created a reputation for its leader as some multi-dimensional chess master.

Yet Russia’s recipe has been simple. Its military support, intended not to signal help, but to provide it, tipped the scale of what was already a festering conflict towards a way out, however undesirable by some of the outside players. In parallel, Moscow’s initial diplomatic efforts – bringing together Tehran and Ankara – were perceived as showy window dressing for the falling bombs, lacking participation from many of the key actors on the ground. But backed by genuine power ten rounds of Astana and Sochi have actually laid the foundations for actionable proposals, including the Idlib agreement. As France and Germany’s participation indicates, this diplomatic track has now overtaken the stalled but ongoing UN-backed Geneva process.

Just as important as who sit down in Istanbul, are those that have been left by the wayside, no longer considered powerful or essential enough to the peace settlement. Saudi Arabia’s designs on turning Syria into another Sunni-dominated outpost have sputtered, and while it continues to fund rebels, and counteract Iran, with its domestic reforms, multiple parallel conflicts, and the Khashoggi crisis that has pitted it against Ankara, Riyadh has more pressing matters on its hands.

READ MORE: Business as usual: US Treasury Secretary meets with Saudi Crown Prince amid Khashoggi outrage

Meanwhile the US has bungled its way out of any serious diplomatic consideration. From the empty posturing and red lines of the Obama era, to the half-hearted support of the purported moderates, the US has struggled to articulate its aims, particularly in the wake of the demolition of Islamic State, which offered it a straightforward adversary. Unlike Iran, where Donald Trump has been tenacious and focused, in Syria, the US leader has been reactive, and prone to flip flops, such as over the future role of its troops on Syrian land. Washington continues to be present in the country, and is supporting another faction in the conflict, the Kurds, but rather than serving American policy interest this seems to merely be aggravating Ankara, which views them as the terrorists, and turning it towards Moscow.

Russia will be pleased at its outmaneuvering of the US in this theater, and as with energy cooperation and the Iran deal, Putin will enjoy driving a wedge between Europe and the US, by bringing in the former, while leaving Washington on the margins.

Idlib accord or discord?

But the gloating amid the geopolitical games will ring hollow for as long as the war, which has taken around half a million lives, continues.

Idlib, located in the north-west of the country, between Latakia on the Mediterranean coast, and Aleppo to the east, has become the drain pit into which the anti-government forces have collected after a series of defeats through the course of the last two years. Controlled by Islamist factions of varying radicalism, including a powerful Al Qaeda affiliate, Tahrir Al-Sham, it is also home for up to 3 million civilians, many of them refugees from elsewhere in the country. A direct confrontation between government forces engaged in a final assault, and militants making a last stand would be gory.

The Idlib memorandum was a last-ditch attempt to avert what the UN predicted would be a humanitarian catastrophe, but it remains complex and ambiguous in its aims and potential outcomes, and there is little surprise it was delayed beyond its original October 15 implementation date.

It proposes a 15 to 20 km de-escalation zone around the rebel-controlled area, which could become a safe haven for civilians, and a means of testing compliance from the group inside that would be forced to leave or face destruction. Communication and trade with the outside world is set to be restored by the end of the year.

But the plan contains no actual proposal for a long-term cessation of hostilities, and does not in any case neatly fit any of the sides’ agendas.

The Syrian army wants to simply retake the area, as is its right, but is wary of sustaining heavy casualties against a force that is not in an enclave, but directly connected to supply lines behind the border.

Turkey desires to maintain its foothold in Syria, and in the longer term, perhaps to convert the area into an occupied territory, weakening Damascus, giving Ankara a launching ground for its conflict with the Kurds, as well as a location for refugee camps. But what it doesn’t want is more than its current 3.4 million refugees that would inevitably result from an all-out assault, so it benefits from prolonging the status quo.

Meanwhile, Moscow has a tough balancing act, as it supports Assad’s campaign, but will not want to aggravate Turkey, without whose cooperation a full-scale conflict would resume. Russia has encouraged Turkey to defuse the situation by encouraging the fighters it has funded to pull out, ensuring that the ones left are legitimate targets.

