Ruslan Ostashko, LiveJournal
– translated by J. Arnoldski –
Have you noticed that Western media have suddenly stopped worrying about the suffering of civilians in Aleppo? It’s as if a button has been pressed and all the tears have immediately dried up and the fake Twitter accounts of fake seven-year-old girls allegedly suffering from Putin’s bombs have been dropped and silenced. Nobody cares. And there are no more European protests in support of modern Syrian democrats who only sometimes cut the throats of prisoners of war. There is the impression that the Syrian crisis has practically ceased existing for the Western media and that its heroes have been transferred from the first to the last pages of European newspapers.
What’s happened? Why have Western diplomats and politicians suddenly held their tongues on the Syrian problem and stopped delighting us with statements about how bad Russia is behaving in Syria? What’s changed? After all, Assad is still in place and Russian planes continue to bomb terrorists.
I’ll tell you what’s changed.
The supranational elites who pulled the strings of the Syrian terrorists and staged this bloody massacre in the Middle East now understand that they are losing in Syria. And they don’t like to lose. But even more so than losing, they don’t like when Western citizens see their defeat. Their power largely depends on fear and global confidence that Soros and Kagan’s team can never lose.
For example, our [Ukrainian] neighbors also can’t believe that Clinton’s team is not omnipotent. Brexit and Trump’s victory have very much messed up the routine of those people. If they were shown on CNN how Russia, Iran, and Turkey are together solving the Syrian problem, then this could finish off the remnants of their illusions. In order to not show that they’ve lost, they’ve simply turned off the Syria topic and taken it off the agenda of Western mainstream media.
The only news that has managed to break through the media blockade in the Western info-field was not about the breakthrough talks in Astana, but the news that Russian and American officers have conducted their first joint sortie against Syrian terrorists. Trump has only been president for a few days, and interesting changes are already underway in the Pentagon. Under Obama, and especially under Clinton, it would have been impossible to imagine such a level of cooperation.
Even the UN’s special Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, admitted that the level of violence in Syria has decreased, thereby indirectly confirming the effectiveness of Russian-Turkish-Iranian efforts to organize a real ceasefire and real peace process for Syria.
Western media and diplomats have consistently ignored the negotiations in Astana under the supervision of Russian, Iranian, and Turkish representatives, that are striving for a compromise that could end the civil war. The joint efforts of Moscow, Tehran, and Ankara have successfully put the genuine moderate opposition groups and the Syrian government at one table for direct negotiations. Who is excluded in this plan? The terrorists, the Saudis, the Americans, and the European Union. The talks are being held without them, and this really hurts them.
If the Syrian issue will really be solved without their participation, then this will be a severe blow to their international reputation. This would be especially insulting to those forces in the US whom some of the Syrian opposition have betrayed by opting for direct negotiations with the Assad government under Russia’s mediation.
What will happen next? If some kind of agreement is achieved in Astana, then the rest of the Syrian conflict’s participants could be presented with a fait accompli, and the realization of this agreement in Syria itself could be pushed most likely through the physical elimination of all those forces who don’t agree with these agreements. This would not be a quick process, but it would most likely be an irreversible one. If it’s carried out to the end, then the whole world will draw several conclusions:
1. The solution to the Syrian conflict is the triumph of Russia’s military and diplomacy.
2. Neither the US nor the UN are needed to resolve even the most complex conflicts. Russia can completely suffice as an arbitrator and resolve a problem qualitatively and justly – with benefit for itself, of course. But still, Russia’s conditions are far more humane than any bloody chaos in the likes of that wreaked by the State Department under Hillary Clinton.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the end, the victory over terrorism in Syria simply won’t be covered by Western mainstream media. And the non-mainstream Western media will attribute all of the credit for the victory to Donald Trump. This sounds wild, but there might be a small bit of truth to this. If Trump will simply not interfere, then this will be his biggest merit in settling the Syrian conflict. If American aircraft start bombing the correct targets, this would also be great.
What will happen if the negotiations in Astana are disrupted? Nothing terrible. If the opposition doesn’t want to negotiation, then this means it’s been bombed too little. We’ll have to bomb them further. After all, as is known, a good word and a bomb can achieve much more than simply a good word, even if this word is Lavrov’s.