Finian Cunningham
RT
Read more
RT
"...the real purpose for Obama sending in the troops is to restrict Russian offensive operations by introducing the risk of bombing American forces. In effect, the US Special Forces are being used as human shields to protect American regime-change assets on the ground."
Obama's decision to send Special Forces into Syria is being widely viewed as a US military escalation in the country. The troop dispatch also signals that the US trying to forestall Russian successes in wiping out Washington's regime-change assets in Syria.
In short, the US Special Forces are being used as "human shields" to curb Russian air strikes against anti-government mercenaries, many of whom are instrumental in Washington's regime-change objective in Syria.
First of all, we need to view a host of developments, including the hastily convened "peace talks" in Vienna, as a response by the US and its allies to the game-changing military intervention by Russia. That intervention, beginning on September 30, has not only dealt massive blows to militants, it has completely changed the balance of forces to give the Assad government the upper hand in the war against foreign-backed extremists. That, in turn, has sent the US-led powers trying to topple Damascus into disarray.
Recall the scattered reactions from Washington and its allies, including Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. At first, Washington tried to rubbish Vladimir Putin's order to aid his Syrian ally with airstrikes as "doomed to fail".
Then there were overblown, unverified, claims of civilian casualties from Russian strikes, plus there were American claims that Russian cruise missiles had gone wildly astray, hitting Iran. There was also much angst over Russia striking "moderate rebels" instead of the Islamic State terror network. All such accusations, encouraged with Western media amplification, were designed to undermine Russia's military operation.
Then there were threats from Saudi Arabia and Qatar that they would launch direct military action in Syria to "protect" the populace from the joint firepower of Assad and Putin. That idea was quickly shelved (one wonders by whom?).
Another seeming knee-jerk response came from Turkey and right wing politicians and pundits in the US which revived talks about the creation of "safe havens" in northern Syria, ostensibly to protect civilian refugees, but also tacitly and more importantly, to give cover to "rebel" groups from Russian air strikes and Syrian government ground troops.
None of these reactions have gained credibility despite Western media hype. On the contrary, it soon became clear that Russia's military intervention in Syria was a masterstroke by Putin, wiping out large swathes of the anti-government mercenaries, stabilizing the Assad government, and winning much popular support both within Syria and across the Middle East, and indeed around the world.
In short, the US Special Forces are being used as "human shields" to curb Russian air strikes against anti-government mercenaries, many of whom are instrumental in Washington's regime-change objective in Syria.
First of all, we need to view a host of developments, including the hastily convened "peace talks" in Vienna, as a response by the US and its allies to the game-changing military intervention by Russia. That intervention, beginning on September 30, has not only dealt massive blows to militants, it has completely changed the balance of forces to give the Assad government the upper hand in the war against foreign-backed extremists. That, in turn, has sent the US-led powers trying to topple Damascus into disarray.
Recall the scattered reactions from Washington and its allies, including Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. At first, Washington tried to rubbish Vladimir Putin's order to aid his Syrian ally with airstrikes as "doomed to fail".
Then there were overblown, unverified, claims of civilian casualties from Russian strikes, plus there were American claims that Russian cruise missiles had gone wildly astray, hitting Iran. There was also much angst over Russia striking "moderate rebels" instead of the Islamic State terror network. All such accusations, encouraged with Western media amplification, were designed to undermine Russia's military operation.
Then there were threats from Saudi Arabia and Qatar that they would launch direct military action in Syria to "protect" the populace from the joint firepower of Assad and Putin. That idea was quickly shelved (one wonders by whom?).
Another seeming knee-jerk response came from Turkey and right wing politicians and pundits in the US which revived talks about the creation of "safe havens" in northern Syria, ostensibly to protect civilian refugees, but also tacitly and more importantly, to give cover to "rebel" groups from Russian air strikes and Syrian government ground troops.
None of these reactions have gained credibility despite Western media hype. On the contrary, it soon became clear that Russia's military intervention in Syria was a masterstroke by Putin, wiping out large swathes of the anti-government mercenaries, stabilizing the Assad government, and winning much popular support both within Syria and across the Middle East, and indeed around the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment