Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font


Today, Russia’s stature internationally is growing, it is creating international alliances with China, Iran, and others, becoming increasingly assertive, and it is fast becoming the main focal point of multi polarity, the sort of geopolitical reality that the world seeks.

Consequently, Russia is increasingly projected as a positive force in the world.
The inevitable decline of the United States of America’s hegemony in the world is what the world needs. During the crisis in Libya, Russia repeatedly spoke about the danger of NATO’s military intervention which could cause more chaos and bring Islamists to power.

And now, four years later, Libya lies in ruins, practically ungovernable and has repeatedly called for diplomacy and dialogue with Assad who is the  legitimate authority in Syria which the international community recognises and has stressed that if the US and the West resumes its attempt to ‘export democracy’, it will open the door to Islamic radicalisation.

Now that the Syrian conflict has claimed the lives of more than 300 000 people and the flow of refugees to Europe continues unabated, the US and cronies is without a plan to solve the Syrian conflict.
The US-led coalition efforts against ISIL (also known as ISIS) have, hitherto, failed to achieve any meaningful results.

It is a year now since the so-called coalition against ISIL was launched; ISIL is getting stronger both in Iraq and Syria.
While the US and company is perplexed, the tactical Putin is taking concrete action against ISIL. And he is not only willing to bolster his traditional ally, Basher  al-Assad but also to prevent the spread of ISIL’s influence to the North Caucuses and the emergence of a new major threat to national security.

The US and cronies have cried foul claiming that Russia’s intervention in Syria is counterproductive in that the Russian airstrikes are targeted against the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ which they have been along supporting and it will attract many Islamic fighters from every part of the world, thus sustaining the conflict.

What is puzzling is the US blatant admission that its training and arming programme of the ‘moderate rebels’ has yielded no positive results as about four or five  of the ‘graduates’ made it to the battle front against ISIL as the majority gave away the US supplied weapons to al-Qaeda affiliates and sporadically defecting to al-Nusra and ISIL. To me, such a claim is tantamount to crude, mischievous and ingenuous propaganda aimed at demonising Russia and allies, particularly when one considers that the difference between US and Russia’s involvement in Syria is that Russians were actually invited by the legitimate Syrian Government while the US imposed itself on Syria under the guise of fighting ISIL while seeking to dislodge Assad from power. International law (the UN charter) permits the use of force in a foreign country only if it has been authorised by the UN Security Council, an act of self-defence, or at the behest of the country’s legitimate authorities.

It is imperative for the US and the West to get it that Russia, like them, has a foreign policy and geopolitical interests it must protect.
To expect Russia to sit back and watch in pained silence while same is threatened is frivolous and preposterous.
America maintains hundreds of military bases across the globe and Russia has virtually no bases abroad. Of the two, who is the belligerent and bellicose? It is for you to judge.

Russia’s direct involvement in the Syrian conflict has changed the balance of power in Syria, making it more difficult for the US and company to take any action calculated to dislodge the legitimate Syrian government from power with impunity and consequently, Obama has changed his calculus as a new voice of reason that seeks to keep Assad in power during the transition period is beginning to emerge. Russia has demonstrated its long range cruise missile capabilities in Syria where it was able to hit targets at a distance of 1 500 kilometres from ships located in the Caspian Sea.

The blatant NATO’s expansion towards the Russian borders in Eastern Europe accompanied by the Pentagon’s saber-ratting and muscle-flexing in former Soviet republics is provocative in character, therefore, Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine are justified. NATO has been holding military exercises at Russia’s doorstep in Poland and Ukraine. Just imagine how the US would react if the Russians were to hold same in Canada, Ooh!
May that day never dawn in our lifetime and that our children. I am sure we would see a replay of the Cuban missile crisis. 

While lecturing Russia on foreign policy matters and human rights, the US has been expanding its military presence in Iraq under the pretext of an anti-terror campaign.
At the same time, turning a blindeye to atrocities of the Kiev regime and far right National Guard militants in eastern Ukraine.

Obama has sanctioned considerable military aid to Ukraine and has literally turned a blind eye to the flagrant disregard of human rights by the Saudis in its dealings with its own nationals.
The question remains, whether the US leadership is able to assess the Syrian situation soberly or if Obama’s actions are guided by the principle ‘what is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for an ox’.
Those who demand that Assad ‘must go’ should remember that one of the principal lessons from Libya and Iraq is that the defeat of a despised regime does not automatically lead to peace, let alone anything resembling democracy.
The insinuation by the US leadership that Russia will soon a pay price in Syria smacks of jealousy and malice on the part of the US.

The US policy makers should remember that in Afghanistan, the stingers and other US aid bought the United States little or nothing in the way of subsequent influence. The US was narrowly and short-sightedly focused on defeating the USSR, while turning a blind eye to the fact that Afghanistan then turned into a 14-year political and military quagmire for Washington.

The US’s refusal to hold direct dialogue on the important political settlement subject with Russia is an indication that the US has its eye not on the defeat of ISIL but on dislodging Assad from power to which the Russians are vehemently opposed citing the Libyan obtaining scenario which happened at the instigation of NATO, a US lapdog.
To me, its current stance on Russia’s direct involvement in the Syrian conflict is motivated by its fear of losing its credibility in front of the international community and its own people after it waged a vicious propaganda war against Putin and Assad.

Under the obtaining status quo in the Middle East, is it not perhaps time for the US leadership to look itself in the mirror?
It is my deep seated conviction that it will find it rewarding as the results will show that it is not a positive force in the Middle East but still languishing in the cold war era. In fact history will judge it harshly.

Larry Dludlu

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: