UNSC Resolution 2118 - a half-full glass?

I have carefully parsed UNSC Res 2118 and while I did not find any great surprises in its contents, I would qualify it as a half-full glass, meaning that while this resolution does not fix any of the issues which I had identified in the Kerry-Lavrov agreements (see here, here, here and here), it at least does not exacerbate them either and that, in itself, is definitely a plus.  

Why?

Because my main concern was the the US would "creatively reinterpret" (i.e. grossly distort) the meaning of the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement.  Since this has not happened in this Resolution, this now makes is harder or even less likely that the US could do so.  And if it did, it would do so at a higher political costs, with its hypocrisy even more obvious to all.

One big risk of the Kerry Lavrov Agreement remains.

Here is what Kerry said in his explanation of vote:

The Council had endorsed the Geneva Communiqué, and it had adopted a legally binding resolution that spelled out in detail what Syria must do to comply with it. It could not accept or reject the inspectors, but must give unfettered access at all sites. “We are here because actions have consequences,” he said.

Russia's position was expressed by Lavrov:

Noting that Damascus had shown its readiness for cooperation by joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, he said that was a precondition for success. It also had provided a list of its chemical weapons arsenal. Damascus would continue to cooperate with international inspectors. The responsibility for implementing the resolution did not lay only with Syria. 

Interestingly, the semi-official official preamble of the UN Department of Public Information wrote this:

Syria should comply with all aspects of the OPCW decision, notably by accepting personnel designated by OPCW or the United Nations and providing them with immediate and unfettered access to — and the right to inspect — any and all chemical weapons sites.

Now what did the Resolution 2118 itself actually say?

Alas, it said this:

Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard;

I hate to be the one making it rain on your parade, but this is not good at all.  The Americans got it right: this Resolution does not, repeat not, limit access to only chemical sites.  Not only does it require immediate access to any and all sites, it also demands immediate and unfettered access to individuals (and we know how the UN special tribunal investigating the Hariri murder in Lebanon abused that right, especially towards Syrian nationals).

So we should not kid ourselves, all the US needs to do is find the Syria in material breach of Resolution 2118 and, voila, we will almost be back to square one.  I say 'almost', because the trap set by the Russians for the USA has also worked: by voting 'yes' on UNSC Res 2118 the USA has thereby also committed itself to go back to the UNSC should it find Syria in non-compliance with UNSC Res 2118.  What the US cannot do is simply decide to attack.  The political price for that have now skyrocketed with the US signing on to this Resolution, and that is, of course, very good news - kudos to the Russian diplomats here.

Clearly, as long as Putin is alive and in the Kremlin, the US will not get a UNSC Resolution to attack Syria.  I think that nobody, short of pathological Russia-haters, will deny that.  The Americans understand that too.  So they also understand that if they find Syria in material breach of UNSC Res 2118 they will have to go to the UNSC where the best they can hope for is a Russian and Chinese agreement to Chapter VII measures which fall short of the use of military force, and even that is most unlikely as Lavrov has clearly said that any accusation would have to be proven 100% (a level of proof which is practically impossible to meet anyway).  So short of Assad throwing a chemical hand grenade from his balcony on CNN live - the UNSC will not endorse an attack on Syria.

Still, the Americans are so used to threaten and bully that it has really become a second nature to them.  And the dumber and more ignorant a US politician is, the more bullying and threatening he usually does precisely to conceal is boneheaded ignorance and cluelessness.  They all seem to be totally unaware of the fact that under international law the threat of attack is already considered as an aggressive and illegal action.

The other headache for the US will be that it has now committed to bring the insurgents to the negotiating table, something which the insurgents have so far categorically rejected.  Even better, did you notice that the American insistence that Assad first leave even before negotiations begin have now vanished from both the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118?  Another small, but very substantial victory for the Kremlin.

The best thing which the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118 provide is, of course, a quasi-total elimination for any momentum for a US attack on Syria, and that is truly a fantastic success for Lavrov and his diplomats.  Even a "material breach" argument will not be "sexy" enough for Obama to justify a US attack on Syria.  The only way to achieve that is, what else, yet another false flag attack, either on Israel or even on the USA.  So that will be the main danger from now on: a US/Israeli false flag attack with a lot of innocent civilians killed, enough to outrage the US public opinion into yet another murderous frenzy.  Short of that, it appears that the danger of a direct US military intervention in the short and mid term have receded, at least for the time being.

The glass is definitely half full.  Let's hope we can fill it further up now.

The Saker

Further signs that the insurgency is falling apart while the Syrian military is getting stronger and stronger

Great news from Syria today: eleven Islamist rebel groups in Syria have announced they do not recognise the authority of the main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, that is the formula chosen by the BBC.  The BBC does not explain why the National Coalition is the "main" opposition alliance, but it does add that the "Istanbul-based Western-backed National Coalition was formed in November 2012 and is recognised by more than 100 countries as a legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition".  Now let's translate all this into plain English:

The liver-eating Wahabi crazies which represent at least 50% of the insurgency in Syria are refusing to take orders from the US-controlled Syrian National Coalition.  Depending on the source, 11 or 13 Wahabi groups have signed an official statement to that effect, including all the following:

• Al-Nusra Front
• Ahrar al-Sham
• Liwa al-Tawhid
• Liwa al-Islam
• Suqur al-Sham
• Harakat Fajr al-Sham al-Islamiya
• Harakat al-Nour al-Islamiya
• Kataib Nour al-Din al-Zinki
• Liwa al-Ansar
• Tajammu Fastaqim Kama Ummirat - Aleppo
• 19th Division

As I said, other sources mention 13 groups.

