By Ollie Richardson
Sergey Shoigu, Defence Minister of Russia, stated in an interview with Russia 24 that had Assad not removed his chemical weapon stockpile at the request of Russia, NATO would have launched 624 cruise missiles that were on standby. While it is now impossible to say whether General Breedlove would have really given the order to fire missiles at Syria, it is certainly evident, if not a fact, that the war in Syria is not about Assad or the weapons at his disposal. The narrative that the West politely asked Damascus to remove their “weapons of mass destruction” is laughable to say the least. While the placement of Russia’s S-400 stopped a Libya 2.0 scenario, Syria would have been razed to rubble regardless of whether or not the elected leader had a dirty bomb to hand.
In actuality, the initial failure of the second Gulf War delayed the US’ plans for Syria by some years. Plan B was to install Jihad camps such as Camp Bucca full-time, in order to recruit people like the current head of Al-Nusra.
Back in 2015, a document was declassified that uncovered the actual motive to push the “Arab spring” into the Levant. This document is known as the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, and was released into the public domain courtesy of the freedom of information act. The premise of the report is that the US somehow ‘magically’ ended up aligning itself with the very people who flew passenger jets into the twin towers.
It is widely known that the US was desperately trying to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria as early as 2014, but the attempts were in vain as Europe would remain resistant to committing themselves to such a UN resolution. The key phrases in the report are already committed to memory of those who are interested in the Syrian war, so in the interest of time, here are the most important parts:
So even if Assad had a thermobaric warhead facing the Atlantic – Syria was going to be subject to partition regardless. The post-2001 incursion into Afghanistan, the subsequent throughly-illegal invasion of Iraq, and the 2011 demolition of the Libyan State are all key nodes in Sykes-Picot 2.0. The US, however, did not take into account Russia’s readiness to resist this wave of lawlessness, and as a result, through the fault of a proxy, Russia was able to place the S-400 SAM system in Syria – something NATO has absolutely no answer for. The rest is history.
Another key point is that Russia is not ideologically committed to the person of Assad, but more to the stability of the Syrian State. This meant that as soon as the port in Tartus came under threat, Putin gave the order to, with the UN’s approval, clear out the terrorists from Latakia. Can we say that the shootdown of the Su-24 by Turkey was a test? Perhaps, but the look on Obama’s face when he saw the images of the S-400 being wheeled in will certainly have been a picture…
In any case, the hypocrisy of NATO has become almost unfathomable: chemical weapons are good when Donald Rumsfeld is handing them over to Saddam Hussein, but Iran is not allowed to harness nuclear energy, despite a Fatwa being in place for the building of a nuclear bomb. The US is also still very quiet about their use of Agent Orange, White Phosphorous, Plutonium, MK 77, Napalm, etc – “it’s not terrorism when we do it… 624 times!”
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.