Within Idlib itself, there are splinter groups, some of which would surrender or escape, while others are determined to fight to the death. So far none of them have moved from the buffer zones, and worse still, they could begin an internecine factional battle that could be every bit the humanitarian disaster of any external assault.

Can anyone on Saturday do anything to break this deadlock? Is Turkey prepared to sacrifice some of its ambitions on the wrong side of its border? Will Putin promise Erdogan to hold back the Syrian forces, and for how long? And can Europe offer anything more than platitudes about civilians, and bribes for Turkey not to send more asylum seekers?

The optics of Istanbul will likely be promising, but this does not appear like an issue that can be solved by four leaders in an afternoon, and Kremlin has already attempted to lower expectations, saying that the summit will be about “comparing notes” and not “breakthroughs.”

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/442241-putin-erdogan-macron-merkel-idlib/

Russia introduced a draft resolution aimed to preserve the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to the UN General Assembly First Committee after the US announced a unilateral withdrawal from the pact.

The First Committee of the UN General Assembly, also known as Disarmament and International Security Committee, declined on Friday to hear Russia's draft resolution in support of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Russia proposed the draft resolution to the committee, but the US delegation protested against it. On Friday, the committee voted on whether the resolution draft should be reviewed.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Ukraine, France and 50 more countries voted against the draft resolution, while 31 nations supported it, and 54 abstained.

 

Andrei Belousov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, commented on the vote, saying the reaction of the committee was puzzling.

"Most of the nations that abstained from the vote are active supporters of nuclear disarmament," Belousov commented. "Most of those who voted against [the resolution] were supporters of INF preservation."

Last Saturday, US President Donald Trump announced his country's intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty over Russia's alleged violations of the accord.

"In a span of a year, if the United States withdraws from the treaty and begins to build up its nuclear potential uncontrollably, we will have to face another reality, and the procedural issues we have been locking horns over for two days will look so small and insignificant, and we will regret today's decision," Belousov warned.

Several of the countries that abstained argued the issue would be more addressed more appropriately by the UN Security Council, according to AFP.

 

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would wait for Washington's official clarification on its possible withdrawal from the INF Treaty and only then determine Russia's position on the matter. He added that any action in this area would be met with counteraction, stressing that parity would be maintained under any circumstances.

The INF Treaty was signed by then-leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and then-US President Ronald Reagan in 1987 amid the Cold War. The two sides reached a historic agreement to cut their nuclear arsenals and pledged to destroy all cruise or ground-launched ballistic missiles with ranges between 310 and 3,400 miles.

 

Read more

https://sputniknews.com/world/201810271069259764-un-inf-treaty-vote/

 

Read from top.

 

Including the US lackey — Australia. Our government does not care about the planet as long as we cuddle up to the bully USA...

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)

US new millennium wars on humanity rage endlessly with no prospect for resolution, a modern-day great game, the stakes far higher than earlier, today's weapons infinitely more powerful. 

Resource control is a major US objective, along with dominating all other countries, eliminating challengers to its aim for global hegemony.

US special forces and/or other troops are deployed in three-fourths of nations worldwide - on the Pentagon's global empire of bases, used as launching pads for endless wars. 

CIA operatives are everywhere, their objectives sinister. Who needs diplomacy when brute force works best, the way the US has operated post-WW II with rare exceptions to the rule, especially since Soviet Russia's December 1991 dissolution.

Globally deployed US forces came to stay, not leave, Syria no exception. Bolton, Pompeo, and the Pentagon effectively overruled Trump.

On Sunday, Bolton said there's no timeline for withdrawing US troops from Syria. They'll remain on the phony pretext of combatting the scourge of ISIS Washington created and supports - along with protecting Kurds in northern parts of the country the US doesn't give a hoot about.

They're used serve its interests, to be abandoned when no longer needed. On Monday, Iraqi deputy popular mobilization committee chairman Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis said "(t)he US claim of pullout from Syria to Iraq is an old trick," adding:

"The US security and military bodies are after running the crises in the region. As Kurdish forces have witnessed, the Americans can never be trusted in the region" - or anywhere else.

