As the China-Russian-Iran alliance continues to gain new momentum spreading win-win cooperation and development across Asia, Africa and the World, the dying unipolar system run by detached militarists, financiers and technocrats is doubling down on its weird mix of 1) a “scorched earth” offensive threat to “dissuade” China and Russia from continuing on their current trajectory and 2) a “positive” green game on which nations are invited to tie their destinies as an alternative to China’s BRI.

Everyone reading this should already be aware of the “scorched earth” Full Spectrum dominance policy targeting Russia and China.

However, what is less appreciated even among the most geopolitically savvy anti-imperialists today is what sort of “positive” green game is being deployed to subvert the $3 trillion Belt and Road Initiative which has already won over 136 participating nations and which geopolicians understand to be a mortal threat to their desired world order.

A U.S.-Led Alternative to the BRI

According to Biden’s own remarks during his March 26 call to Boris Johnson, the USA must create “an infrastructure plan to rival the Belt and Road Initiative.”

This agenda was amplified by John Kerry’s foray to India, Bangladesh and the UAE from April 1-11 where the Presidential Climate Envoy has been deployed to set the stage for the April 22-23 International Leaders Summit on Climate to be hosted by Joe Biden.

Now, in principle, a U.S.-version of the BRI is not intrinsically a bad idea.

However, this idea could only function in the real world IF the USA were to give up its unipolar imperial ambitions and return to the anti-imperial constitutional traditions which once animated its greatest leaders like Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, FDR and JFK. Under influence of the technocrats managing the current Biden presidency in post-color revolution USA, that option is about as far from reality as one can imagine.

On the other hand, were the USA to stick with the Great Reset Agenda which is attempting to undo the industrial revolution under the cover of “reducing global emissions” to zero by 2050 as the Paris Accords proclaim, then any idea of a viable U.S.-led BRI doppelganger is pre-doomed to fail by its own internal self-contradictions.

What is the main self-contradiction of this “development agenda”?

The nations of the earth need to develop. They have objectively verifiable and measurable constraints to their ability to support their populations based on limits to agriculture, industry, energy, education and transportation. Decades of unchallenged Anglo-American dominance has only exacerbated these problems to the acute degrees we find today.

That’s why they are embracing China’s Belt and Road so enthusiastically.

Unlike the World Bank and IMF practices over the past 70 years, China is extending financing to all participating nations based on conditionality-free, low interest practices that create long term, genuine development, and full spectrum economies in every nation it touches. This is how China has met its goals of wiping out extreme poverty at home in a relative blink of an eye.

Despite the countless billions of dollars of loans extended to the poorest nations of the world since the earliest days of the Cold War, poverty, war, insecurity, terrorism and debt slavery have become more rampant today than ever before. The recent March 23 Hunger Hotspots Report issued by the World Food Program and FAO outlined hundreds of millions of people suffering acute food insecurity around the world with Syria, the Congo, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Haiti and South Sudan toping the list. U.S.-led imperial intrigue, financial loans, speculative warfare and humanitarian “aid” to all of these countries should not be seen as coincidental to their currently dismal situation.

China, on the other hand, is ensuring that these nations acquire genuine development, great megaprojects, interconnectivity via roads, ports and rail as well as local industrial production and engineering expertise via trade schools and on-the-ground training under Chinese experts. Investments into all forms of energy required to build megaprojects is on the table without any green conditionalities as we find being imposed by western technocrats.

Kerry’s Green Delusion Exposed in India

Compare this with John Kerry’s demands that India and Bangladesh embrace de-carbonization strategies in the build up to the April 22-23 climate conference and the latter COP26 summit in December. The delusional foundations of Kerry’s thinking were eloquently exposed by Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, a leading member of Modi’s Council on Climate Change who told the Hindustan Ties on March 30:

“First, it would require us to immediately scrap all existing coal-based power plants and factories, or alternatively, retrofit them with carbon-capture and storage technology. This would entail astronomical costs at a time when the economy is already reeling from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Dasgupta called out the hypocrisy and imperial agenda’s underlying this apparently altruistic green agenda saying:

“It would necessitate an immediate switch-over to imported, existing clean energy technologies at a huge cost, denying our own industry the time required for indigenization or development of affordable indigenous technologies. Let us not forget that the U.S. lodged a complaint against us at the WTO when we took some modest measures to promote domestic manufacture of solar cells and modules… we need to examine the trade-related implications of surrendering our principled position on ‘common and differentiated responsibilities.’ The European Union is set to impose levies on carbon-intensive imports, even from developing countries. It would be naive to think that the countries calling on India to adopt a 2050 net-zero target are motivated purely by altruistic concerns unrelated to commercial interests.”

OSOWOG Revived

Despite the fact that a “Green BRI doppelganger” has been on the books since 2018 when the OSOWOG Plan was unveiled as a World Bank-financed/British Commonwealth-run initiative, the plan was generally acknowledged to be an unworkable green boondoggle and fell out of interest for quite some time. However, a flurry of renewed media propaganda over the past few months has attempted to drive this green zombie back into the zeitgeist as witnessed by Forbes’ recent promotional coverage of the plan. The authors of the Forbes fluff piece stated:

“The idea behind OSOWOG is that the sun never sets. An inter-continental grid can be instrumental in harnessing the sun’s energy (and all other forms of renewable energy) by optimally leveraging the differences in time zones, seasons, resources, and prices between countries and regions. This is particularly helpful for decarbonising countries which have limited avenues of harnessing renewable energy and heavily reliant on fossil fuels.”

The plan’s outline is broken up into three phases which is somewhat reminiscent of the famous “underpants gnome plot” from South Park.

The World Bank-connected authors describe how in phase one, solar panels will be spread across South Asia, Southwest Asia and the Middle East with India serving as the driving force. Completely skipping over how phase one could realistically happen, the technicians describe phase two which sees North Africa swiftly covered in solar panels (see: Desertec part deux) and as if by magic, both regions would be connected via green grids. In the final third phase, this new green energy hub cutting across the Eurasian Heartland from Africa through Asia, would then be extended to the entire globe.

When all of this is somehow finished by 2050, the world as a whole would be forever relieved of its dependence on dirty energy sources like oil, natural gas and nuclear as we collectively are steered into a new age of clean zero-growth, sustainable mediocrity under a technocratic elite managing the levers of consumption and production under a post-nation state world order.

Three basic questions might arise at this point:

1) How would such large-scale green megaprojects be funded by western nations who are sitting on top of a multi-quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble of speculative capital ready to blow out into a hyperinflationary collapse that will make Weimar 1923 look like a cake walk?

Answer: It can’t.

2) Even if green solar grids could be constructed across the heartland cutting across (and disrupting) the East-West New Silk Road, how could such forms of green energy- long known for its unreliability, high costs and low-quality energy output be capable of meeting the needs of the people of the world wracked by generations of poverty and underdevelopment?

Answer: It can’t.

3) So why would any nation go along with this sort of plan when viable alternatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and broader Multipolar Alliance already exist with olive branches open to all?

Answer: If they are not suicidal, then they won’t.

This last answer obviously creates a bit of an uncomfortable ambiguity since the thesis that “nations are not suicidal” is rather indefensible at this moment in time.

Suicidal Ideation as a Bad Foreign Policy Paradigm

Based upon their words and actions, any onlooker endowed with a basic IQ level would have to come to the conclusion that many nations have demonstrated a high degree of suicidal behavior in recent years. From pumping trillions of dollars into zombie, to shutting down entire economies in response to viruses with relatively low fatality rates, to encircling Russia and China with belligerent military postures, to pouring flames onto the fires of radical jihadi terrorist and neo-Nazi groups, to shutting down the foundations of industrial energy needs requisite to support existing population levels, to burning food for bioethanol- there is very little western governments have done in recent years which gives any strong indication that the desire to survive is strong.

The fact that many of those suicidal nations are concentrated in the Trans-Atlantic City of London-dominated zone of influence and have seen their nationalist leaders fall under assassins bullets many decades ago in order for supranational “deep state” operations to infuse themselves into positions of control should be kept firmly in mind. This fact helps remind us that we are not dealing with conventional “sovereign nation states” as some commentators make the foolish habit of doing, but rather we are dealing with a supranational financier oligarchy utilizing its influence across bureaucratic, media, military industrial, academic, and corporate lines of control.

Whether or not India, or any other nation among NATO (and newly emerging Pacific NATO Quad) has the moral fitness to survive will depend on how fast they realize that their genuine interests are not located in green grids or military confrontation with Russia and China but rather in dropping zero sum thinking in order to work with the Multipolar Alliance as collaborators.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Alan MACLEOD

Recently-appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has announced his intention of dealing with the pressing issue of global warming as a national security concern. “America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is,” the 76-year-old former Secretary of State wrote. “I am proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate movement to take on this crisis.”

The announcement drew praise from many professional climate activists and groups, perhaps assuming that Kerry was taking his lead from Bernie Sanders, who has for years been saying the same thing. Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash said his statement was an “encouraging move,” while 350.org’s Bill McKibben, predicted Kerry would be an excellent climate czar. Yet, as media critic Adam Johnson argued, Kerry’s proclamation should deeply concern progressive activists and will likely lead to expanding the already bloated military budget.

Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project (ASP), whose board is a who’s who of retired generals, admirals and senators. The ASP also hailed the appointment of their man, explaining, in a little-read report, exactly what treating the climate as a national security threat entails. And it is nothing like what Sanders advocates.

For the ASP, climate change constitutes an “accelerant of instability” and a “threat multiplier” that will “affect the operating environment,” and notes that Kerry will have three priorities in his role as President Biden’s right-hand man. What were those three priorities? Making sure people in the Global South could eat and have access to safe drinking water? Reparations? Disaster relief or response teams? Cutting back on fossil fuel use? Indeed not. For the ASP, the primary objectives were:

1. A huge rebuilding of the United States’ military bases,
2. Countering China in the Pacific,
3. Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.

The ASP notes that rising sea levels will neutralize or destroy dozens of American naval bases around the world, including the world’s largest such base in Norfolk, VA. The ASP recommends “prioritizing the measures that can protect readiness” of the military to strike at any time, also warning that rising sea levels will hurt the combat readiness of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Thus, a rebuilding of the U.S.’ worldwide network of military bases is in order.

The report notes that the nations most immediately affected by climate change are South Pacific island chains like Vanuatu or the Marshall Islands, claiming that these countries are “strategically important in the contest between the U.S. and China.” It recommends that the U.S. must use all tools available to remain in control of those islands, claiming that China is “showering cash” on them, building seawalls, ports, and clean energy stations that are a threat to U.S. dominance of the region.

The ASP also notes that the Arctic is the fastest-warming area of the world, and envisions a pitched battle with Russia to control the area, which is increasingly open to maritime traffic thanks to melting arctic ice. “NATO faces a severe military challenge in the European Arctic area of operation,” it writes, advocating that, “the U.S. military should actively participate in Arctic joint exercises, and publicize U.S. military deployments to the region, with particular focus on the Russian border – perhaps by returning the U.S. Marine deployment to Norway.” “There is no time to waste,” it concludes, insisting that, “the region needs a concerted diplomatic, security, and economic push from the U.S. government.”

What will the designation of the climate crisis as a “national security threat” entail domestically? Last year, the ASP wrote that “Given that climate change will force more families to migrate, funding for border security should include improving facilities for holding and transporting migrants.” In other words, an expansion of the militarized border and network of detention centers, often condemned as “concentration camps.”

While many activists may have taken heart at Kerry’s tough words, it is doubtful whether occupying Norway or expanding the network of ICE camps was exactly what they had in mind when they said they wanted the government to act on climate change.

mintpressnews.com

The MSM is being increasingly challenged by alternate media disseminated online. There you will discover that the US government is not all it claims to be. Thanks to Secretary of State John Kerry, via alternate media, we now know the reasoning behind US policy in Syria. Kerry explained the US position to a group of so-called Syrian «oppositionists» at the Dutch mission to the United Nations in New York on 22 September 2016. Some limited information about this private meeting was reported earlier in the MSM, but a clandestine recording of the full conversation is now circulating via alternate media. It is definitely Kerry in conversation with some unhappy Syrians, well, apparently Syrians, who thought the United States was not doing nearly enough to overthrow the Assad government. These unfortunate people sound like the émigrés of many countries going back centuries, who enjoy little popular support in their own countries.  They therefore look to foreign governments to install them in power.

Kerry tried to explain to this group of émigrés that taking down the Assad government was easier said than done. «I am frustrated… it’s hard. Nobody is more frustrated than we are… The problem is everybody is upping the ante». Russia, Iran, Hezbollah… Nusra «put in more and then Turkey and Saudi Arabia put all their surrogate money in». What a mess for the United States, as though it was not a mess of American making.

«We’re trying to get to a negotiated process», said Kerry, «the problem is how do you get people to a place of being rational?»

Kerry did not mention that the US was supporting jihadist military organisations in Syria either directly with training, money and arms or indirectly, while others do that work

«We can always throw a lot of weapons in, but I don’t think that is going to be good for you… Al Nusra and Daesh make it hard because you have this extreme element out there and unfortunately some of the opposition has chosen to work with them». Kerry of course did not mention that the US government was pursuing an «Afghan policy» in Syria, that is, supporting jihadist military organisations either directly with training, money and arms or indirectly, by looking the other way, while others, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, do that work. When jihadists were moving around in the Syrian Desert, as easy targets for air attack, the US Air Force feigned not to notice them. When the jihadists exploited Syrian oil deposits and shipped oil for sale in Turkey, the US Air Force did not disturb them.

Kerry did not explain any of these pertinent facts to his Syrian interlocutors. Perhaps, they already knew anyway. In their discussions with Kerry, and this is a point as interesting as Kerry’s own remarks, the émigrés seemed quite comfortable supporting the jihadists’ cause although they played along with the bogus distinction between «moderate opposition» and «extremists».

In their discussions with Kerry, the émigrés seemed quite comfortable supporting the jihadists’ cause although they played along with the bogus distinction between «moderate opposition» and «extremists»

The Syrian émigrés wanted to know what the United States intended to do next. Last September, you may remember, Kerry was discussing with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a new ceasefire and negotiations to end the Syrian war. That deal was scuttled by a deadly American air raid on Syrian forces near Deir ez-Zor which appeared to be coordinated with a local jihadist offensive. The Russian high command accused the United States of a deliberate attack, which of course the Americans denied. But it meant that Russian-American negotiations went back to square one.