Recently, the hostility between these al-Qaeda franchises and the US-backed SNC has even resulted in numerous cases of armed clashes and assassinations between these two movements and now the rift between these two is official.

In practical terms, this means that there are 3 basic forces now fighting in Syria:

1) The Wahabi crazies (local branches of the international al-Qaeda)
2) The US controlled SNC and its FSA
3) The Syrian government forces (with Iranian and Hezbollah support)

Most sources seem to credit the first group with roughly 50% of all the manpower of the insurgency, but something like 80-90% of its combat capability.  Now keep in mind that the US official policy is to only arm the second group.  I would submit that the conclusion is rather obvious:

First, if the insurgency was winning, or even if it could secure an acceptable stalemate, it would not be busy overly  splitting into two hostile groups but it would agree to negotiate under the Geneva II context and hope for the maximal amount of support from the US/EU/NATO/KSA/etc.

Second, it is pretty darn obvious that the American plan to arm and train the weakest part of the insurgency while at the same time preventing these arms from flowing into the hands of the Wahabi liver-eaters is absolute nonsense.  Lack of weapons is not what makes the 2nd group so weak.  What makes it so weak is that is has no real indigenous, local, home-grown legitimacy or ideology.  You can't just grab a mix of local dissidents and foreign grown CIA assets and turn them into a powerful fighting force.  That did not work in Iraq, that did not work in Afghanistan, and that will not work in Syria.  In contrast, for all their liver-eating insanity the Wahabi crazies do have a coherent ideology and a simple but understandable ethos, and that is what makes them strong, not their weapons.

The West has always had a fixation on technology and weapons, and this belief is still prevalent today.  Look at all the so-called Western "experts" who always compare weapon systems ("our tank is better than their tank") or hardware numbers ("we have 400 guns, they have only 250").  Of course, inside the Western armies experts know that this is nonsense, but Western politicians simply cannot operate outside this completely mistaken assumption about the nature of warfare.  Hence this stupid idea of "fixing" the Syrian situation by "arming" the "moderates".

This is all very good news for the Syrian people because it goes to show that the only force with knows for what it fights, which has the willpower and expertise to skillfully use weapons and which is not dependent on foreign sponsors (be it al-Qaeda or the US CIA) is the Syrian military.  My guess is that the recent threat of a US attack on Syria followed by a complete US stand down made the Syrian military only morally and psychologically stronger: they have faced a very frightening "unknown" and their enemy backed down.  This is bound to be a huge moral booster.

Next time when the Americans resume their saber-rattling and threats, I am quite sure that there will be a next time, the Syrians will know that the US is not nearly as powerful as it likes to pretend to be and that in any contest of willpower the Syrians will quite easily prevail over the clueless and spineless US politicians.

At this point in time I really cannot come up with a scenario which would have the insurgency win this war. 

Can you?

The Saker

Obama accepts the Russian gambit

According to the BBC, Obama has decided that the Russian proposal was "a possible Syria resolution".  Of course, Obama will wrap this is all sorts of caveats, expressions of distrust, threats and warnings, but the bottom line is this: it appears that the momentum for an attack is now fully lost.

If you ask me, Putin and/or Lavrov deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for averting this attack (even if another one comes later).  Maybe jointly with Snowden, Assange and Manning.  The Nobel Committee could do that to wash away of the disgrace of having given this prize to Obama.

I know, I am dreaming.

Going to bed now.  Am exhausted.

Cya tomorrow!

The Saker

Very short bullet style news update

Dear friends,

Thanks for all your replies to my latest post.  I will join the discussion later today.  Right now, just a few short "bullet style" news updates

• The Russian Duma delegation has abandoned its plans to travel to the US to speak with US Congressmen after House Speaker John Boehner refused to meet with them.
• Russian military sources indicate that the main threat to Damascus will come from cruise missiles launched from the southern direction by USN warships in the Red Sea which would overfly Jordan and strike Damascus.  If so, this would justify a retaliatory strike on Jordanian targets.

• The same sources claim that while USN has the largest number of surface vessels around Syria, Russia has more submarines.  My guess is that they are shadowing US warships in the Mediterranean.
• Russia is sending the following ships to the eastern Mediterranean:

Large Landing Ship "Nikolay Filchenkov"

Destroyer Nastoichivyi

Large anti-submarine destroyer Smetlivy 

Note: According to al-Akhbar, the "Nikolay Filchenkov" carries a "special cargo" for Syria.

The Saker

Russian and Chinese warships sent to eastern Mediterranean

Russian sources have confirmed that the Russian heavy missile cruiser Moskva has been sent to the eastern Mediterranean. China, for its part, is sending its amphibious dock landing warship, the 19,000 metric ton Jinggangshan, a 689-foot-long warship can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft.

Moskva

Jinggangshan

Officially, the mission of the Jinggangshan is to "observe" the activities of the Russian and US navies.  According to unidentified Syrian sources, however, the Jinggangshan is carrying air defense systems.

The eastern Mediterranean is rapidly becoming a very crowded place indeed.

The Saker

Russia is sending two large amphibious assault ships to the eastern Mediterranean

Anonymous Lurker has just drawn my attention to a most interesting piece of information (thanks!):  Russia is sending two large amphibious assault ships - the Novocherkassk and the Minsk - to the eastern Mediterranean.

