Tuesday, October 20, 2015


But please, what would the Americans have the Russians and indeed the world do? America had all the opportunities to mould Syria anyway they liked in the early days of the crisis but opted to play the ostrich. Even when it appeared that President Assad crossed the RED LINE Obama set, the latter still balked against what many in his party as well as in the opposition Republican Party, saw as better advice to go into Syria, with the British having developed cold feet he jettisoned the idea, leaving the Russians to take the initiative in spearheading a United Nations process of ridding Syria of Chemical Weapons.

Russia's President Putin leveraged on the statesmanly popularity the above earned him internationally and most importantly at home to pursue other agendas in eastern Europe, Ukraine to be precise to the anger of the United States of America and her allies, for which the latter activated as many sanctions against Russia as they can muster, which hurt Russia's economy so badly, that Putin had to strengthen further relations with China and other economic blocs opposed to America's superintendence, even sometimes negotiating from a point of weakness just to stay afloat.

We had begun living with this new state of affairs until out of the blues, Russia reactivated it's engagement in Syria, though many see it as more like making overt what was already covert, or escalating what was at a lower level, with bombing raids which Putin said was aimed at degrading the capacity of the ISLAMIC STATE, IS to continue to make war in Iraq Syria. This move not only angered the Americans whose indecision on Syria many tend to blame for the rise of the Islamic State, but led to a campaign in the media it controls in the west to go on a lampooning spree against the airstrikes, hardly seeing any good, except a Russian Evil in Syria, by showcasing the destruction allegedly left behind by the strikes in civilian areas, while Islamic State held areas appear largely unscathed, neither accepting that there had been any form of degradation of ISIS' capabilities.

It became so bad that they kept on reporting the "harm" the Russian airstrike was doing to Syria's innocent populations, especially those in regions in opposition to Assad's rule that they conveniently ignored (except for some speedy mentions, or tiny scrolls at the bottom of the TV) the event of an American airstrike on a Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF run hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan in which some doctors and patients lost their lives, while many more survived with varying degrees of injuries, and only began to regularly mention it when the MSF remained unrelenting in asking for an independent investigation into the incident.


Atleast, we know what Russia wants in Syria, but definitely not what the Americans want, and by implication what the American foreign policy is, concerning the middle east at large, especially with this Obama government, which claims it detests Islamic State's activities, and would do all it takes to wipe the scum off the surface of the earth, yet the only thing it appears to have done in the case of Syria is train and arm groups opposed to Assad's government in Syria, who then go on to avail the Islamic State American weapons and expertise earned in their interactions with special forces. Even bombing raids by America and her allies in Iraq have done little to dismantle the group, even as Obama refuses to send boots on ground to bouy the government in Iraq.

The Americans claim that the sort of peace they would welcome in Syria is one that does not accommodate the status quo at the helm of affairs, the rest of the world wants peace there at any cost, especially if it will put an end to the migrant crisis bedevilling mainly Europe, and then to some extent the United States, Australia and others. Interestingly, Russia has been spared the nightmare of Syrian migrants at her borders and hence seen by many as doing the world a favour. I will rather this than nothing, and if peace is hopefully procured by Russia's military intervention with possible wiping out of ISIS, then I don't mind. We may begin to talk about what should happen to Assad (of whom I am not fond) once this elusive peace is miraculously found there. This Putin's "evil" in Syria may just be a necessary one in the long run.


- http://www.edition.cnn.com
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk


  1. The Syrian crisis has always been complicated and the Russian engagement made it much more complicated. I want to believe that USA's sluggish involvement has to do with the fact that they don't want Assad, neither do they want the leading opposition fighters, ISIS. So how do they go about it? Definitely not without some headache from the American president, Barack Obama. Personally, I don't have any problem with Russian involvement but I still feel that they may have a hidden selfish motive. Let's not forget that USA has already ploughed over $4billion for supporting Syrian refugees and who knows if they're looking @ returns? Lol.

    Bye and large, I hope there can be lasting peace in Syria, culminating to the total annihilation of Isis and their kinds.

  2. My point therefore is, on this peculiar case of Syria, to allow the Russians do whatever it takes to bring peace to Syria.

    Once that is achieved, the fashion of the peace could then be moulded by all the parties concerned at a round table.

    I fear that this may not be as easy as it is, more likely a long shot, but who says we can't hope for the best?