Defending another round of US-Israeli aggression against Syria, US State Department spokesman Heather Noirtt took the example from Hitler when he accused Syria and Iran of an act of open aggression by Israel, saying: "The United States strongly supports Israel's right to self-defense," and when lied that "the malicious activities of Iran" and "the deliberate escalation of violence and its desire to expand its military presence threaten the lives of all people in the region."
Adolf Hitler covered his aggressive policy and invasion of Poland with the same outrageous and outrageous lies that Washington and Israel use to mask their aggression. Hitler claimed that the Polish troops crossed the border and attacked Germany. Likewise, Israel and its puppets in the White House and the Pentagon, who accuse Iran of the Israeli attack against Syria, are using the same false excuse. However, if Washington and Israel are so obviously shameless in their lies, why does Russia consider them "partners" with whom it is possible to reach some sort of agreement?
Eric Süss points out that only Syria and Russia are dissatisfied with the illegal occupation of the Syrian territory by the United States, which Washington does not have permission for the United Nations, and which is a direct and complete violation of international law, as well as continuous Israeli strikes against Syria.
Washington's continued support for the war against the legitimate government of Syria, as well as the attacks by Israel and terrorist groups on Syrian and Russian troops, undermines Russia's efforts to establish peace in the region. Suess also notes that Washington and its puppet Britain block all UN actions against America's illegal actions.
Suess, of course, is right. But is not the continuation of Washington's campaign against Syria and Russia to no small extent caused by Russia itself? Stephen Lendman rightly claims that Russia is to blame.
Why? Apparently, the Russian government so wants to win the approval of the West, that it stops successful military campaigns even before the work is fully completed. Putin himself announced a "victory" in Syria and withdrew part of the Russian military, not yet freeing the entire territory of Syria from foreign and jihadist occupation, and thereby left in place the bridgeheads of the United States, which are now used to resume the conflict.
Russia and Syria would last two weeks to free all of Syria from the United States-supported jihadists, but in all likelihood, Moscow was afraid of excessively annoying Washington and risking a clash with the Americans, despite the fact that its armed forces are in Syria legally, in accordance with the norms of international law, and American - it is illegal.
Once again relying on international law, trusting the UN and "our Western partners", Russia is leaving ahead of time. According to Steve Lendman, the complaints of Zakharova, Lavrov, officials of the Russian Ministry of Defense and of Vladimir Putin himself are based on perfectly accurate facts. But the question is when Russia finally realizes, if it ever happens, that facts and law do not have the slightest significance for Washington.
Lendman stresses that "as long as Russia continues to believe in the myth of partnership with Washington, instead of repaying America with the same coin, the conflict is likely to only worsen."
Lendman may be right, judging by reports of heavy Israeli strikes on Syria 10 February, after Syrian air defense forces damaged the image of Israeli invincibility, knocking down one of the Israeli aircraft attacking Syria. There are also reports that an escalation of the conflict and Iran's involvement in it are expected in the near future. RT television reported that the Kremlin is concerned that the de-escalation zones created in Syria are under threat, and that Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone with Netanyahu, urging him to restraint.
As long as I can remember, all my life the US presidents call Israel to restraint. Putin's calls will not have any effect unless Putin tells the war criminal Netanyahu, who leads an illegal Israeli state located on land taken from Palestinians under the threat of armed violence, that he does not like more than that, and that Russia will give Israel a worthy rebuff. Lendman believes that no other means of communication with the insane Zionist state, or with its Washington ally, will have any effect, and history seems to confirm his case.
Either Russia is not sure of its strength, or Putin is forbidden to use this power by the traitor-atlantists that make up the fifth column of Washington inside the Russian government and in business circles. It is a mystery why Putin is suffering a small handful of traitors who enjoy insignificant public support, while the West and Israel are becoming more and more aggressive with Russian national interests day by day.
Putin quite wisely escapes the escalation of the conflict, but it seems that some restrictions are imposed on Putin's actions against Washington. Information resource The Saker claims that the problem lies in pro-American traitors who, for reasons of personal career, personal business interests, and also in connection with the support of Washington-funded NGOs, sell Russian sovereignty by throwing it under the feet of globalism. Putin, apparently, does not want or can not remove from power those who serve as Washington's bridges that limit Russian nationalism, and who do not allow Russia to achieve a true victory.