Lebanese General Amin Hatit said US forces in Syria will likely remain indefinitely. Iranian Defense Minister General Amir Hatami vowed to continue aiding Damascus combat the scourge of (US-supported) terrorism in the country, saying:

"The Syrian nation has fended off a major threat posed to the nation and the region by fighting against terrorism, and we will accompany Syria until final victory as we have been standing beside the Syrian nation so far."

Iran will also aid reconstruction in the country. Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani stressed that his country only has military advisors in Syria, not combat troops, legally involved at the behest of Damascus.

Washington and its allies are illegal occupiers - "invaders," Assad called them. Bolton said withdrawal of US forces from Syria is on hold, effectively saying  they'll stay, not leave.

On Monday, Pompeo was asked if there's a timeline for withdrawing US forces from Syria. "Nope," he responded, adding "(w)e don't talk about timelines."

He slammed Iran, turning truth on its head saying Obama "let Iran run loose," repeating the Big Lie, falsely claiming the Islamic Republic is "the world's largest state sponsor of terror" - a dubious distinction applying to the US, NATO and Israel.

He lied saying the US eliminated "99%" of ISIS in Syria, the scourge Washington supports. Thousands of its jihadists remain in Syria, the region, Afghanistan and elsewhere - deployed wherever the US wants them used as proxy troops.

Withdrawal of Pentagon forces from Syria is frozen. Weapons and munitions continue flowing into the country, including cross-border from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.

Asked if US withdrawal began, Pompeo said "I'm not going to talk about that." What about other US personnel in the country? Pompeo declined to comment.

Saying the Trump regime is "trying to make sure that Israel and the Palestinians find a peaceful way forward" is polar opposite reality.

Trump's no-peace/peace plan remains on hold, dead before arrival for Palestinians. A so-called "coalition," consisting of 95% America, Britain and France most of the rest, continues using ISIS and other jihadists as imperial foot soldiers.

Pompeo maintained the myth about an Iranian aim to develop nuclear weapons it abhors and wants eliminated everywhere.

Israel is the region's only nuclear armed and dangerous nuclear state, along with America's presence.

According to AMN News, citing Turkish media, Erdogan intends asking the Trump regime to give Ankara control over the Pentagon's "22 military bases" in Syria if US forces withdraw.

Pulling out is increasingly unlikely. The US intends permanent occupation of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries, along with waging endless wars on humanity.

That's what imperialism is all about.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/world/asia/09-01-2019/142168-us_occupation-0/

 

 

We shall see....  Read from top.

U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

 

 

• As Washington’s strategy shifts to offense, officials say, it is placing malware inside Russia’s system with a new aggressiveness.

The move is both a warning and a push to be prepared to conduct cyberstrikes if conflict were to break out with Moscow.

•  

  President Donald Trump lashed out at The New York Times on Saturday for a report that the United States has been increasing its cyber intrusions into Russia, escalating tensions between the two countries.

  The Times reported that the United States has increased measures to penetrate Russia's power grid as a message to Moscow to stay out of American cyber infrastructure. The efforts lay an aggressive groundwork for an attack on the Russian grid on an unprecedented scale if the two countries were to enter into conflict, the Times reported.

  The escalation has prompted fears of overheating tensions with Russia, the Times reported. Exactly how deeply the U.S. has penetrated Russian systems remains classified. 

  Citing administration officials, the Times also reported Trump was not briefed in detail on the program out of fear that he would spill secrets to Russians as he did with classified information to the Russian ambassador and foreign minister during an Oval Office meeting in 2017. That incident, first uncovered by The Washington Post, reportedly put a vital source on ISIS at risk.

  Trump flatly rejected the Times' Saturday story, calling it "a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country."

  "Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" Trump tweeted.

  The Times story follows U.S. intelligence reports of Russian penetration into American cyber infrastructure including of nuclear power plants. Already, the United States has imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections through a number of cyber attacks, from misinformation campaigns to hacking the Democratic National Committee's network.

   

  Read more:

  https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/15/trump-nyt-report-cyber-attacks...

  Of course The Donald is upset the NYT has let the cat out of the bag...

  Read from top