«We told the Russians and Iranians that we can’t just do the same thing,» Kerry explained to his so-called Syrian interlocutors: «we can’t just go out and announce a ceasefire if there’s no change to show that it’s serious. So we proposed to the Russians that they prove that they’re serious by having no warplanes flying, no Assad planes flying for seven days at least in order to prove to the opposition that they’re not going to get killed if they try to help people, if the humanitarian assistance comes in because it’s the airplanes that have been causing most of the damage».

These comments may strike readers as perplexing. In the event it has slipped anyone’s mind, the jihadists’ way of «helping people» is to massacre, terrorise or enslave them. We know that because we have seen the photographs and videos, which they themselves have taken of their bloody work. Kerry however represented them «as trying to help people». It sounds like an Orwellian inversion, but perhaps that is being unfair to the United States, so let’s hear what else Kerry had to say to his interlocutors.

«So, the Russians were willing to offer three days, and we said that’s not enough. You gotta be serious here. The deal we made in Geneva was seven days consecutive of calm before we would talk about focusing on Daesh and Nusra». This appeared to mean that the truce would also be extended in effect to Daesh and Nusra, even though UN resolutions and Russian and Syrian declarations made clear that they, Daesh, Nusra, and affiliated terrorist groups, were excluded from any truce or other negotiations.

Here was yet another way in which the US government was attempting to help the jihadists in Syria by sparing them from air attack at least temporarily. Of course, it was the Americans who wrecked the previous agreement by attacking the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) at Deir ez-Zor on 17 September, five days before the meeting in New York, and who had never respected any previous agreement with the Russian Federation. So, from the Russian point of view, Kerry’s claim that Russia had to get «serious» must have seemed derisory.

For the émigrés listening to Kerry this explanation raised no objection. It was the lack of direct American military intervention, especially to break «the siege of Aleppo», which aroused their discontents. The émigrés claimed that the Russians were attacking civilian targets, and the United States and the «international community» needed to intervene to stop them.

Do you have any video evidence? Kerry wanted to know: do we have anyone in Aleppo [he asked an aide present at the meeting] who could help with finding evidence? «We do», came the reply. It was Al Qaeda and its affiliates which then held E. Aleppo, and thus the so-called Syrians present were asking Kerry for US intervention to help Al Qaeda break the SAA siege of E. Aleppo. Here also was an indication that the United States had agents in E. Aleppo, a point confirmed months later by the capture of at least one such US agent amongst various foreigner «advisors» arrested by the Syrian Arab Army as the last pockets of Al Qaeda resistance in E. Aleppo were cleared out.

The meeting turned out to be an opportunity for the émigrés to complain bitterly that the United States was not doing enough to overthrow the Assad government. This gave Kerry an opening to blame the Russians, as you might have guessed.

«We don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had, you know, an existing resolution and so forth, even though we went alone», Kerry was quoted as saying

«The problem is that the Russians don’t care about international law,» said Kerry, «and we do. And we don’t have a basis, our lawyers tell us, unless we have a UN Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto, and the Chinese, or unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia is invited in by the legitimate regime… well still legitimate normally, by the regime. And so they were invited in, and we’re not invited in. We’re flying in air space there where they can turn on air defence and we have a very different scene. The only reason they are letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defences, we would have to take out all those air defences, and we don’t have a legal justification practically for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis which some people will argue we should, by the way. Ah… but so far American legal theory has not gone into the so-called right to protect, and ah… we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had, you know, an existing resolution and so forth, even though we went alone».

The Kosovo precedent has been causing the United States a lot of trouble with regard to the Ukraine, though Kerry did not bring up that subject with his Syrian interlocutors. Readers might be surprised by Kerry’s statement that unlike the Russians, the United States respects international law. If ever there was a case of Pot calling Kettle black, this is it. «Jupiter may do what an ox may not», as President Vladimir Putin said recently about the United States. Since when does Washington respect international law? Although Kerry did not mention it, there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam), or weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), or the massacre of innocent civilians (Libya), which the US government could use as a pretext for intervention. It is also amusing to note that Kerry inadvertently acknowledged that the Assad government was the legitimate Syrian government, though he tried weakly to back track on that, referring in the end to «the regime».

«And a lot of Americans don’t believe we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in other countries. That’s the problem»

«Ah… so it’s complicated. It’s… ah, not easy», Kerry explained: «And we’ve been fighting, how many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve been fighting in the region, you know, for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in other countries. That’s the problem. Ah… Congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we are trying to do is help Syrians to fight for their own country. And we’ve been spending a lot of money and a lot of effort to try to help do this. So, there is an opposition there, and the opposition is doing very well. But Russia came in, and that’s a problem, I know, because you know we… ah… we don’t behave like Russians. It’s just a different standard. So we are trying to see whether we can put to a test whether Russia is serious about a political solution. And if they’re not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But you know I don’t think that will be good for the citizens of Syria in the end because it will mean more fighting».

Can you imagine Lavrov laughing and shaking his head, as he listened to Kerry’s words that the US cares for international law?

There he goes again, you might be thinking. «We don’t behave like the Russians. It’s just a different standard». I am sure Lavrov and Putin would at once agree, but not in the way that Kerry meant. After all, since 1945, is there any destroyer of nations and governments on a par with the United States? And Kerry wants «to test» the Russians. Can you imagine Lavrov laughing and shaking his head, as he listened to these lines?

American double standards were of no interest to the émigrés talking to Kerry. Pot calling Kettle black was not their problem. They were resentful that the United States would not do more to overthrow Assad. Only «the extreme Sunnis» were being targeted, they complained, and not Hezbollah and Iraqi and Iranian troops— «terrorist groups», said one émigré — allied with Russia and Assad. «They are targeted by the opposition», Kerry interjected, trying to be encouraging, «who we are arming and training». But the émigrés still complained that not enough political and military support was being given to «those who consider [themselves] moderates».

«Well let me ask… [my aide, Kerry said] I think we’ve been putting in an extraordinary amount of arms, haven’t we?.. Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, a huge amount of weapons coming, and a huge amount of money.» So here from Kerry we have the truth at last. The rogues’ gallery, the United States and its regional vassals, are backing to the hilt the jihadist invasion of Syria. Only one thing went wrong with the US plan.

War is full of the unexpected, as Kerry should know

«I mean, the reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger. Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus… and that’s why Russia came in. Because they didn’t want a Daesh government, and they supported Assad. And, ah, we know that… we were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. Ah… we thought however we could probably manage… ah… you know that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating, he got… Putin to support him.» War is full of the unexpected, as Kerry should know.

The US plan was to let Daesh threaten Damascus, using Daesh to pressure Assad into «negotiating». That’s why US warplanes did not bomb easy Daesh targets, or only pretended to do so. But instead of capitulating, Assad obtained Russian support to continue the fight against the US brokered and bankrolled invasion. Readers may wonder incidentally how Kerry would fit US intervention into international law. He’d need America’s best lawyers for that.

«So, it’s truly complicated, I mean you know how complicated it is, you live in it», Kerry continued. «For us politically where we have a Congress that will not authorise our use of force. Congress will not pass that, and so we’re trying to help in the best way we can, but we finally decided the best thing we can do is try to find a political solution where the opposition is part of the government, and you can have an election, and let the people of Syria decide who they want.» Trouble is the émigrés present did not think elections would work for them. Assad, they said, would win through intimidation or fixing the vote. Kerry responded that since refugees abroad could vote, that Assad could not win and that their victory in effect was assured. «Democracy has some virtues», Kerry opined. But the émigrés were not persuaded. Assad’s secret police threatened to kill my mother, one émigré claimed.  The Russians would make sure the elections favoured Assad; why else would they agree to them. People in that part of Syria «controlled by the regime» would not dare vote against Assad. Was this a backward admission that Syrians would vote for Assad? No doubt it was.