Novocherkassk

Minsk

This type of ship can carry 10 main battle tanks and 200 troops or 12 armored personnel carriers and 340 troops or 3 main battle tanks, plus some artillery and air defense systems.  In other words - they can carry heavy gear and lots of highly trained Naval Infantry troops to guard it.

I guess that the official reason for their presence would be to protect and evacuate Russian nationals from Syria.  But when I think of their cargo load, I also think that they might be bringing in some sensitive and heavy equipment, protected by a lot of very tough personnel.

This is quite amazing: the size and capabilities of the Russian east Mediterranean naval task force is growing every day.

I still am absolutely convinced that Russia has no intention whatsoever of militarily preventing a US attack on Syria.  The latest Russian Navy deployments do not signal a preparation for a battle with the USN or CENTCOM.  However, it does appear that Russia is willing to do pretty much all it can short of direct military intervention.  At the very least, the Russian military is giving itself the capabilities to react with great flexibility to the evolution of the situation in Syria.  Once this naval task force will be fully assembled it will be powerful enough to present a serious challenge to the US if needed. 

We are not talking about a lone company of Russian paratroopers like those who tried to force Eltsin to save Kosovo in 1999.

The Saker

Some clarifying details about this morning's launch of two missiles by Israel and about the Hezbollah mobilization

Ok, now the picture of what actually happened this morning is becoming clear (thanks to the Russian media which is in a coverage frenzy over this and which has plenty of contacts inside the Russian military).

The two missiles fired this morning were not cruise missiles of the Tomahawk type, but Israeli ballistic missiles of the "Anchor" type which are used as targets by the Israeli air defenses and which are supposed to imitate the flight profile of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles.

Contrary to the practice of sane and civilized countries, the Israelis did not pick a target area far away from shipping lanes, they did not declare a temporary exclusion zone and they warned nobody.  Yet again another proof that the craziest rogue state on the planet is not the DPRK or the KSA, but Israel.

Officially, these target missiles were supposed to be intercepted by Israeli Arrow-3 missiles but the Israelis are not confirming anything.

Normally, such missiles are fired off the wing of an F-15 but it appears that this time the launch was executed from a naval platform, probably with the assistance of the USA.

Russian military analysts agree that the real purpose of this launch was not to test the Israeli air-defense systems, but to test the capabilities and reaction of the Russian and Syrian air defense system.

The Russian military seemed to have detected the flame of the starting missiles through special satellites and through its advanced early missile launch warning radar in southern Russia which tracked the full flight and pass on the data to the Russian naval task force in the Mediterranean and to the Syrians.  Sources inside the Russian military confirm that Russia now has complete radar coverage of the entire Middle-East.

On another important development, I have received confirmation that Hezbollah is now at full mobilization.

The Saker

Russian military detects two missiles launches in the Mediterranean - Shoigu briefs Putin

According to Russian media sources, early this morning the Russian early warning radar system Armavir run by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces detected the launch of two missiles in the Mediterranean.  Both missiles were fired in an eastern trajectory and both eventually fell into the sea.  

Russian early warning radars systems

 
First, nobody admitted firing these missiles, in fact everybody denied it, but eventually the Israelis admitted that they did that in a joint operation with the US Navy.  The Israelis claimed that the launch was designed to test the Israeli anti-missile system, but it is at least as likely that it was designed to test the Russian and/or Syrian capabilities and that as soon as it became clear that the missiles were tracked, they were dumped into the sea.  This was probably not an attempt to attack Syria since any objective would require more missiles (typically 5 per target).

Voronezh-DM radar

According to Russian sources the Syrian air defenses were not put on high alert and the Russian personnel in Syria was not warned of an incoming attack.

My own take is that this was probably a test designed to see how the Russians and Syrians would be capable of detecting the launch of missiles as far as from the central Mediterranean and if they did, how they would react to the flight of inbound missiles.

I would also add that considering the current situation making such unannounced "tests" is completely irresponsible.  Thank God that the Russians did immediately detect and track these missiles and that the Syrians did not have to assume that they are being attacked.  That kind of reckless behavior is typically of the usual Israeli arrogance.

The other good news is that the Russian defensive network seems to work very well indeed and that this will further deter the US military from attempting any kind of surprise attack.  In a paradoxical way, the Israeli arrogance gave the Russians and the Syrians a very good opportunity to test their interoperability and communication procedures.  With the arrival of dedicated Russian Navy intelligence ships near the Syrian coast the Russian military will have the ability to not only immediately detect any launch as they did today, but also to track the inbound flight of US cruise missiles throughout their flight which will greatly facilitate the work of the Syrian air defenses while offering an additional 'depth' of protection for the Russian Navy task force.

If anybody in Israel or the USA had any illusions about Russian capabilities in the Middle-East the quasi instantaneous response from the Kremlin and the Russian media this morning has completely crushed them.

Good.

The Saker

Russia takes more measures to respond to the threat of a US military attack against Syria

First, the leaders of the Russian Duma have decided to send a Parliamentary delegation to the USA to meet with their counterparts in Congress.  The intention here is clearly to lobby for a 'no'  vote to Obama's request for a Congressional approval for a US attack on Syria.

Second, the Russian Navy is sending a specialized intelligence ship - called the Priazovie - to the waters off the Syrian coast to boot Russian intelligence capabilities.

This are the type of "hope for the best but prepare for the worst" kind of steps which I expect Russia to continue to be taking for the next week or so.

