Putin hopes for stronger Russian-Israeli ties

According to the Russian president, numerous immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Russia currently living in Israel present a huge potential for developing the bilateral relations

Russia attaches great importance to bilateral ties with Israel and hopes they will get stronger in the future, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

We attach great importance to our contacts with Israel, not only because Israel is one of the key countries on the situation in the Middle East, but also due to historical relations between our countries,” the Russian leader said welcoming the Israeli premier in Moscow.

I am confident that your visit will be fruitful and will serve the cause of further strengthening our relations,” Putin noted.

According to the Russian president, numerous immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Russia currently living in Israel present a huge potential for developing the bilateral relations. Putin noted that, as a rule, these people “retain ties with Russia, and we, for our part, too, cherish these ties.”

He added that the two countries’ leaders are constantly in touch with each other, which confirms the high level of relations between Russia and Israel.

Netanyahu said he wants relations between the two countries to grow stronger in the next 25 years.

This visit [to Russia] is special. We mark the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries within its frameworks and we will discuss how to strengthen and develop these relations in the next 25 years,” he said.

According to the Israeli prime minister, his country and Russia face common threats and have much to discuss.

He thanked the Russian leader for the warn reception and noted that the Russian language is a “live bridge” between the two countries.

This bridge will help us achieve remarkable results in future that would rest not only on common interests but also on empathy and mutual liking. I would like to say thanks for this visit to you once again,” Netanyahu said.

Source: Russian News Agency


Russia, Solzhenitsyn, and the Reset Button

In 2009, Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State, presented her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, with a “reset” button she thought symbolized a new era for Russian and American diplomacy.

Lavrov pointed out the word the Americans had chosen, “peregruzka,” meant “overcharged,” not “reset.” Though the two leaders laughed off the mistake, the mistranslated button was a symbol of persistent misunderstanding between the two nations.

Russia has long been characterized by many in the West as enigmatic; indeed, almost beyond understanding. It was Winston Churchill who in October of 1939, mere weeks after the invasion of Poland by Nazi armed forces, speculated on the role of Russia in the war, famously depicting Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”

He added: “…but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. It cannot be in accordance with the interest of the safety of Russia that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should overrun the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of south eastern Europe. That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia.”

In other words, Churchill could not envision the dismemberment of the Soviet Union by the German war machine without Russia fighting for her “life interests.” History proved him right. Russia survived, though gravely wounded.

The claims of Russia to her unique, historic life interests again came to the forefront when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s and Russia the nation and empire appeared on the verge of total disintegration. Russia found itself in desperate need of a Weltanschauung that would replace the communist ideology that had held the nation in its grip for seventy years. If she did not, she might even face the prospect of radical shrinkage back to the proportions of Kievan Rus, her empire absorbed into Eastern Europe and the Far East. For some, if not most, of Russia’s political and intellectual leaders, the prospect of seeing the Russian empire virtually disappear was unthinkable.

Discerning that a U.S. Marshall Plan was not in order for Russia, several main figures came forward with ideas for a Russian reset button, one which they saw as including the “historic life interests” of Russia in the post-communist era. One, of course, is Vladimir Putin, whose embrace of Russian Orthodoxy has been a reason for the elevation of Christianity to a place of influence it occupied for over a millennium.

One of the spiritual and philosophical influences behind Putin has been Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Partly due to Putin’s influence, Solzhenitsyn’s master work The Gulag Archipelago is now required reading in Russian schools.

Solzhenitsyn openly rejected the secularist and leftist liberal political philosophy dominating the cultures of Europe and America. Russia, he said, had her own unique spiritual and historic heritage, a heritage that clashed with the dominant ideology of the West. Though he admired the spirituality of the American heartland, he saw the West in general as drowning in a vortex created by moral degradation, anti-religious sentiment, and extreme individualism.

Perhaps the most succinct and prescient analyses of the errors of the liberal democratic West and the failure of the West to understand Russia and Russian spirituality is found in his speech at Harvard University, given in 1978 some eleven years before the collapse of East Germany and the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn reminded the Harvard graduates that the West was not the one and only advanced culture. Russia also deserved high regard as an ancient and autonomous entity:
Any ancient and deeply rooted, autonomous culture… constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking… For one thousand years Russia belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it…”

In other words, if Russia was an enigma, it was due to Western blindness, a blindness that was largely due to spiritual cataracts. If Russia seemed inscrutable, it was because American and the rest of the West failed to understand the Russian soul and the Russian nation. No reset was possible unless the West returned to its own Christian spiritual roots. Until spiritual eyeglasses provided vision, the materialistic but powerful West would remain blinded by its sense of total superiority.

The West, he went on to say, thought of itself as possessing the most attractive system, and regarded other nations as culturally inferior entities that needed to come up to speed, rejecting their “wicked governments” and “their own barbarity” in order to take “the way of western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which develops out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick.”

Russia had its own ancient and autonomous character and was in some ways more advanced than the secularist West, which he saw as declining in courage, and as inclined toward overemphasis on individual rights seldom ameliorated by a corresponding emphasis on individual obligations. Such was the emphasis on individual rights that “destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space.” The result was that evil had boundless freedom to expand in every part of society, expressing itself as individual “rights,” be those rights exhibiting themselves in pornography, violence, and even anarchy. A firm belief in the basic goodness of human nature coupled with an almost complete misapprehension of the evil inherent in human nature had led the West to embracing what amounted to spiritual and moral anarchy.

The spiritual condition of the West meant its system was not the ideal model for Russia, which Solzhenitsyn characterized as possessing spiritual strength the West had once possessed, but which it had rejected. The West was spiritually exhausted due to the repudiation of the Christian principles on which it was based. As Russia was, even in the midst of the communist regime, gaining her spiritual strength, a vitiated West had virtually nothing to say to her beyond advocacy of runaway materialism and out-of-control individualism.

Solzhenitsyn went on to point out the basic error that led to the decadence of the West; namely, the assumption of the Enlightenment that mankind has no higher force above him, but is autonomous — mankind as the center of everything that exists. In effect, the West, including America, which at its inception believed quite differently, rejected the idea that all “individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature.” Freedom, he said, is conditional in that it has grave religious responsibilities, an idea that had roots thousands of years old.

He concluded any commonality between Russia and the West had to be spiritual:
“[If] the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge: We shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era. This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.”

For Solzhenitsyn, Christianity, specifically the Russian Orthodox Church, had informed the Russian soul and Russia since the end of the first millennium, with roots going back to the Eastern Roman Empire. The path leading to restoration of true greatness lay in a return to God and a repudiation of the dark inheritance of a so-called Enlightenment that fostered atheism and sought to tear down Christianity.

Having experienced firsthand the brutality of a regime motivated by atheism, Solzhenitsyn saw a similar deleterious influence at the core of the crisis of the West. Once again, runaway atheism was revealing its inherently destructive nature. In his Templeton Prize Lecture of May 1983, “Godlessness: The First Step to the Gulag,” he said:

“And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God. The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.
“…the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.
[In the West] …the concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system.”

The West, including America, was sliding toward an abyss of its own making. The young were deliberately being taught godlessness and hatred of their own society. The subsequent corrosion of the human heart and hatred was fast becoming the signature of the contemporary free world, which appeared anxious to export to the rest of the world its own philosophy of godlessness and immorality.

The solution, he concluded, was repentance and return to God:
“…[W]e can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our bands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing… If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.”

Solzhenitsyn’s powerful insights hold much truth. If there is to be a reset between the West and Russia, it must be based on the mutual and ancient Christian roots of both entities. Here in the United States, there is a Christian commonality that still exists, but it desperately requires fostering and revival.

In the meantime, Christianity in the West and in Russia remains a key to the relationship between the two.
Therein lies a way to rapprochement.
Therein lies a possibility of a “reset button.”
The way will not be easy, as the present leaders of the West have largely bowed to the forces of a spiritually arid and atheistic secularism.
But there is hope that some will seek to hear and to heed the voice that says, “This is the way. Walk in it.”

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she received the seminary’s prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including Russia Insider, National Review, CNS, RealClearReligion and Fox News. She has also presented her views on radio and television. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

Author: Fay Voshell
Source: American Thinker

Russia killed 28,000 militants in Syria, third of all ISIS forces

Since Moscow started its air operation in Syria on September 30 last year, the Russian Air Force has eliminated over a third of Islamic State fighters in the country, the deputy head of Russia’s top security body revealed.

We estimate that at the beginning of our operation Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] possessed about 80,000 fighters, of whom 28,000 (35 percent) have already been eliminated. This is [the result of] our actions together with the Syrian Army,” Evgeny Lukyanov said at the VII international security summit being held in Grozny, the capital of Russia’s Chechen Republic.

Well, the [US-led anti-terrorist] coalition eliminated an additional 5,000 in two years,” Lukyanov added.

There were people predicting that it [Russia’s anti-terrorist operation in Syria] would result in another Afghanistan or something like that. That would never be. There are only limited military plans,” Lukyanov said, stressing that Syrians “must solve their issues for themselves.”

The principle task of the Russian operation in Syria has been to force the sides to start a political dialogue, the Russian Security Council’s top official stressed.

“Otherwise this [war] would have no end in sight.”

Source: Britain First

This is why the Navy didn’t shoot down Russian jets

Russian pilots rattled nerves aboard the destroyer Donald Cook, buzzing within yards of the ship in the Baltic Sea. Provocative, sure. But they weren’t a credible threat.

So concludes a retired Navy commanding officer, who reviewed photos and videos from the run-ins on Monday and Tuesday, when unarmed Sukhoi Su-24 fighters flew within 1,000 feet of the ship — once coming as close as 30 feet in what U.S. officials called “simulated attacks.”  On Monday, a low-flying Russian Ka-27 Helix helicopter also appeared to take photos of the ship.

This was definitely provocative, but it doesn’t amount to a threat, said the retired frigate and cruiser CO.

Well, we’re not at war with Russia,” Capt. Rick Hoffman said. “It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here.”

If you have visual identification of the jet, can see it isn’t carrying weapons, and don’t detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the ship, there’s nothing to be done.

And ultimately, the rules of engagement allow the CO to take defensive action if they feel they safety of their vessel is in danger, according to U.S. European Command spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times. In this case the CO did not feel threatened, he added.

You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying,” said Hoffman, who commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City. Cruisers are the fleet’s foremost air defense platform and are tasked with guarding flattops from incoming threats.

There’s a possibility that the “simulated attack” might violate a 1973 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that deals with this behavior.

Otherwise, Hoffman added, it just amounts to showboating.

“Only in ‘Top Gun’ does a war suddenly break out between two airplanes that is completely not related to something going on ashore,” he said.

To be sure, the rules might be different in another situation. The Baltic Sea is not a contested area of responsibility.

We would probably not have accepted that from an Iranian aircraft in the Persian Gulf, although we’ve seen it,” Hoffman said.

Or if it had been a civilian aircraft, he added, the CO would have been more on guard for a potential suicide mission. But the likelihood that a rogue Russian pilot would take a shot at an American ship and then try to fly home through the airspace of multiple NATO partners is very low.

It’s more likely that the stunt will end up as a public relations tool for Russian President Vladimir Putin, showing force against the Americans operating in his backyard.

“It would be real interesting to see what shows up in the Russian papers in the morning, how they play it,” Hoffman said. “It’s not that different from North Korea. He does something and then he plays it domestically however he needs to play it for the purposes of getting his people energized.”

Source: Navy Times

FBI can now hack computers anywhere in the world

The FBI now has the powers to hack computers anywhere around the world, the Intercept reports. The US Supreme Court approved changes to regulations that make it easier for the Bureau to hack into computers that will take effect in December, unless Congress enacts opposing legislation.

Until now, warrants issued by US judges couldn’t authorise hacking into a computer “if the investigator didn’t know where the computer was—because it might be outside his or her jurisdiction.”

Under the new rules, however, warrants can be issued that cover search or seizure of any electronic device, regardless of its location, “if the target of the investigation is using anonymity software like Tor to cloak their location.”

Additionally, the ruling expands the FBI’s powers to hack into computers that have previously been hacked, like those infected in a botnet – a network of hacked computers used like “zombies” in cyber attacks.

The rule change was pushed for by the US Justice Department, who advocated for it claiming that it was a procedural change needed to deal with the challenges of the digital age.

Privacy advocates have opposed the change, with Kevin Bankston, director of the Open Technology Institute, saying: “Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it—whether they call it a ‘remote access search’ or a ‘network investigative technique’—what we’re talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a whole lot more of it.

The Justice Department responded to criticism saying that it would not authorise searches more extensive than those already allowed.

Source: IHLS

Why Is The CIA Investing In Skincare?

The CIA has now entered the skincare business, it seems. Or at least, the agency is funding a product that has some very cool spying properties.

The CIA has injected some cash into Skincential Sciences, a maker of a new skincare product, Clearista, which can be used to collect DNA information from users.

The product, which is claimed to remove blemishes from skin, has caught the attention of bloggers, YouTubers, and even Oprah herself. But The Intercept reports that the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, has also had its interest piqued.

The public face of Skincential advertises a range of skincare products, but the company has also “developed a patented technology that removes a thin outer layer of the skin, revealing unique biomarkers that can be used for a variety of diagnostic tests, including DNA collection,” The Intercept reports.

The procedure is noninvasive, and is described as “painless” on the Clearista website. It requires only water, a special detergent, and a few brushes against the skin. Easy to use, and effective for DNA collection.

“If there’s something beneath the surface, that’s not part of our relationship and I’m not directly aware. They’re interested here in something that can get easy access to biomarkers,” said Russ Lebovitz, Skincential CEO in an interview with The Intercept.

Lebovitz said he’s unsure of why the spook agency took a particular interest in the company he heads, but said that the fund was “specifically interested in the diagnostics, detecting DNA from normal skin.”

There’s no better identifier than DNA, and we know we can pull out DNA.”

Source: iHLS

LA Times: “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA”

Surprise, surprise. After directing the Pentagon to arm and train the Syrian “rebels”, the Obama administration is perhaps learning that it might not have been a good idea to interfere in an Islamic civil war in which both factions are fighting for the same cause: Islamic domination.

Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, calls the clashes “a fairly new phenomenon.”

It is part of the three-dimensional chess that is the Syrian battlefield,” he said.
President Obama this month authorized a new Pentagon plan to train and arm Syrian rebel fighters, relaunching a program that was suspended in the fall after a string of embarrassing setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate.

Amid the setbacks, the Pentagon late last year deployed about 50 special operations forces to Kurdish-held areas in northeastern Syria to better coordinate with local militias and help ensure U.S.-backed rebel groups aren’t fighting one another. But such skirmishes have become routine.

Last year, the Pentagon helped create a new military coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces. The goal was to arm the group and prepare it to take territory away from the Islamic State in eastern Syria and to provide information for U.S. airstrikes.

That was the Pentagon.  But the CIA was seemingly operating on a separate mission:
The CIA, meanwhile, has its own operations center inside Turkey from which it has been directing aid to rebel groups in Syria, providing them with TOW antitank missiles from Saudi Arabian weapons stockpiles.

While the Pentagon’s actions are part of an overt effort by the U.S. and its allies against Islamic State, the CIA’s backing of militias is part of a separate covert U.S. effort aimed at keeping pressure on the Assad government in hopes of prodding the Syrian leader to the negotiating table.

At first, the two different sets of fighters were primarily operating in widely separated areas of Syria — the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeastern part of the country and the CIA-backed groups farther west. But over the last several months, Russian airstrikes against anti-Assad fighters in northwestern Syria have weakened them. That created an opening which allowed the Kurdish-led groups to expand their zone of control to the outskirts of Aleppo, bringing them into more frequent conflict with the CIA-backed outfits.