«So you think the only solution is for someone to come in and get rid of Assad?» Kerry asked.

«Yes», an émigré replied.

«[If]that’s the only solution,» Kerry interjected: «Who’s is that going to be, who’s going to do that?»

«Three years ago, I would have said you,» the émigré replied: «but right now I don’t know».

«Well, look it’s a hard choice… I’m sorry, but, ah, we’ve lost thousands of young Americans in a lot of countries», Kerry replied, «and it’s pretty difficult right now to get Americans to say we’re going to send Americans to gain another country, and have a war with Sunnis and Shia and extremists and everybody, and I mean, you know, it’s more complicated than you think… There are lots of places in the world where they want to hold our coat while we go fight but it’s not easy and we are trying to empower Syrians to be able to fight against this guy [Assad]. You know, the Russians have changed the equation unfortunately… and it’s a little more complicated. So we are trying to figure out a way to get to the table, if we can, and save lives. I don’t think any country has worked harder to save lives than we have. We’ve given more money than any other nation for refugees regarding Syria… We’re not disengaged… we’re saying we going to do as much as we can within, you know, the scope of what we can do here».

No doubt Kerry would be shocked to know how others see US behaviour abroad. It’s certainly not working harder than anyone «to save lives». Indeed, a skeptic might reply: ‘Oh, you mean like in Yugoslavia, or in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya?» Hypocrisy and double standards, as Putin has sometimes noted, never seem to trouble the American government.

«I am the guy who announced that we’re going to attack Assad because of the rockets [?] and, you know, things evolved into a different process».

«I think you are looking at three people, four people in the administration,» Kerry went on, «who have all argued for use of force, and I lost the argument. I’ve argued for the use of force. I stood up, I am the guy who stood up, announced that we’re going to attack Assad because of the rockets [?] and, you know, things evolved into a different process. But the bottom line is… ah… that we, that Congress refused to vote even to allow that…»

«What is the bottom line…», asked an angry émigré, «how many Syrians… what will be the end of it?»

«I think that people in Washington right now are deeply frustrated, as you are,» Kerry replied, «and we are talking now about what enforcement mechanisms we can now take, and it may be that we will lift up the options  because of the frustration, because of Assad’s indifference to anything, so there’s a different conversation taking place because of what has happened in the last few days. We’ll see what happens».

You don’t need to send any soldiers, «just impose a no-fly zone», proposed another émigré.

«Well, there’s more and more talk, we’re trying to get an agreed upon no-fly zone… The Russians have agreed that if we get this process going, Assad won’t want… but if we’re going to force a no-fly zone, we’re going to have to attack every air defence, and then we have to be willing to fly airplanes every day to enforce it. And it’s very costly and… a big deal».

«In the long term, I think it’s cost effective», replied an interlocutor.

«I am frustrated too… Everybody at this table wants to do more». And with that comment by Kerry, the meeting ended.

Left unsaid was that to attack Russian and Syrian air defences would mean war with the Russian Federation. If the American people will not accept another war with a small country, they certainly will not accept a nuclear war with a great power like Russia. Kerry’s explanations are nevertheless illuminating and no doubt provoke a great deal of laughter in Moscow. The discontents of the émigrés are also illuminating. They expressed their open sympathy for Al Qaeda in E. Aleppo, but they didn’t think they could win elections against Assad even if foreign supervised, and even with refugees abroad eligible to vote. Someone will have to come in to win for these Syrians, if they are Syrian, and of course that means paying a price to their «liberators,» which would mean serving as their compradors. These Syrian émigrés, like émigrés before them, don’t mind paying that price, don’t mind allying with Al Qaeda, because they themselves don’t have popular support and can’t defeat Assad on their own. They admitted as much to Kerry. That most of all may be causing the frustration in Washington, along with Russia’s roll in «complicating» and exposing American strategy in Syria.

The latest such incident was headlined at the «Moon of Alabama» blog on December 21st, "How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations», where the anonymous blogger arbitrarily blamed «the military» (instead of Kerry’s boss, Obama) for having sabotaged «the White House» (instead of sabotaged the Kerry-Lavrov agreement) — the agreement that Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had reached on 17 May 2016 for a «comprehensive ceasefire» between the U.S. and Russia regarding Syria (and which the White House then sabotaged).

Obama never condemned nor fired any general, nor anyone else, for having perpetrated the U.S. bombing of Syrian government forces at Deir Zor, on 17 September 2016 — the sabotaging-event, which naturally caused Putin to instruct Lavrov to terminate all discussions with Kerry, because it displayed Obama’s unwavering determination to defeat Russia. (That sabotaging-event then motivated the meeting, on December 20th, when Russia, Turkey, and Iran, met together and agreed in their joint «Moscow Declaration», to complete, on their own, their war against the West’s jihadists who were trying to overthrow Assad; and so, the jihadists in Aleppo simply surrendered to Assad’s government — and the U.S. government and its propaganda ‘press’ howled that this was a victory for the ‘brutal’ Assad against ‘the civilians’, and against ‘the rebels’ — the latter being actually the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-backed jihadists.)

Kerry had failed because Obama wanted a military settlement of the U.S.-backed jihadist invasion of Syria; he didn’t want a diplomatic end to it — at least not a diplomatic end that wasn’t a surrender by the Syrian government forces: the replacement of Assad by the jihadists (who were backed not only by Obama, but by King Saud who owns Saudi Arabia, and by Emir Thani who owns Qatar).

And this sabotage, by Obama, actually repeated Obama’s earlier refusal to accept the deal that Kerry had negotiated with Lavrov to settle the conflict in Ukraine. As I had headlined on 7 June 2015, «Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy», Kerry had told the U.S.-installed regime in Ukraine to cease promising to conquer the two breakaway regions that had refused to accept rule by America’s puppets after Obama’s coup overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President, for whom both of those regions, Crimea and Donbass, had overwhelmingly voted. Crimea rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part for hundreds of years before the Soviet dictator had transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, but on 17 September 2014 Putin declined the urgings of Donbass to become a part of Russia, and so Donbass became instead an independent country, for the time being. Though Kerry told Obama’s puppet-President of Ukraine to adhere to the Minsk agreements, Kerry’s nominal subordinate, Hillary Clinton’s friend Victoria Nuland, told this puppet to ignore Kerry’s statement, and Obama backed Nuland against her nominal superior, Kerry. If Kerry had been working under a decent President, he would have been a great Secretary of State, and Kerry cannot reasonably be blamed for his misfortune — and the world’s — that his ‘superior’ (the U.S. President under whom he served) was Obama.

This was the first attempt to revive the negotiation process since the US suspended the contacts with Russia on Syria on October 3. With no final document signed, the parties agreed to continue the contacts in the coming days. That’s what is important – the dialogue continues. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said several «interesting ideas» were explored.