The Saker

And now, a few words from the Ziocrazies on the Hill

LOL! This did not take too long. According to the WSJ, "two key Republican Senate lawmakers gave notice that despite President Barack Obama‘s pledge to seek congressional authorization for a potential military strike against Syria, they wouldn’t support a limited attack that fell short of changing the momentum on the battlefield."

Hardly a surprise.

But this a great way to achieve a complete deadlock. If Obama wants only a "shot across the bow" attack - and remember that Kerry said that this attack "will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway" - and if the Ziocrazies in Congress will only support an attack to "change the momentum on the battlefield", then this means that they should reject Obama's "sissy option" and turn the page.

Should I  very carefully begin to explore the possibility of maybe contemplating the option of allowing myself the risk to be slightly inclined towards a faint and minimalist form of cautious optimism?

Yeah, I guess, but not much more.

First, there is the undeniable role which human stupidity has played in history.  And let's be honest, American politicians are not exactly known for their sophistication.

Second, AIPAC can bring all these folks to heel with just the threat of being declared "soft on defense", "un-patriotic" or - crime of crimes - not sufficiently pro-Israeli.

Third, AIPAC also has a solid chokehold on the US media which will sheepishly support whatever idiocy the Ziocrazies can cook up in their insane minds.  And for those of you who live outside the USA, let me explain that in the USA TV as blaring their propaganda everywhere: not only in homes of people, but in waiting rooms, in airports, in train stations, in gyms, in stores, I mean literally everywhere.  Some Americans now have multiple TV screens inside their cars to make sure that their little loved ones never miss a commercial or the latest wisdom Wolf Blitzer has to share.  And in homes, you will often find multiple TV sets too, not only in the living rooms, but also in the kitchen and even in the bathroom and toilets!  So a good chunk of the local population have been turned into fully remote controlled drones who will support whatever the (inevitably Zionist) talking heads on TV have to say.

But hope dies last.  Let's pray for a good old American deadlock which will grind all this nonsense about striking Syria to a full stop.

The Saker

Obama folds, but this is far from over

Great news!  Obama announced that he is going to go to Congress to seek a vote on military action against Syria.  There is little doubt in my mind that what happened is that Obama's advisers (possibly Hegel and Dempsey at the JCS) found a way to "spread the blame" for the inevitable accusation of "losing face" with Congress.  From their point of view this is a win-win move: their Congress says 'no' and Obama gets to say "my hands were tied" or Congress says 'yes' and then when the shit hits the fan it will be hard for anybody to single out Obama for blame.

There still is a problem with this: Congress is little more than a gang of brainless prostitutes all trying to "out-Zionize" each other for the privilege of being considered the most pro-Israeli.  Compared to Congress, the British House of Commons looks like an almost respectable institution.  AIPAC, in particular, will throw its immense weight around to try to get a 'yes' vote.

Smart Congressmen will, of course, have the option to say that it is because of the risks such a military attack would expose Israel to that it should be avoided, but the AIPAC thugs are not idiots - they will know that this is bull.

The other risk is that there is a fine line between an 'authorization' and a 'mandate'.  Without a vote Obama can use the excuse that the proposed attack is unpopular, but should the vote turn out to be a 'yes', then the Ziolobby will definitely say that it was the will of the American people that the US should attack Syria.

Still, at this point in time, this latest development is good news.  Yes, the Ziocrazies are far from being defeated, but its not like the old Anglo imperialist money (which Obama represents) is without resources either (they did get Obama elected, did they not?).

Also, time is most definitely on our side.  According to the BBC, Congress will only reconvene on September 9th (it appears that the American Congressmen cannot be told to cut their holidays like their British counterparts?).  If so, then this leaves enough time to all the countries opposed to this move to put the pressure on the US, in particular at the upcoming G20 meeting in Russia.  This also leave the Syrians, Hezbollah and Iran more time to make preparations.

So yes, this is far from over, but anything which delays as US attack by even a few days is objectively to the advantage of the Resistance and grateful for it.

The Saker

Why is Russia sending a naval task force to the eastern Mediterranean?

Over the past few days the Internet has been buzzing with reports about the Russian Navy sending warships including possibly guided missile cruisers (the Kerch, the Varyag, the Moskva are often mentioned), while Russian sources mention the large anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev and various support vessels.  Russian officials have made contradictory statements about how many ships are being send and which ships exactly would join the Russian flotilla, but the bottom line is clear: this time Russia is sending big, very capable ships.  The obvious question is why?

First, I want to  get the hype out of this by immediately saying that these ships are not being sent to the Mediterranean to attack the US Navy or any NATO assets.  I will never cease to repeat this: a direct Russian military intervention is out of the question.  But then, what are they up to?

One very likely hypothesis is that some of these ships (like the Varyag or the Moskva) have extremely powerful radars onboad, including the naval version of the S-300 (called the S-300F or SA-N-6 in NATO classification) and the associated 3R41 Volna ("Top Dome") or  (newer) 36N85 ("Flap Lid") radars.  In other words, such a warship can cruise off the Syrian coast and fully monitor much of the Syrian airspace.  This type of ship is also capable of sharing this data via encrypted datalink.  In the event of a US/NATO strike the Russians could not only monitor it all live, but they could easily pass on their data to the Syrians who could  then continue to defend their airspace even if their own radars were to be destroyed or jammed.  And while it is likely that the US/NATO would be aware of that kind of activity, there is really not too much they could do about it - not only are these ships equipped with formidable weapon systems, but the US is also not going to be willing to risk a war with Russia.

The second purpose of sending these ships to the eastern Mediterranean is that they usually have a complement of Naval Infantry troops which could be used to protect or evacuate Russian nationals if needed.

Furthermore, the mere presence of such sophisticated warships in a possible warzone will be a major irritant for CENTCOM which will have to allocate resources to track and monitor them.  I am not sure if there are any US aircraft carriers in the eastern Mediterranean (last time I heard they were in the Persian Gulf), but the main capability of these Russian guided missile cruisers is to be a "carrier killer" thanks to their specially designed and very powerful missiles.  The presence of such warships are just not something CENTCOM can ignore even if the Americans are certain that the Russians will not suddenly begin hostilities.

Finally, these ships have a top of the line anti-submarine warfare capability which they can use to monitor US subs near Syria, probably in conjunction with 1-2 Russian attack submarines also covertly deployed as part of this task force.

All in all, these warships, combined with Russian satellites, intelligence gathering aircraft in the skies and local intelligence assets on the ground in Syria probably give the Russians an excellent picture of what is going on, all of which they than can share with their Syrian colleagues.

The deployment of the naval task force is yet another proof that Russia is doing all it can to assist Syria and deter a US attack.

The Saker

CrossTalk: Destroying Syria (Excellent show! Must watch)

Great host, great speakers, great show.

Its good to hear some sane people, a rare privilege.

Watch and enjoy:

The "sissy option" in Syria will send a message alright - but not the one the Anglosphere intends to send

All the latest leaks seem to be pointing to the same scenario: Obama would order 'limited' strikes on 'key' targets to 'send a message' to Assad.  Ok, let's look into that.

First, this probably means that cruise missiles will be used, but little or no air strikes.  We will come back later to this one.

Second, what are 'limited' strikes.  We are talking about high visibility static targets such as security services headquarters, divisional headquarters, airbases, possibly even Ministries or even Presidential buildings (though the latter is less likely because that could signal that the Anglos are trying to murder Assad).

Third, most experts seem to agree that we are talking roughly 50 targets each hit by 4-5 cruise missiles over a period of 2-3 days.

Now, let's make a thought experiment: you are Assad, sitting somewhere in a well protected bunker and you see the Anglos executing the plan above.  What 'message' do you get from this?

If I was Assad the first message I would get from such an attack is that the Anglos are afraid of really weighing in and meaningfully influence the military balance on the ground.  If the Anglos were serious, they would begin by taking out the entire Syrian Air Force and Air Defense capability, followed by a comprehensive destruction of all communication nodes (including all key government buildings), followed by a sustained campaign to strike at the entire logistic and supply network of the Syrian military combined with a close air support campaign in support of the insurgency operation.    It would also require establishing air supremacy over Syria and have the means ready to rescue any downed airmen or special operation forces by helicopter extraction operations.  That kind of plan would require at least one full month of intense air and missile strikes.  But since that is not what the Anglos will do, I would conclude that they are afraid of doing it.  This is also why they are using a few or no aircraft.

Personally, that would embolden me.

Furthermore, since my side is willing to unconditionally go to Geneva II while the insurgency is not, what does that tell me about the Anglo operation?  Since they are clearly not trying to force me to go to the negotiation table, what message are they sending the insurgents?  Might it be: "guys, there is only that much we are willing to do, we tried, but now you are on your own"?  If you were at the head of the insurgency, would you not feel rather discouraged by this kind of Anglo intervention?

Personally, I very much hope that Obama will go for that "sissy option", as it would send all the wrong messages from the Anglo point of view and all the right ones from mine.

There are a lot of very competent military specialists at the Pentagon and they all understand that.  This is probably why rumor has it that they - and even Hagel - are opposed to this kind of nonsense.  The problem is that even this "sissy option" has a huge escalatory potential with possible Syrian missile strikes on Israel and US bases in the region.  Iran and Hezbollah could and, really, should respond by sending in more fighters into Syria.  Of course, all the other more meaningful options are even more dangerous.  Still, how do you de-escalate the "sissy option"?!  That is very unclear, to say the least.

Obama is playing with fire here and he should declare that since the UNSC did not authorize any actions and since no convincing proof has been presented, the USA will abstain from any action right now.  Alas, history shows that US Democrats - just as their Labor counterparts in Israel - are far more dangerous and reckless than the so-called "conservatives" (which they ain't, of course).  Remember Lebanon in 2006, remember the faces of Olmert, Peretz and the rest of the pathetic losers in Israel.  Don't they remind you of Obama?

The Saker

Words spoken today - three quotes which say it all

 

"It’s got to be done quickly. Bang, boom. And then let the chips fall where they may. But no more dead kids breathing poison gas.”

Bill O'Reilly

"We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves"

Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Muallem

"The West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade"

Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin

A few thoughts and speculations about the events in Egypt and Syria

Even though I have been closely following the events in Egypt I did not write anything about them for a while already.  Frankly, I felt too horrified, too appalled and to disgusted to write.  Besides, I am hardly an expert in Egypt and others have already said it all, and much better than I ever could (see, for example, here and here).  As for me, I just continued to follow the events, in silent shock and horror at what was taking place.

Still, just by watching different times of reports, I began noticing a few possibly interesting features which did not seem to catch much attention.

First this: most reports speak of the regime vs the pro-Morsi demonstrators.  And yet, especially when parsing Russian reports, I get the feeling that the reality on the ground is much more complex.  For one thing, I get the feeling that there is a substantial part of the demonstrators who are not at all associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  From their looks and interviews, they appear to be non-MB protesters who oppose the crushing of democracy and the bloodbath taking place.  Some of them even said that they had no association with the MB.

Then, I also have the feeling that there are quite a few gangs of common thugs who are happy to use the opportunity to attack people at gunpoint and steal all their belonging.  I have no way of ascertaining the magnitude of this phenomenon, but it does appear to be non-trivial.

Then, there is the business of the burned Christian churches.  I hear different figures, ranging from 7 to 50 to many more.  Each time I hear these reports I feel uncomfortable, and I wonder if I am the only one.  Here is why:

I would most definitely not put is past any Sunni extremist to burn down a church, God knows they have done some elsewhere (Chechnia, Bosnia, Kosovo).  But one still has to ask the question - cui bono - who benefits from that?

The MB official line is that they are defending democracy and human rights.  Is that really compatible with the torching of Christian churches?  Are the MB really so dumb as to not realize how bad this makes them look in the international media?  Also, considering that the Morsi supporters are busy fighting a far better trained and better armed enemy (cops, military, internal security), would attacking Christian churches really be a top priority for them?

Now look at the same question from the point of view of the military junta.  Does not every burning Christian church not vindicate them and their claim that they are saving Egypt from terrorists and extremists?

And what does the past teach us?  The Empire has used flase flags not only in Bosnia (Markale market) and Kosovo (Racak), but also in Algeria where a huge number of atrocities attributed to the Groupe Islamiste Arme (GIA) were, in fact, conducted by the Algerian military special forces.  So far all of these false flag operations have been a resounding success for the Empire which has never had to admit to them even though in each case the evidence was there, but restricted to only a few people who really cared to investigate them.  But as far as the mainstream media is concerned, this never happened.

Please - before accusing me of pro-Muslim bias - I ask that these issues be at least explored.  I appeal in particular to the non-Muslims reading this to whom I submit the following: does it make sense to denounce the false flag operations committed by the Empire in putative support of Muslim groups only to then reject the possibility that exactly the same trick could be used against Muslims elsewhere?

I personally believe that the Empire makes no difference at all between Muslims and non-Muslims.  The Empire uses whatever group is available at any given moment in time and manipulates the desires and goals of this group for its own, Imperial, interests.  Right now, in Egypt, there can be little doubt on whose side the Empire stands nor can there be any doubt as to which sides benefits from the burning of these churches.

Finally, even if these churches were, in fact, torched by Morsi supporters of the MB - so what?  I remind you that Malcolm X was killed by members of the Nation of Islam - yet it is pretty darn clear who created the circumstances for that murder and who benefited from it.

So yes, I am deeply suspicious about the reports about all these burned churches.  Am I the only one?

One more thing: the really bad news out of Egypt is that all the uniformed folks seem to have no compunction or second thoughts about shooting their fellow Egyptians.  From all the reports the bloodbath has truly reached phenomenal proportions and the so-called "security forces" are even willing to storm mosques and use deadly force on anybody, including women, children and the elderly, found inside.  The sheer viciousness of the use of deadly firepower against clearly non-violent demonstrators is rather amazing.  By the way, I am not suggesting that all or even most of the demonstrations are non-violent, not at all.  Many, if not most, are indeed violent, and I have seen footage of "civilians" in these demonstrations which are armed with assault rifles.  The fact that these armed "civilians" are clearly willing to open fire while standing in the midst of civilians also tells me that there are some in the pro-Morsi side who clearly want as many civilians killed as possible.  And this all adds up for a very ugly mix:

If the "security" forces are willing to kill as many Egyptians as ordered, and if there are those inside the MB who feel that the more people die the better, then the bloodbath is certain to continue.

Eventually though, and unless some uniformed units change sides, the MB will have to be defeated.  So far, the junta has successfully cleared every single location in Egypt it wanted to clear - from Tahrir Square to the Ramses Square Mosque.  My guess that in Cairo at least the regime is firmly in power.  What is going on in the rest of the country is, however, anyone's guess.

Russian TV reports speak of 50'000-60'000 Russian tourists currently on holidays in various tourist locations, mostly on the Red Sea.  The Russian government has now banned the sale of holiday tickets to Egypt and has authorized the free repatriation of any Russian nationals from there.  The remarkable thing those is that the Russian tourists themselves seem to feel rather safe.  They are contacted by various Russian media outlets on a daily basis but all they report are either very minor incidents or cases of more or less enforced curfews.  Clearly, the violence has not yet spilled over into the main resorts of Egypt.  So we have a bloodbath in Cairo, relative calm in the tourist resorts and basically no information at all as to what is going on in the rest of this huge country, right?

Has anybody heard or seen any report about that is happening in the rest of Egypt?

Besides the greater Cairo metropolitan area (9+ million people, Alexandria (4 million) and Giza (3 million), there are another 16 cities in Egypt with a population in between 200'000 and 600'00 for a total population of about 6 million people.  Considering the distances involved and the fact that these cities are spread through the depth of the country, this shows that there is a real potential for local resistance to the rule of the central government.

Again - if any of you have any information about what is going on in the rest of the country I would be most grateful for it.

One more thing: the violence in Egypt seems to have temporarily eclisped the war against Syria and against Hezbollah which has now reached a new qualitative level with the car bomb attack on Hezbollah in Beirut.

In Syria, as far as I know, the government forces are still pressing their advantage even though they seem to be able to concentrate only at a few cities at a time.  As for the insurgents, there are making use of a simple and flexible tactic: every time the government forces are concentrating on location A, the insurgents attack in location B.  Considering their lack of capabilities and their operational situation this is a sound tactic, but hardly one which can turn the tide.

Another interesting development in Syria is the dramatic increase of al-Qaeda attacks against the Syrian Kurds.  My guess is that being pressed by government forces al-Qaeda is literally running out of space and that they naturally looked towards the Kurdish areas of Syria which happen to be located in a strategic corner of the country which excellent land communications potential.  Whatever may be the case, they are taking a huge risk here because of the Kurds can set aside their often confused political agendas and if they actually turn their rather formidable military capabilities against al-Qaeda then this might really end up being a "coup de grâce" for al--Qaeda in Syria.  Alas, I don't have the feeling that the Kurds are ready to accept the fact that their best chance for the future would be in a firm alliance with Syria and Iran.

That's about it.  Please consider all of the above as just the speculations of a rather ignorant person.  I offer them mainly in the hope of getting a good discussion going and, especially, with the hope that those of you who have some information about what is going on in Egypt and Syria might be willing to share it with the rest of us.  Or, you can follow my example, and engage in wild speculations without really knowing what you are talking about :-)

Let's not take ourselves too seriously and let's just enjoy sharing impressions and speculations.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

Al-Qaeda militants killed Syrian rebel commander - FSA spokesman

RT reports:

A senior figure of the rebel Free Syrian Army has been executed by Al-Qaeda-linked militants during negotiations. Multiplying conflicts between moderate and extremist rebels confronting President Assad might lead to an opposition split-up.  Supreme Military Council member Kamal Hamami, also known for his call-sign Abu Bassel al-Ladkani, was meeting with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the Syrian port city of Latakia when he was murdered, FSA spokesman Qassem Saadeddine informed Reuters.   “The Islamic State phoned me saying that they killed Abu Bassel and that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council,” Saadeddine said. “He met them to discuss battle plans.” (...)  "Nusra is now two Nusras. One that is pursuing Al-Qaeda's agenda of a greater Islamic nation, and another that is Syrian with a national agenda to help us fight Assad," a senior rebel commander with close ties to the Al-Nusra Front told Reuters.  "It is disintegrating from within," he added.

This is all excellent news, of course.  First, this clearly indicates that the Wahabi crazies have gone even "crazier": if they are shooting people during negotiations it is unlikely that they will have many people willing to negotiate with them.  Second, if they really plan to kill all of the Supreme Military Council this will force the latter to take action, if only to protect itself.  Third, if al-Nusra has really split into two factions, that means that the single most effective combat force on the side of the insurgency is disintegrating.  Forth,  these developments suggest that Western intelligence services are loosing control of the insurgency as they would never allow them to start killing each other.  Finally, and most importantly, this kind of development is a very strong indicator that the insurgency has major problems and that, in turn, shows that the much talked-about program to arm the insurgency is petering out like a wet firecracker.

Truly, this is excellent news.  Hopefully, the Wahabi crazies will continue killing each other while the FSA bonzes will return where they belong: to Virgina, USA.

The Saker

Mind blowing hypocrisy - this time by John Kerry

I just read this:

US Secretary of State John Kerry has said the militant Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah and Iran are helping perpetuate President Bashar al-Assad's "campaign of terror" in Syria. Mr Kerry said thousands of Hezbollah fighters were contributing significantly to the violence. He added that Iran was actively supporting Hezbollah's involvement.

Oh jeez, Mr. Kerry is deploring that foreign elements are involved in the war on Syria.  But how is it that Mr. Kerry had nothing to say when many tens of thousands of foreign fighters invaded Syria from Lebanon and Turkey?  Where was Mr. Kerry when the Israelis bombed Syrian targets, not once, but twice?  

Kerry also had bad things to say about Russia and its fulfillment of military contracts with Syria.  But why did Mr. Kerry have nothing to say when US allies like France and Qatar flooded the country with weapons?

Could it be because Washington's puppets are losing this war?

Indeed, all the information seems to confirm that the strategic town of al Qusayr has almost been liberated from the Wahabi crazies.  The Syrian military is said to be in control of the center of the city, while Hezbollah controls all the roads in and out of the city.  The insurgents are still in control of several heavily fortified neighborhoods, equipped with tunnels and bunkers.  Unless the insurgency manages to break through the Hezbollah blockade the outcome is basically a matter of time.

Hence Mr. Kerry's hypocritical histrionics.

The Saker

Shias, mass media, and Hezbollah: What lies behind the battle for Qusair

by Nadezhda Kevorkova, Russia Today

As the Syrian army and rebels fight for control of Qusair, it is necessary to realize why the town is strategically important and vital for Shias on both sides of the border, making it a military and media battleground. There are far more elements surrounding the situation in Qusair than first meet the eye, RT's Nadezhda Kevorkova reveals.

The army’s advance to Qusair is a key strategic operation. Qusair is near Homs, which is located on the road connecting Damascus with the Mediterranean seaport. And Qusair itself is the closest town to the Lebanese border. So taking control of it allows the forces to control the Lebanese border with the Shias living on both sides.

