|
In Which The NYT Claims That John McCain Is A White House Official
Some rag reports: Kremlin Says Russian ‘Volunteer’ Forces Will Fight in Syria:
Russia signaled deepening intervention Monday in the Syria war, strongly hinting that its “volunteer” ground forces would soon be fighting there..
…
Although President Vladimir V. Putin has ruled out sending ground forces to Syria, a senior Kremlin defense official told Russian news agencies on Monday that military veterans who had fought in eastern Ukraine were likely to start showing up as “volunteer” ground forces in Syria.
The statement by the official, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, asserted that such volunteers “cannot be stopped.”
Maybe a map is needed for the NYT to learn some political differentiation.
Dear NYT -believe it or not- but the Kremlin and the Parliament in Moscow are indeed two dissimilar institutions. The retired Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov is the elected chairman of the defense committee of the Russian Duma and not a "Kremlin official". Also – Senator John McCain is not a "White House official" no matter how much he would like to be one.
The Kremlin cares about the former Admiral's opinion just as much as the White House cares about McCain's usual blabber. Komoyedov can announce whatever nonsense he likes. It does not make it Russian state policy.
The NYT of course loves to depict Russia as a dictatorship and attributes everything someone in Moscow says or does to the President of the Russian Federation or, even darker, to "the Kremlin". But that is propaganda, not reporting.
But back to the issue of the possibility Russian volunteers in Syria. On the "World" page of the NYT website we find a promotion for a current NYT Magazine piece headline: Meet the American Vigilantes Who Are Fighting ISIS
A ragtag group of fighters from America and Europe have joined the fight against extremists in Syria. But with little training and no clear leadership, do they know what they’re doing?
Are U.S. volunteers going to Syria to fight extremists in Syria a "signal" of "deepening intervention" by the official U.S. of A.? Why is seen as such when some Russian volunteers might want to do alike?
Penelope, 55, I for one probably missed some of yr previous posts so fine you wrote a longer version. I see the Petraeus /Allen stuff in the same light as you, more or less…
IMO there is no possibility that this occurred as it is presented to us, as an act of defiance by Putin is the key sentence in yr. post, and when I wrote briefly about the why now issue I did not mention this.
Nor did I go into the obvious that IS was ‘winning’ (can’t speak to the details of territory etc., facts not solid enough), so ‘winning’ in the sense of ‘being left alone (more or less) to act, and becoming institutionalised.’ In this kind of situation, as time marches on, people leave, territories empty, the grip of the invaders or revolutionaries strengthens, as businesses are taken over, the population convinced, coerced, killed or terrorised, new state structures set up, and so on. And just existing in the news…as an ‘entity’ – a State! that counts…for so long! Come a certain point, a de facto ‘success’ means that opponents can only undo it by Invasion and Mass Killing. At some point one has to act. A kind of threshold because TIME.
Obvious to me that Obama-Kerry + some realists on the block (paleo-cons etc.) vs. neo-cons and liberal interventionists had all this in mind and more, and the Iran sanctions lifting was the (visible) beginning — as I *repeatedly* stated, it was a done deal right from the start (see Netanyahu just stated he would stop fighting it: he just needed time to look like he was protesting, etc.) Once Iran was brought into the fold (it may even have been a condition on their part to be present on the ground in Syria), an anti-IS coalition that would actually ACT was sure-fire (sic).
So an act of defiance by Putin, no. More a taking in hand, adopting a lead, up-front position, while being relatively sure, for whatever reasons, that no serious violent opposition leading to WW3 will take place. If this was a straight-out agreement I doubt but no matter. Reality need not be spoken if agreed on in petto.
Therefore, we are offered dollops of trickle-truth, objections and horror tales (Putin targets moderates, civs are getting killed, Assad is still inherently a monster incarnate, etc. etc.) to then slowly pass from ‘Assad must go’ to ‘There is no alternative to Assad for now’ (Merkel, others).. from ‘Russia is a demonic agressor’ to…wait and see.. ‘US, Russia coordinate Syria strikes’, etc. etc. But imho the situation is more volatile and complex than you make out, the balance of power is very tricky…and Putin may be acting relatively alone / w. his coalition…but who knows…
All of which, btw, poses the larger question: Why did things proceed so far that the Syrian population / country was sacrificed ??
Posted by: Noirette | Oct 7 2015 16:56 utc | 112
|