The new format of the discussion made the Lausanne meeting a very special event. The presence of Turkey and the Persian Gulf nations is a positive development as these actors exert direct influence on many armed opposition groups and can use the leverage to make them comply if an agreement is reached. It is important that Iran – a major actor involved in the conflict – is a party to the talks. Egypt is the largest Arab state, as such it can influence the events in a positive way.

It was not a meeting between those who support the Syrian government headed by President Bashar Assad – Russia and Iran – and those who don’t led by the United States. There is no unity among the members of the so called US-led coalition. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on October 12 blasted US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s «unfortunate» comments that she would consider arming Syrian Kurdish fighters, branding her proposal «politically inept». During a debate on October 9 with her Republican rival Donald Trump ahead of next month’s presidential election, the Democratic candidate suggested that she would consider providing armed support for Syrian Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State. It reflects the deep divisions between the US, supporting the Syrian Kurds, and Turkey, which is hostile to them. It’s an open secret that the US, Turkey and the Gulf states also have divergent interests, goals and views. Nobody sees the situation in Syria eye-to eye. It takes time and effort to narrow the differences but that’s what diplomacy is for.

The main result of the Lausanne event is that priority is given to negotiations, not military solutions. After long deliberation, the US put aside the implementation of «Plan B» in favor of diplomatic effort. It did right as there is no alternative to talks on the Syrian crisis management. Russia and the US have great responsibility for the outcome and they must keep on trying. As Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said, «Without Russia’s participation it’s impossible to find a solution to the Syrian problem. Only in partnership with Russia will we be able to settle the crisis in Syria».

Regardless of all the frustration with the US as a partner who has failed to live up to its commitments and separate the warring factions in Aleppo according to the Russia-US September 10 agreement, Moscow agreed to resume the discussions in an attempt to save human lives in Syria.

There is an exchange of opinion, new ideas are floated, the parties agreed to continue the process. Despite the ongoing war of words and hostile rhetoric, the pertinent actors are making another try at finding a peaceful solution. Actually, nobody had expected the parties to come up with a final documents and agreements reached. But it’s important that diplomacy is given a chance again and the new format brings together the key players.

The very fact that Lavrov and Kerry held a bilateral meeting to keep the Russia-US dialogue alive is an important step forward. It means the hawks in the US administration have not prevailed. It’s worth mentioning that, despite all the attacks against Russia, Washington never really stopped contacts behind closed doors. Before the talks State Department spokesman John Kirby said the bilateral talks had been suspended but were «not dead». Kirby also emphasized the importance of both tracks of the talks with Moscow.

A dialogue, no matter how hard it is, better than a confrontation. With diplomats talking to each other there is always a chance. «There is a need to behave like partners and take each other's interests into account», Russian President Putin said, referring to US-Russian ties. «We are ready for that».

The agreement – a potential «turning point» in the conflict – is the culmination of months of up-and-down talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US State Secretary John Kerry. A previous ceasefire plan announced in January succeeded in reducing violence for several months, but eventually collapsed as fighting resumed in many parts of the country.

The agreement culminates months of frenetic diplomacy that included four meetings between Kerry and Lavrov since Aug. 26, and a lengthy face-to-face in China between US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The proposed level of US-Russian interaction has upset several leading national security officials in Washington, including Defense Secretary Ash Carter and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and John Kerry only appeared at the news conference after several hours of internal US discussions.

Sergei Lavrov said that despite many difficulties on the way, the two sides had agreed to revive a failed truce agreed in February and enable military coordination between the US and Russia against militant groups in Syria. «This is just the beginning of our new relations», the minister said about the cooperation with the US The top Russian diplomat believes the ceasefire would lead to the prompt resumption of negotiations over Syria’s political future.

The plan will begin with a cessation of hostilities in specified opposition-held areas on September 12. Aid will start to be delivered to besieged areas, including the city of Aleppo which has been the site of a mounting humanitarian disaster. The Syrian air force is to stop flying in agreed upon areas where the anti-Assad opposition is present. If successful, it could lead for the first time to joint military targeting by the two powers against Islamic jihadists in Syria.

Seven days after the start of the cessation of hostilities, Russia and the U.S. will then establish a joint implementation centre, where they will share targeting data, and begin to coordinate bombing of militants of the Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS). The planned strikes against the Nusra are especially important. It is something Russia has long called on the US to do. The group has recently changed its name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and announced a break in ties with al-Qaeda.

Although the U.S. and Russia both say this is purely an exercise in rebranding, the announcement has allowed the Nusra to work more closely in some parts of the country with the rest of the anti-Assad opposition, including groups that are backed by the U.S. The militant group has played an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

The agreement hinges on compliance by Syria’s Russian-backed forces and U.S.-supported rebel groups, plus key regional powers such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia with hands directly or indirectly in the conflict. The Syrian opposition coalition has cautiously welcomed the agreement. Armed opposition groups read the deal as ordering them to remove better-armed Nusra fighters from their areas, something they lack the military power to do alone, or else face attack by the United States — a country that has provided some of the rebel groups with training and weapons for years.

The United Nations envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, welcomed the agreement and said the U.N. would exert all efforts to deliver humanitarian aid. Now the long-stalled peace process under U.N. mediation can resume between Syrian government envoys and representatives of the opposition, while the two world powers focus on battling jihadis.

The plan could pave the way for a political transition, ending more than five years of bloodshed. If the Russia-U.S. deal is implemented, international actors, especially the 17-member International Syria Support Group (the ISSG), could go back to the U.N. resolution 2254 adopted in December 2015, which calls for talks between the Syria’s government and opposition groups with elections to follow.

There has been some cooperation in Syria. For instance, Russia and the U.S. hold regular talks aimed at ensuring aircraft remain at safe distances from each other. The new arrangement goes further by promising a new U.S.-Russian counterterrorism alliance.

Of course, it won’t be a bed of roses. There are sharp disagreements to be reconciled. There is huge uncertainty about what the plan will mean on the ground. The cessation of hostilities applies only to Aleppo leaving out motley opposition forces operating in the province of Idlib and elsewhere, vast areas held by the Islamic State, the Kurds and Turkish military.

Back in history Russia and the U.S. managed to cope with greater challenges. The two great powers put curbs on the running away arms race starting from the 1960s and found a compromise while balancing on the verge of WWIII during the Cuban crisis. They also found ways to avert unintentional accidents that could spark wars. The 1972 inter-government Agreement On the Prevention of Incidents on and over the High Sea is a good example to prove the point.

The agreement averted the threat of war in the Yom Kippur war in 1973. To ward off threats to international security it will be essential to restore the operation of consultative groups of Russia and NATO in the spirit of the 1972 convention for exchanging information about flights by military planes and voyages by naval ships in the areas adjacent to the Syrian shore. Russia and the US fruitfully cooperated in 2013 to deal with the problem of chemical weapons in Syria.

The success of the recent agreement can certainly provide an impetus to military and political cooperation in the fight against terrorism in general and other areas of mutual concern. The need for interaction stems from the common threats to international security, such as the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, terrorism, local crises, and the disastrous effects of the Arab Spring. There no alternative to cooperation. Many Americans understand the need to cooperate with Russia on security issues. Republican presidential Donald Trump has called for a Russia-US alliance.

A lot of his followers support this view.

The agreement achieved on September 10 is a big stride in the right direction to benefit Russia, the U.S. and all those who are willing to establish peace in Syria and ward off the global terrorist threat. 