Fighting over territory in Aleppo demonstrates how difficult it is for the U.S. to manage these really localized and in some cases entrenched conflicts,” said Nicholas A. Heras, an expert on the Syrian civil war at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington. “Preventing clashes is one of the constant topics in the joint operations room with Turkey.”
While the Obama administration contributes greatly to this Syrian civil war and continues their quest to give sanctuary to Syrian Muslim refugees in America, Christians in Syria are basically ignored by the president.

From Christian Post:
“Christians have suffered greatly in the cross-fire between the government and the rebels, and have also faced extreme persecution at the hands of terror group the Islamic State, which has captured significant territory in the war-torn country.

Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, warned back in June that Christians are slowly disappearing from the region.

“In my country, Syria, Christians are caught in the middle of a civil war and they are enduring the rage of an extremist jihad. And it is unjust for the West to ignore the persecutions these Christian communities are experiencing,” Jeanbart said in an article.

What horrors must ISIS commit before the world will take greater action to stop the murderers?” he asked. “Syrian Christians are in grave danger; we may disappear soon.”

Author: Ms. Ann-Marie Murrell
Source: LA Times

En Syrie, les milices armées par le Pentagone combattent contre celles armées par…la CIA

Selon trois journalistes du Los Angeles Times, des milices syriennes armées par les Etats-Unis se mènent une guerre sans merci entre la ville d’Alep et la frontière turque.

Des responsables américains ont confirmé que la situation devenait de moins en moins contrôlable depuis la multiplication des escarmouches entre milices à la périphérie nord d’Alep lors de ces deux derniers mois.

A la mi-février, une milice armée par la CIA dénommé Fursans al Haq, ou Chevaliers de la Droiture, a été décimée dans la ville de Marea, située à 30 kilomètres au nord d’Alep, par les Forces démocratiques syriennes,unecoalition militaire à majorité kurde soutenue par le Pentagone.

D’autres combattants ont décrit des affrontements similaires dans la ville d’Azaz, un point de transit clé pour les combattants et les marchandises qui circulent entre Alep et la frontière turque. L’émergence des Forces démocratiques syriennes n’a pas permis d’atteindre l’objectif initial, celui de reprendre les territoires contrôlés par Daesh. En revanche, cette coalition ne cesse d’étendre son aire d’influence au nord de la Syrie. Un fait qui préoccupe vivement la Turquie voisine, en guerre contre les Unités de protection du peuple (YPG). Les militants kurdes profitent de ce vaste pan de territoire comme zone de repli.

Ces derniers événements illustrent la difficulté des Américains à coordonner les dizaines de groupes armés qui, concentrant leurs efforts pour évincer le président Bachar el-Assad, ne luttent pas assez efficacement contre Daesh.

«C’est un énorme défi», reconnaît Adam Schiff, membre de la Commission du renseignement de la Maison Blanche. Le représentant américain a en outre ajouté qu’il était indispensable pour Washington d’avoir «un partenaire sur le terrain» afin d’éliminer Daesh. Un avis partagé par Jeffrey White, un ancien fonctionnaire de la Defense Intelligence Agency, l’une des agences du renseignement américain pilotée par le département de la Défense. «Une fois qu’ils franchissent la frontière en Syrie, vous perdez une capacité importante de contrôler leurs actions», a-t-il affirmé lors d’un entretien téléphonique.

L’interventionnisme raté des Etats-Unis dans le conflit syrien risque donc de sérieusement menacer le développement de l’unité de la Syrie, que le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry n’a pas hésité à remettre en question en évoquant, en février dernier, l’éventualité d’une partition territoriale.

Source: RT

Why is David Cameron so silent on the recapture of Palmyra from the clutches of Isis?

In the end, it was the Syrian army – and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon, and the Iranians, and the Russians – who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra.

The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn’t they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn’t we?

Less than a week after the lost souls of the ‘Islamic Caliphate‘ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should – should we not? – have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (I’m talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.

As my long-dead colleague on the Sunday Express, John Gordon, used to say, makes you sit up a bit, doesn’t it? Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin’s Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren’t utter a single word to say well done.