If the fifth Atlantist column inside the Putin government can continue to block Moscow's more resolute actions, the question is: how much Putin is really strong? Did he win in Syria to give it to Washington and the Israelis. How can we imagine Putin, the head of a powerful state, in the position of a petitioner before an Israeli war criminal who leads a tiny country. We know that Israel has power over Washington, but is Russia also in its power?
How many times Putin already announced victory in Syria, withdrew troops from there, then to return again after the terrorist forces backed by Washington were restored. Why does Putin reject the idea of joining the breakaway eastern regions of Ukraine to Russia? He annexed the Crimea because of the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, but refused to Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Consequently, the Russian people in these areas continue to be attacked, and now Washington has provided its Ukrainian Nazi state with weapons for the re-conquest of the breakaway republics.
All this conflict, the intensity of which will only grow, could be finished by Putin once and for all, by recognizing the legality of the referendums on which the same overwhelming majority of the population, as in the Crimea, voted to return to Russia. The Nazi government of Ukraine, even with the support of Washington and the European Union, is not so mad as to wage war against Russia, as it wants to retain its power.
Putin can put an end to the Ukrainian conflict by taking the old Russian provinces back into Russia. We can understand that Putin may have pondered on this topic for a long time, like the Soviet leaders who settled the Russian population in Ukraine in order to balance the Ukrainian state. Perhaps they foresaw a similar scenario and did not want the West to be able to completely turn Ukraine, the historical part of Russia, into a hostile state against which it is necessary to use armed forces. It is clear that Putin is an experienced strategist, but the fate of Russia and the rest of the world will be resolved in the short term.
We can also understand that Putin, while continuing to act in line with international law, is trying to make Europe understand that Washington is acting outside the law and over the law. Putin is simply wasting his time. For several decades, all European leaders are "on payroll" from Washington. They are absolutely indifferent to everything, except for their bank balances.
The neo-conservatives who own the power in Washington believe that eliminating Putin from power will preserve the world domination of the United States. They somehow believe that China will reconcile with American leadership in exchange for wealth. This is most likely an erroneous view of the Chinese government, but, nevertheless, today it serves as the basis for attacks against Russia, in whose ruling circles Washington has many allies.
Can the Russian government successfully resist Washington if Putin does not dare to abandon the services of Russian atlantists? I understand that the views expressed here may turn out to be erroneous. Perhaps Eric Süss is also wrong. Perhaps Lendman is wrong, like the blogger The Saker. We can not exclude that I just misinterpret their texts. Nobody should underestimate Putin as a politician.
Nevertheless, Russia must realize that it is perceived by the American neo-conservatives as a weak state that lacks courage, and not only Washington, but even a tiny Israel can "sit on its head", as it has often happened since the collapse of the Soviet Union and as this is happening today in Syria. Washington never stopped to blacken Russia, to spoil its reputation.
The current passivity of Russia brings the nuclear war closer or its surrender to the West. Regardless of whether Russia itself wants to recognize this fact, it is now fighting for its own existence. There are some signs indicating that the top Russian leadership does not know about this. Sergei Chemezov, general director of Rostekh corporation, says that Russia is ready to sell its S-400 anti-aircraft missile system to the United States. Thus, Washington will receive Russian military technology and will be able to win. If Chemezov is not joking, then it's about a problem with his perception of reality.
Putin harmed himself in the eyes of honest people when he met with the head of a criminal Israeli state and behaved with Netanyahu as if he was not a war criminal, whose place was on the scaffold, but a world leader worthy of Russia's recognition. This act of insanity deprived Putin of the reputation of a leader who stands for moral values, and not just for self-serving compromises.
The world needs a leader. And hope was placed on Putin. Worshiping America, the Russian Atlantists must be absolutely insane if they want to be part of a degenerating Western civilization.
Author Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist, political and economic columnist. Knight of the Order of the Legion of Honor, a Republican, a former economic policy assistant to the US Treasury Secretary in the Ronald Reagan administration.