The agenda of the talks included US plan on intelligence sharing to identify leadership targets, training camps, supply lines and headquarters of al-Nusra.

According to the document, air strikes could be carried out by US or Russian jets and expanded coordination would be channeled through a Joint Implementation Group based in the vicinity of the Jordanian capital, Amman. The US offered to set up separate headquarters and a shared coordination office that would help facilitate joint operations against al-Nusra and would be staffed by US and Russian military officers, intelligence officials and experts. They would coordinate strikes against al-Nusra. Members of the Joint Implementation Group would jointly identify «actionable» targets, including leadership, training camps, logistical depots, supply lines and headquarters, and designate them for airstrikes by either Russian or US forces. Other areas would be off limits to both. The US wants Moscow in turn to use its influence and limit Syrian military air activities to areas where al-Nusra has acquired territory and non-combat purposes. Once an initial set of targets is agreed upon and all combat air activities by Syria have ceased, coordinated US-Russian airstrikes would begin.

The proposal also allows Russia to use air power to defend Syrian forces from attacks within a designated area, if agreed in advance with the United States. Up to now, the US has refrained from systematic attacks against al-Nusra, whose ranks are heavily Syrian, including many who left less extreme rebel groups because the group was better armed and financed. US jets have targeted Jabhat al-Nusra only a few times since September 2014 when the United States began bombing in Syria. The plan shows America is ready to go far enough to cooperate with Russia – something unthinkable a few months ago.

It’s not known how much of the plan was agreed on at the Moscow talks but the parties did reach a tentative agreement in a major breakthrough to facilitate the conflict management.

Addressing media at the joint press-conference after the Lavrov-Kerry meeting that lasted much longer than expected, the parties said they had agreed to cooperate in Syria against the al-Nusra Front in an effort to «restore the cessation of hostilities, significantly reduce the violence and help create the space for a genuine and credible political transition» in Syria.

According to Sergey Lavrov, «In practical terms, we have agreed on some future steps that will help make our parallel work more efficient and more coordinated». John Kerry said that the agreement envisaged joint measures to save the failing Syrian cessation of hostilities but declined to provide details of the cooperation, saying «the concrete steps that we have agreed on are not going to be laid out in public in some long list because we want them to work». He emphasized that the reached agreement defines specific, sequential responsibilities all parties to the conflict must assume.

The idea to deepen military cooperation with Russia in Syria has sparked a rift at the highest levels of the Obama administration, with the Pentagon openly challenging the idea.

In Geneva, senior United Nations officials expressed support for the Russia-US efforts. UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura voiced hope that the plan would resolve what he called «non-constructive ambiguity» about the extremist group’s locations. De Mistura has said he hopes to restart the UN-sponsored peace talks by August 1.

The extent of proposed cooperation represents a major US shift of American policy after years of rivalry between Washington and Moscow. Actually, Washington has consistently refused to join forces with Russia in Syria ever since Moscow launched its campaign of air strikes in September last year.

Communication between US and Russian militaries on Syria has been limited to contacts aimed at avoiding an accidental clash as they carry out rival bombing campaigns and small numbers of Russian and US forces operate on the ground. It took time to change the approach.

As time goes by, the United States appears to realize it needs Russia to tackle the Syrian problem. Sheer force used unilaterally does not work. Some time ago the US withdrew two carrier strike groups (USS Harry S. Truman and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower) from the area. The air superiority the flattops provided failed to be an effective tool to advance the American goals in Syria.

President Obama is understandably trying to find some creative way to salvage its Syria policy in the final months before a new administration takes office in January, 2017. He wants to go down in history as a president who achieved progress. It explains the about-turn in his policy on Syria and the will to cooperate.

To resolve the Syrian conflict, an absolute, well-managed ceasefire should be imposed over the whole country. This would put all the power in the hands of negotiators, who would be able to discuss tough issues with cool heads. This goal is unachievable without Russia and the US coordinating efforts. If military cooperation against al-Nusra is a success, the experience could be used for joint operations against Islamic State. In turn, the cooperation in Syria may become a basis for joint efforts in the Middle East. The cooperation in the region would encompass other areas of Russia-West relationship.

After Ukraine’s crisis broke out, Russia and the United States fruitfully cooperated on a number of critically important international problems. To a large extent, the Iranian deal became possible due to their joint efforts. The elimination of the Syrian chemical arsenal was completed primarily through their concerted actions. A joint endeavor to achieve progress in Syria would be a great accomplishment and a major step towards safer world. In Moscow the parties made a big step forward to achieve the common goal. 

From Western news media reportage, such as this one from Reuters, one would never guess the sinister role played by Saudi Arabia and its Washington patron in the five-year Syrian war. Indeed, quite the opposite is inferred by vapid reports on how Kerry, along with Russia’s Sergey Lavrov and others, is convening talks in Vienna to «end the conflict». Kerry the unstinting diplomat for Middle East peace. How dashing! How noble!

The Vienna summit hosted by the International Syria Support Group includes the United Nations, the US, Russia, China, the European Union, Iran and Saudi Arabia among other Middle East states.

So why, it begs to be asked, should Kerry preface his meetings in the Austrian capital with an additional special visit to Saudi King Salman. The entreaty from the American diplomat is a giveaway about the deeper role played by both the US and Saudi Arabia in the Syrian crisis, which has resulted in more than 250,000 deaths and millions of refugees.

Christian Science Monitor, an American news outlet, headlined Kerry’s stopover with King Salman thus: «Kerry in Saudi Arabia for mideast talks».

How blandly uninformative can you get? The boring words suggest the Secretary of State was calling with the Saudi monarch in his Jeddah palace for nothing more exciting than a cup of tea.

Beneath the mundane headline, however, the Christian Science Monitor’s report, based on Associated Press copy, goes on to hint at the real purpose for the urgent American appeal to the House of Saud.

It said: «Kerry is trying to shore up the shaky truce in Syria, which has been fraught with violations on both sides… The situation [in Syria] has been further complicated by the intermingling of some western and Arab-backed rebels with groups such as the al-Qaida [sic] affiliate, known as the Nusra Front, which the UN has designated a terrorist organization and therefore not covered by the truce. Saudi Arabia and the US have rejected attempts by Russia to get those rebels placed on the UN terrorist list».

In the US government-owned Voice of America news outlet, the Secretary of State’s trip to Saudi Arabia is reported in the following insipid way: «Kerry, trying to shore up support for the shaky ceasefire in Syria, met with Saudi King Salman, whose country has been a key supporter of rebels [sic] fighting to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad».

Despite the circumlocution of such Western media reports, one can still deduce that both the US and Saudi Arabia are sponsoring illegally armed groups that are integrated with terrorist organizations, for the objective of regime change against a sovereign state. In short: criminal conspiracy and covert war.

Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar ash-Sham, the groups that are euphemistically «intermingled» with known al-Qaeda-affiliated terror groups Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State, are reported to have carried out massacres around Syria’s key battleground city of Aleppo. Both militia are also reported to have used banned chemical weapons to commit atrocities.

Yet these are the same groups that the United States, Britain and France refused to designate as terror groups after blocking a Russian resolution at the UN Security Council last week.

A US spokesperson at the UN told Agence France-Presse that if these groups were proscribed then the ceasefire in Syria would collapse. That startling admission unwittingly reveals that the cessation of hostilities is dependent on al-Qaeda-linked insurgents. In other words, there are no «moderate rebels» that Washington and its Western allies keep asserting. If putative «moderates» were a credible force, then why does the ceasefire depend on the participation of extremist groups?