When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army’s big question: why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn’t they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army’s front lines? Why didn’t they attack Isis?

If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.

Putin noticed this, and talked about it, and accurately predicted the retaking of Palmyra. His aircraft attacked Isis – as US planes did not – in advance of the Syrian army’s conquest. I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American “war on terror“. They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.

So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra, and who may – heavens preserve us from such a success – even storm the Isis Syrian ‘capital’ of Raqqa. I have written many times that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back Raqqa – and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915 Christian victims into the streets – I promise you we will be silent again.

Aren’t we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s. Pray for peace, folks. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?

Source: Independent

On Syria: Thank you, Russia!

Once again, Moscow has shown itself better able to make strategic choices than we are. Russia is not an ideal partner for the United States, but sometimes its interests align with ours. In those cases, we should drop our Cold War hostility and work with Russia. The best place to start is Syria.

American policy toward Syria was misbegotten from the start of the current conflict five years ago. By immediately adopting the hardest possible line—“Assad must go”—we removed any incentive for opposition groups to negotiate for peaceful change. That helped propel Syria into its bloody nightmare.

Russia, which has suffered repeated terror attacks from Islamic fanatics, is threatened by the chaos and ungoverned space that now defines Syria. So are we. Russia’s policy should be ours: prevent the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, craft a new regime that would include Assad or his supporters, and then work for a cease-fire.

The fall of Assad would create a catastrophic power vacuum like those that have turned Iraq and Libya into terrorist havens. This would be bad for the United States, and even worse for Russia and Iran. We should recognize this common interest, and work with countries that want what we want.

This may seem eminently logical, but the very suggestion is hateful in Washington. It violates a central precept of the liberal/conservative, Republican-Democrat foreign policy consensus: Russia is our eternal enemy, so anything that promotes Russia’s interests automatically undermines ours — and that goes double for Iran. Instead of clinging to this dangerously outdated with-us-or-against-us mantra, we should realize that countries with which we differ in some areas can be our partner in others. Russia is an ideal example.

We would have been more secure as a nation, and might have contributed to a more stable world, if we had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past. The government Moscow supported in Afghanistan, run by Mohammad Najibullah from 1987-92, was more honest and progressive than any that has ruled Afghanistan since American-backed forces deposed Najibullah. Later, Russia urged the United States not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were right both times, and we were wrong. In Syria, Russia is right for a third time. Keeping the odious Assad in power, at least for the moment, best serves American interests. The alternative could be an ISIS “caliphate” stretching from the Mediterranean to the Tigris River.

No military solution is possible in Syria. Continued fighting only adds to the toll of death and horror. Russia wants a negotiated settlement. We are reluctant, because our so-called friends in the region want to keep fighting. They calculate continuing war to be in their interest. It may be — but it is not in the interest of the United States.

Opposition groups in Syria that we have half-heartedly supported refuse to negotiate until a cease-fire is in place. By accepting that formula, the United States guarantees continued war. Instead, negotiations should be aimed at creating a new regime that both Russia and the United States could support. From there, peace can grow.

How long Assad remains in power is not crucial to the United States. Weakening ISIS and al Qaeda is. Fighting those forces is the policy of Russia and Iran. We should recognize this confluence of interests, and work with every country or faction that shares our goals in Syria.

Our reflexive rejection of all cooperation with Russia is a throwback to a vanished era. It prevents us from taking decisive steps to ease the crisis in Syria. Its effects are also being felt in Europe. The Obama administration recently announced a four-fold increase in spending for troop deployments near Russia. Russia responded with military maneuvers near its border with Ukraine. This spiral of tension ignores the reality that Europe can never be truly secure without Russian cooperation.

Refusing to work with Russia hurts us more than it hurts Russia. Seeking avenues of cooperation would benefit both, and contribute to global security. Syria is the best place to start. Russia’s strategy — fight ISIS and al Qaeda, defend Assad, and seek a cease-fire that preserves his regime in some form — is the least bad option. Until we accept it, Syrian blood will continue to flow.

By Stephen Kinzer
Source: Boston Globe