The U.S. and Russia appear to have negotiated a ceasefire in southwest Syria following President Trump’s clickbait-friendly meeting with Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Hamburg. Predictably, this has seen Trump supporters citing this successful negotiation as proof of the president’s Art of the Deal alpha mastery, and Democrats making homophobic jokes, resurrecting the word “bromance”, and condemning any attempt to avoid another senseless regime change invasion in another Middle Eastern country. Matthew Chapman, writer for alt-center fanfiction site Shareblue, has gone so far as to say that that any ceasefire which doesn’t result in regime change “is completely one-sided in favor of Russia.”
Meanwhile those of us with a slightly longer memory are just waiting for the other shoe to drop. America’s power establishment has been itching for regime change in Syria for a very long time, and it’s not about to let it go over a handshake between two politicians. In light of this, I’m tapping out a quick reminder here that the last time the U.S. and Russia negotiated a ceasefire in Syria it came apart instantly with U.S. coalition Reaper drones “accidentally” slaughtering dozens of Syrian soldiers.
On September 9 of last year, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States and Russia had successfully worked together to negotiate a nationwide ceasefire in Syria, set to take effect September 12th, which was fully supported by the Syrian government. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that if the ceasefire lasted seven days, negotiations would begin for the U.S. and Russia to begin collaborating against Al-Qaeda in the region.
On September 17th, five days after the ceasefire took effect, the U.S. admitted that its drones had attacked the Syrian military, killing 62 soldiers and injuring 100 others, saying that it had mistaken them for ISIS fighters. UK and Australian air forces were also involved. The ceasefire was shattered and the bloodbaths resumed.
Since that time, the U.S. coalition has come under increasing criticism for its failure to take the fight to Al-Qaeda forces in the area, which saw Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard grilling Secretary of State James Mattis last month as to why the U.S. has been targeting ISIS but not Al-Qaeda in Syria.
I would also like to remind readers here that Qatar’s former Prime Minister has stated that his country worked with the U.S. to bolster Al-Qaeda’s forces in Syria, and that in 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received an email informing her that Al-Qaeda was “on our side in Syria.”
This is all happening in a country which has seen U.S. forces targeting pro-Assad military forces with increasing frequency, which has seen extremely suspicious likely false flags being used to manufacture support for a regime change invasion by western forces, and western media circulating blatant lies to fan the flames. There’s too much extremely suspicious behavior happening in far too geopolitically crucial a location for anyone to reasonably think things are going to just settle down in Syria. It is far more likely that we will see more false flag attacks meant to incriminate the Assad administration, more anonymous leaks meant to pressure Trump into adopting an anti-Putin posture, and perhaps more “accidental” attacks as well.
We shall see. I hope I’m wrong, but we shall see. Keep your eyes wide open, woke rebels. Watch them very closely.
U.S. air strike kills 62 Syrian army soldiers, sabotaging Sept 12 ceasefire agreement, news compilation on New Cold War.org, Sept 18, 2016
Enclosed are four news articles from RT.com containing news and background to the air strike by U.S. warplanes in eastern Syria on Sept 17, 2016 that killed at least 62 soldiers of the Syrian army…
EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.