Of course, for anyone with an informed view of the Syrian conflict, this terrorist delineation is nothing new. Outside of the Western media whitewashed fantasy, it is well understood that the US and its NATO allies have been prosecuting a covert war for regime change in Syria, along with key regional terror sponsors in the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

John Kerry said that there are no «strategic differences» between the US and Saudi Arabia over Syria. The differences, he said, are «tactical».

Washington and its Western partners want political negotiations in Vienna and Geneva in order to achieve the strategic aim of ousting the Syrian government. No doubt to be replaced by a pro-Western puppet regime. The tactics here are political means.

Whereas the politically backward Saudi regime – a semi-feudal absolute monarchy – appears to be unable to extricate itself from the tactic of using terrorist proxies to achieve regime change. The same can be said for the Turkish regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is a major source of fighters, weapons and cross-border oil smuggling to fund the covert war in Syria.

What Washington is evidently concerned about is that if the ceasefire in Syria collapses entirely, then the Syrian government forces supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah will inflict even greater losses on the regime-change mercenaries.

The US is counting on the ceasefire as a political bargaining position from which it can demand «political transition» in Syria, or more prosaically, «regime change». A ceasefire gives the so-called Syrian opposition – a US and Saudi-backed exile ragtag group called the High Negotiations Committee – a negotiating berth.

Without a ceasefire and with the eventual military defeat of the foreign-backed terror mercenaries across Syria, the political negotiations will only serve to bolster and vindicate the Syrian government and its international allies in Russia and Iran.

The legal position of the Syrian government and its allies is correct. The UN Security Council resolution 2254 passed in December excludes al-Qaeda-linked terror groups from ceasefire and any kind of political engagement. The American, British and French sleight of hand is the pretense that Saudi-backed Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar ash-Sham extremists are somehow not affiliated with al-Qaeda.

But the involvement of all these groups in breaching the ceasefire tentatively brokered by Washington and Moscow on February 27 is proof of their logistical integration. There are recent reports of deadly feuding between Jaysh al-Islam and Jabhat al-Nusra in suburbs around the capital Damascus. Nevertheless, such rivalries do not negate their common terrorist ideology and tactical role that these groups play in the foreign-sponsored conspiracy for illegal regime change in Syria.

The Western media project the ridiculous image of John Kerry as a peace tribune, shuttling to «shore up peace» in Syria.

The blunt, vile truth is that Kerry is on a mission to salvage Washington’s rabid dogs of war in Syria. Washington needs the ceasefire, not primarily to end violence, but rather to expedite its political tactic for regime change.

Veiled threats of a Plan B – direct American military intervention for regime change in Syria – are too much of a risk. Especially given the danger of a wider conflict with Russian forces. Washington probably doesn’t have the stomach for it either.

At this point in the geopolitical game, Washington is gambling on the political tactic. But from its cynical perspective, the Saudis and Turks are problematic because both of these terror sponsors are undermining the ceasefire cover with which Washington is using to push the political means for regime change.

That’s why Kerry was groveling before the Saudi King ahead of the new round of talks in Vienna. It’s not a stretch to paraphrase Kerry as saying to this royal host: «Please, please your majesty, you must call off our terrorist proxies. Please, please your majesty, give our political tricks a chance to succeed in getting rid of Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies».

Washington and the House of Saud are both up to their necks in terrorist sponsorship in the destruction of Syria. That’s what the real story is, despite Western media fawning and omissions.

One partner-in-crime just happens to be a little more practical than the other. But given the House of Saud’s notorious stupidity, Washington’s machinations in Syria are liable to get a royal flush down the toilet.

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” – Woody Allen

This week brought some reflection on how, at the beginning of the ceasefire, John Kerry tried to rain on the outcome by threatening that if it was not successful the US would have to consider reverting to its plan B fallback position, a code phrase for the Balkanization of Syria.

Another way to describe that is “divide and conquer by other means”. But we know that had always been the plan. So I wanted to use this article to show that it was the US coalition that actually got Balkanized by its failed policy, and that we all had a front row seat to watch it happen.

The fall of Palmyra has generated the expected “turning point” media articles, but the first turning point came about a year ago, after the first wave of Syrian army defections to the opposition.

Next came the subsequent assassinations and bombings targeting the remaining military and Intelligence leadership to “encourage” them to remove Assad with a coup and save themselves. They said “No thank you… we’ll fight”.

The second turning point of the revolution came when the US-NATO-Gulf State coalition decided to turn the war into a large scale terror operation — I assume to intimidate future targets about what would happen to them if they refused to bow down to the Neo-colonial steamroller.

We had sources inside Jordan FSA training program tell us they knew a lot of their trainees were ending up fighting with the jihadis. That had our own military supporting a proxy terrorist flanking attack against Damascus in conjunction with US coalition members Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey in the north.

I won’t focus on the CIA, because it has been using terrorism for destabilization for so long that it doesn’t even raise attention any more. Whether Bush (43) or Obama was at the helm, the CIA and the State Department have engaged in using proxy terrorism when and wherever it suited them.

This multi-front terror war with its initial Free Syrian Army cover devastated much of Syria. It was as much a war against the Syrian people as against the Assad regime, and analogous to the Saudis attacking the people of Yemen, which is being called a war crime.

Iran came in with its advisors and helped Syria quickly build a national guard which took over local security so Syrian army units could concentrate more on protecting the threatened population centers. Hezbollah sent its well-trained units to support key battles.

The Syrian army did not implode as expected. That was a third turning point that helped give the advantage to Assad.

Then the chemical weapon false flag attack was deployed with the big Sarin gas attack and blamed on Assad, as it was intended to be the red-line crossing that would allow the US to launch a massive bombing campaign to crush the Syrian army and make it easy pickings for the jihadis.

But many of us could not believe Assad would hand his head over on a silver platter by doing a totally unnecessary gas attack like this. Those chemical stockpiles had been created to use against an Israeli invasion.

Patriotic elements of the US and intelligence communities compiled evidence that the cel phone intercepts by the two Syrian officers alleged to have discussed ordering the move of the Sarin gas for its use, was a classic Cold War-style, staged communication. They knew it would be intercepted by the NSA and used to trigger the red line retaliation.

Veterans Today played a role in seeing that all that information got right to the President’s desk, and fortunately he ordered the bombing stand down with a mere hour to go before the planes were launched. That was the fourth and most significant turning point of the war.

We fast forward to the emergence of ISIL and its entry into the war, its brutality and success at drawing manpower from the other opposition factions to feed its ranks, as did al-Nusra. Some of their recruits came from those trained by the US military in Jordan.

That culminated in congressional testimony about the huge scandal of a $500 million annual program in Turkey for “5000 carefully recruited” FSA trainees who would even be afforded US air support.

The initial groups that crossed into Syrian melted away, donating their equipment to the jihadis in return for their lives, or joining them. That utter policy defeat was the fifth turning point.

But the well-armed and financed opposition and terrorist brigades were able to continue grinding the Syrian army down to where it was in danger of collapsing. The Western coalition was beginning to think the end could be near in months, not years.

The Russians had initial Syrian units in training for combined operations using the newest Russian equipment, but they did not have enough time to train enough units.

So the sixth turning point, which caught almost everybody off guard, was the Russians committing to a major air campaign to help stabilize and turn the momentum around, flying out of one small airbase.

Veterans Today had a small team in Damascus for briefings just a few weeks before it started. We could sense there was a change in the wind, but felt that it would be a big infusion of new equipment with Russian operators, counter battery artillery, lots of drones, etc.

When the air campaign cranked up and the results began to sink in, the ”Night of the Kalibrs” was a new turning point, with four Russian destroyers firing 26 long range cruise missiles onto 11 targets. That was followed soon after by some submarine-launched missiles from the Mediterranean.

Then Moscow deployed all three of its heavy bombers to strike suitable larger targets, continuing its demonstration of the support firepower it could bring to bear on the anti-terror war in Syria. We began to see that Moscow was displaying how effective its military could be with modern combined operations, and the Syrian opposition groups and the jihadis felt the burn.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia began hinting of a possible combined anti-terrorism ground operation, code for invading northern Syria to save their terror proxies. The Saudis even staged the highly-inflated 350,000-man coalition exercise, where we never got to see anything of that scale in the photos or video.

The ceasefire began with many from real opposition groups signing onto it, and several thousand Syrian army deserters took advantage of Assad’s amnesty offer.

This month, Moscow threw another curve ball by pulling out a large part of its air wing, which undercut the accusations that it was pushing for a military solution. Turkey continued its border provocations, but neither Russia nor Syria took the bait by retaliating.

The military focus became a somewhat holding action in the north, with a major push to secure the central areas and eastern areas, clearing Palmyra, then Deir-Essor and Raqqa.

This would eliminate any major bases for the Saudis to reinforce, and it will put the Syrian army back in control of its eastern border crossings to cut off jihadi supplies flowing either way. The remaining ISIL units would find themselves Balkanized into doomed unsupported units. Some are surrounded as I type.

Turkey has brought a terror war upon itself after bringing it to neighbors. The US just took a major step back from its NATO ally by removing all US military dependents from Southern Turkey over concerns of terrorism. This could also be a message to Erdogan that continuing to supplying the Jihadis inside Syria during the ceasefire would have relationship consequences.

The Kurds want the UN to consider war crime charges against the Erdogan government. NATO comments in support of Turkish actions have dried up.

Assad has rejected any discussions on federalization, a code word for Balkanization. He and his army, plus the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah did not fight all this time to throw it all away at the end, merely to see Syria turn into another Libya.

And this week, the Pentagon has admitted that Russia has made some positive contributions to the ceasefire and anti-terrorism effort.

The EU is reeling from the Brussels terror attacks and the subsequent revelations that its security services have long been overwhelmed with trying to keep up with all the suspected jihadis.

The German interior ministry shockingly admitted that not only was Europe going to have a long terror war, but he rattled off a list of cities that would be attacked like Brussels, and admitted that even Germany was not prepared.

The Russians were right all along — that the Western game of “good terrorists and bad terrorists” was a fool’s game. Hotels in Paris and Brussels are now empty.

All it takes is one disposable jihadi team to repeat this effect in other major cities with these homemade nail bombs.

Nobody seemed to care much when Syrians were dying. So I ask you all, who has Balkanized whom?

4thmedia.org

It reflects the importance attached by the United States to the relations with Russia and the issues on the bilateral agenda. Obviously, there are compelling reasons to cooperate on some key matters that make the State Secretary «a frequent guest» in Russia.

This was his third visit to the country in 10 months and the 18th meeting between the foreign ministers in the past year. He previously visited Russia in May and December 2015.

The event was marked by relaxed atmosphere, something that has not been seen in the Russian-US dialogue for a long time. It bore witness to the change in relationship. «I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you Happy Birthday», Kerry told his Russian counterpart. «I know it will give you wisdom in our talks today». Not to be outdone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov quipped back, «If wisdom is measured in birthdays John, I'm still behind you». Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed John Kerry with a joke noting that Mr Kerry had carried his own briefcase off the plane and wondered if the lack of a baggage carrier was either a sign of hard economic times in the United States or special contents in the case. The President surmised that it may have been money to haggle with on key issues. The State Secretary told the President he would be pleasantly surprised to know what’s inside during the planned tête-à-tête meeting.

The top-level talks on March 23-24 could be construed as a sign that the tensions may be thawing. It cannot be denied that there has been a significant shift in the relations in recent months. Only a year ago, the tone from Washington was strikingly different with the US President emphasizing that Russia was a regional power, acting out of weakness and simply needed to be contained, but not paid much attention to. 

Obviously, the talks were not simple: Kerry’s meeting with Lavrov lasted for four hours, while his meeting with Putin was just as long. Mr Lavrov and Mr Kerry said they discussed a host of international issues, as well as some affecting Russian-American relations with the twin issues of Syria and Ukraine to top the agenda. The results of Kerry’s visit demonstrate that the two countries’ positions on these issues are not as far apart as before. In the case of Syria Kerry said that he had «reached a better understanding of the decisions that President Putin has made of late» – a kind of talk that is very much different from what it had been like before. 

The visit was intended to help sure up momentum for the Geneva talks on Syria. So far, only basic starting principles for negotiating have been agreed upon but little else. Now the parties got down to brass tacks on what that political transition should look like agreeing on a target schedule to establish a framework for political transition in Syria and draft constitution to be drawn up by August. This is not markedly different from the six-month deadline set by the United Nations Security Council resolution passed in December to establish the guidelines for the peace talks. The foreign chiefs confirmed that pushing the warring sides in Syria to direct talks was a common goal. The two also agreed to push for a guarantee the sides would not seize new territory or use indiscriminate weapons like barrel bombs. At the press conference after the talks in the Kremlin, Kerry said he was «pleasantly surprised» that the truce in Syria was possible at all and has been observed for almost a month.

On Ukraine, there was also a more conciliatory tone than usual. Lavrov pointed out that there were no disagreements on the way to peace in the eastern regions and that there was no alternative to the implementation of the Minsk II agreements. Kerry confirmed that sanctions imposed on Russia by the US over the crisis in Ukraine would be rolled back after the agreements’ provisions were brought into life. There is something Ukrainian officials may not be happy about – it strikes the eye that Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, was not invited to take part in the talks behind closed doors on Ukraine between Secretary Kerry and President Putin. At the same time John F Tefft, US ambassador to Moscow, was there. Nuland is known for lobbying Kiev’s interests in Washington.

Alexei Pushkov, the head of Russia’s Foreign Affairs Committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, tweeted on the results of the visit that «There's nothing more powerful in politics than need. Under its influence, forgetting about isolating Russia, the US has begun to move».

On March 26, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted progress in relations between Russia and the United States. «I think it is possible to say that there have been positive advances. They lie in mutual atmosphere, because if we compare the atmosphere with what it was a year ago, then of course there is an evident desire to communicate, and there is readiness. At least now the understanding has matured of there being no alternative to dialogue to resolve issues which cannot be delayed», he said.

The visit definitely clarified that the plans to isolate Russia have been left behind. The US knows that isolation is infeasible. Despite sanctions and the issues that divide the parties, the progress on Syria has demonstrated that the two countries are indispensable partners in addressing burning security issues. No breakthroughs, but the event was a signal that Russia and the US return to a broader reconciliation and effective partnership, if not friendly ties.