There is an important high point between Qusair and the Lebanese village Al-Qasr. The Syrian army was forced to leave this area in the fall of 2012, so locals lost their protection. Opposition fighters took over the region and tried to chase out the Shias and take control of the high point – there were severe battles here in April 2013. (I was in Lebanon’s Al-Qasr at the time – the village came under heavy fire). But the rebels lost to the fighters from the Syrian People’s Committees. They were able to hold the high point.

Had the opposition forces won over this rather small and seemingly insignificant area, there would’ve been major consequences. The war would’ve spread to Lebanon, and Hezbollah would’ve been obligated to get involved. Jihadists would’ve been able to get into Syria from Lebanon and attack Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the Beqaa Valley.

But fighters from the Syrian People’s Committees didn’t let them do it and held the high point.

Thanks to their effort, the government forces were able to deploy troops here and start the Qusair counter-offensive on May 19.

(click on map for full resolution)

Thirty-thousand Syrian Shias live on the Syrian side of the border (not the Alawites - the Shias). As we know, the border between Syria and Lebanon is relative - the Shias have lived here for ages. When colonial powers drew border lines between countries, they didn’t take the traditional settlement patterns of ethnic groups and communities into account. Many of the local residents have Lebanese passports.

In the fall of 2012, rebels and foreign mercenaries began to sweep Shia villages with fire. They also intimidated people and conducted ethnic cleansing operations. In mixed communities they would go into Shias’ houses telling people to get out, drew “outlaw” signs on the buildings, snipers shot at those who tried to exit these houses. If a family left a home, it was burned down. Rebels planned to drive all Shias out of the area near the border.

Opposition propaganda resources in major mass media and social networks have deployed a campaign in the Islamic world aimed at bolstering the idea that all the Shias are apostates – they are not Muslims, not native to these regions and are simply a tool that is used for proliferating Iranian policy across the Middle East. That is why jihad regards killing a Shia as noble. A number of propaganda resources that different sheikhs were using to broadcast anti-Shia sermons, were involved with the campaign.

Moreover, the mass media are thus instilling the minds of Muslims with the idea that all the Shias, including ordinary peasants, are Hezbollah militants, and Hezbollah, in its turn, is a supplement to the 'dreadful thugs' of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

Such an approach, which is used by the opposition and backed by the world’s major mass media, has a precise analogy.

The scorched-earth policy was first used in the region by the Irgun Jewish settlers in April 1948, when several Palestinian villages were wiped off the map (Deir Yassin is the most well-known). The goal was simple: the news about the massacre of 254 Palestinians – kids, women and old people would terrify all the rest so much, that they would run away voluntarily. The news about such unprecedented atrocities as, for instance, disembowelling pregnant women did strike terror into people: unarmed and unskilled in terms of war 740 thousand Palestinians fled from their home villages becoming refugees. Zionist ideologists still claim that the Palestinians are not native to Palestine and they were invited there as migrant workers, so they are either Bedouins, or nomads, or Gypsies from the Middle East who didn’t have any skills in agriculture and didn’t know how to farm.

This is also the reason that has been driving the mass-media campaign to discredit Hezbollah that has been accused of allegedly fighting against the Syrian people. Video footage and photographs of fallen Hezbollah fighters dating back to the 2006 Lebanon War have been circulated as “proof” that Hezbollah is involved in Syria and suffering losses. Back in 2006, 800 Hezbollah fighters put up resistance to the ground invasion of Lebanon by Israel, and these numbers were officially announced by the party leader Hasan Nasrallah.

I met with families that were forced to flee Syrian villages by the border. These were mostly large families who feared that their women, wives and daughters, would be raped by the opposition fighters and criminals that accompany them. Many also said that it was their strategy to intimidate the local population on purpose to have the houses vacated. Nonetheless many stayed and organized community defense volunteer squads to protect themselves from the rebel forces and mercenaries with arms in their hands.

The battle of Qusair has been of strategic importance, but not only that - Qusair is the only town, however small (with 50,000 people of population ) that had been given up by the government forces in the past – while the rest of the towns in Syria are under the government’s control. Mass-media that are telling their audience that the purpose of the battle of Qusair was “to regain control over the Mediterranean coast” and “re-deploy the government forces to Aleppo” are lying. The army is already in full control of the coast. Last Sunday, the army launched a massive offensive on all transit routes for weapons and supplies coming into the country.

As of today, Qusair is surrounded by the Syrian army, which is also in control of the downtown area. An escape corridor is being kept open for the fleeing population. The militants who fail to use it are contained in town’s quarters.

As for the losses, all the numbers cited are pure speculation and part of the propaganda attack on Syria. For example, the opposition initially reported online that they had killed “90 Hezbollah militants,” yet after a while changed the number to 30, and that’s in addition to the Syrian army’s losses of 20 soldiers reported by the army itself.

Insurgents in Syria burn a Shia mosque and an Armenian church

On YouTube one of their supporters also added this heartfelt message:

"Fuck bashar and his slut mother he destroyed all of syria with the help of kuffar shia irani pigs and russian communist atheist bastards but our mujahdeen bros will now rid syria of bashar bastard and we will have an islamic country where there will be no alchoal drugs and prostitutes everywhere it will be a islamic laws not wester laws u shia kuffar pigs time to pay now for killing thousands of sunni muslims ur god khomeni is in hell roting and u all pieces of scum will join him inshallah"

Here is another video where the same folks burn down an Armenian church:



I think that these videos, combined with the rather unambiguous message, make the future these insurgents plan for Syria pretty clear.

The Saker