Israel Continues to Shoot Itself in the Foot 20:25 Dec 16 0 comments Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let it Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off... 00:48 Oct 21 1 comments Israel Confesses War Crime 23:49 Oct 10 0 comments Ukraine and West prepare media space for their potential false flag attack on Zaporozhye NPP 23:34 Jun 26 1 comments Zelensky was ready for Neutrality But UK refused to allow the Ukrainian leader to negotiate – Pentag... 22:18 Dec 13 1 comments more >>Blog Feeds
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Human Rights in IrelandA Blog About Human RightsUN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
Lockdown Skeptics
Hancock Fails to Have Bridgen Libel Case Thrown Out Paving Way for Full Trial Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:00 | Sally Beck
DEI Wokery is Swallowing Small Businesses Too Fri Mar 29, 2024 09:00 | C.J. Strachan
Are We Being Gaslit Over the Cause of the Princess of Wales?s Cancer? Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:00 | Melissa Kite
News Round-Up Fri Mar 29, 2024 00:04 | Richard Eldred
Women?s Team with Five Male Players Wins Football Competition After One Male Player ?Broke Opponent?... Thu Mar 28, 2024 19:30 | Will Jones
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international editionMoscow attack reminds us of the links between Islamists and Kiev's fundamentalis... Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:57 | en Failure to assist a people in danger of genocide, by Hassan Hamadé Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:32 | en Yugoslavia March 24, 1999 The Founding War of the New Nato, by Manlio Dinucci Sun Mar 24, 2024 05:15 | en France opposes Russian Korean-style peace project in Ukraine Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:11 | en Voltaire, International Newsletter N°79 Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:40 | en |
Russian Diplomat Drops a Bombshell: US Expected ISIS to Seize Damascus by October
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
other press
Thursday February 18, 2016 23:13 by 1 of Indymedia
We are reproducing this article which is based on a report from London Evening Standard where the Russiam ambassador to UK reveals the Russians were told by the Western powers back in early summer of 2015 that after the US proclaimed a no-fly zone ISIS would capture Damascus by October 2015. The article is from Russia Insider and by Alexander Mercouris for Russia Insider: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-ambassado...12860 “Last summer we were told by our Western partners that in October Damascus would fall to IS (ie. the Islamic State – AM). The summer – when these conversations between the Western powers and the Russians allegedly took place – was the time when the US was in discussions with Turkey and Jordan about setting up a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria. I discussed in this article how “no-fly zone” is today simply a euphemism for a US bombing campaign. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/how-russia-pursue...11013 What Yakovenko is therefore in effect saying is that the US was planning in the summer to start a bombing campaign to overthrow the government of Syria in the knowledge that this would result by October in the victory of the Islamic State and its capture of Damascus. Russia Insider has previously explained that it was to stop the US proclaiming a no-fly zone – i.e. commencing a bombing campaign aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government – that Russia intervened in Syria. http://russia-insider.com/en/military/how-russia-checke...10248 The fact Yakovenko says the US told the Russians this would result in the Islamic State capturing Damascus by October explains why the Russians felt they had to act as they did. Is Yakovenko however telling the truth? The first thing to say is that the British and US governments have not denied what he is saying. That however is not conclusive. It is not difficult to see why the British and US governments might think that in light of the incendiary nature of what Yakovenko is saying denying it would simply give his comments more publicity if they denied them and that the better approach is silence. If so, then the fact Yakovenko’s comments have been almost entirely ignored shows this approach has worked. Is Yakovenko however senior enough to know the details of the discussions that took place in the summer between the Russians and the Western powers as he says? The answer to that question is almost certainly yes. Though London is no longer the most important diplomatic posting for a Russian ambassador in Western Europe, it remains an important posting, and any official appointed to be Russia’s ambassador to Britain is by definition a senior official whom Moscow will ensure is kept well-informed. If there were discussions of the sort Yakovenko says, he would almost certainly have been fully briefed about them. What Yakovenko says is also consistent with things we know. In the summer – having just captured Palmyra – the Islamic State was on a roll, making it not implausible that it might reach Damascus by the autumn. The Syrian army in the meantime had suffered a succession of heavy defeats, and had been forced to withdraw from Idlib province. In light of all this, in the context of a US bombing campaign, it is not implausible the US was telling the Russians in the summer that the Islamic State would seize Damascus by October. As for the US’s discussions about setting up a no-fly zone and safe havens, there was nothing secret about those, and they were openly acknowledged. Why however would the US tell the Russians that they expected the Islamic State to seize Damascus by October? That is not a difficult question to answer. No-one in the early summer thought there was any likelihood the Russians would intervene militarily in Syria. The US probably thought it was not risking anything by telling Moscow its military plans and what their likely consequences would be. Probably what the US expected was that the threat of a bombing campaign leading to the seizure of Damascus by the Islamic State would terrify Moscow and persuade the Russians to force Assad to stand down, which has been the US objective all along. In that case the US seriously underestimated the Russians’ resolve and their willingness to act to prevent what the US was threatening from coming to pass. Overall Yakovenko’s disclosure makes sense, and is therefore probably true. What it shows is how reckless the US’s Syrian policy had become. At the very time the US was pretending to fight the Islamic State it was in fact preparing steps that it knew would facilitate its victory. Even if this was intended as a diplomatic play it was an extraordinary thing to do. The families of US victims of jihadi terror would surely feel betrayed if they were ever find out about it, whilst it is not difficult to imagine the consternation and recriminations in Washington when the Russians unexpectedly pre-empted the US strategy by intervening in the way they did. As for the people of Damascus – spared not just US bombing but rule by the Islamic State – and the people of Europe – who would have faced a far bigger refugee flood if what Washington was telling the Russians had come to pass – they both have reason to be grateful to the Russians for making sure that things turned out otherwise. |