Monday, August 15, 2016

How Media Distorted Syrian Ceasefire’s Breakdown

One of the constant themes of this jorunal has been the constant misrepresentation of world events, particularly the conflicts in the middle east and Ukraine to skew public perceprions and persuade voters and taxpayers that Russia and China pose a serious threat to the security of western nations. While we have no particular reason to feel any loyalty towards Russia, we do not believe that vast nation or it's leader Vladimir Putin pose any threat to the west. In fact it is the western powers, NATO and the European Union, and the Obama administration in the USA that have constantly sought to provoke Russia and China. 

Coverage in western media of the conflict in Syria, the failure of US and NATO efforts to contain ISIS, the Russian intervention and subsequent breakdown of the partial ceasefire in Syria has illustrated the way in which corporate news media distort public understanding of a major story that has implications for the whole world and could possibly develop into a global conflict. The problem is not that key events in this saga are unreported, but that they have been downplayed, the significance to the west glossed over so that the threat posed by the ongoing conflicts is minimised in the perception of people who rely on mainstream (print and broadcast) news.

One key event most people in the USA and Europe are blissfully unaware of was the major offensive launched in April by Al Nusra (Barack Obama's beloved 'moderate rebels, though in reality they are every bit as brutal and bloody as ISIS) alongside US-backed armed opposition groups. The offensive received minimal coverage in British, US and European 'quality' newspapers, ignored by more populist titles and hardly mentioned on TV news. Even the most diligent news junkie however, would not have read that the offensive broke the back of the partial ceasefire. On the contrary, they would have gotten the clear impression from following the major newspapers’ coverage that  systematic violations by the Assad government doomed the ceasefire from the beginning.

The Obama administration of course had no interest at all in defeating ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated groups, Washington's priority, their only goal in fact, was to depose Assad and install a puppet government in his place. In this they were supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

Corporate media heralded the ceasefire agreement as a great triumph for Obama and his Secretary Of State Jophn Kerry when it was negotiated by the United States and Russia in February, 2016. The  Los Angeles Times (2/2/16) called it “the most determined diplomatic push to date aimed at ending the nation’s almost five-year conflict.” 

The “partial cessation of hostilities” was to apply between the Syrian regime and the non-jihadist forces, but not to the regime’s war with Nusra and with ISIS. The clear implication was that the US-supported non-jihadist opposition forces would have to separate themselves from Nusra, or else they would be legitimate targets for airstrikes, something the Russians had always been very clear about.

The fact that the US backed so - called 'moderate rebels' that were Washington's CIA-backed proxy, providing armed opposition to Assad, was in fact Al Nusra  and the jihadist Nusra Front was an issue US media studiously avoided mentioning. The link was exposed in British and European media where some well informed people were starting to worry that provoking Russia by attacking its ally Assad, while supporting those trying to overthrow his regime was not the wisest approach to the middle east crisis. 

 US and NATO Syria policy has been dependent on the military potential of the Nusra Front or Free Syrian Army or any of the names the jihadists have given themselves for leverage on the Syrian regime. The 'moderate rebels' were unable to operate in northwest Syria without support from jihadists and from the Islamist regime led by President Erdogan in Turkey. This central element in US Syria policy, which both the government and the media were unwilling to acknowledge, was a central obstacle to accurate coverage of what happened to the Syrian ceasefire.

The problem of framing the failure to deafeat ISIS as a triumph for US foreign policy began as soon as the ceasefire agreement was announced. The New York Times published  a news analysis on the wider issues that were raising tensions between the Obama administration and Russia and to “the gaping loophole” in the Syria ceasefire agreement: the fact that “it permits attacks against the Islamic State and the Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to continue.” The notion that the 'moderate rebels' of the Free
Syrian Army were separate from ISIS had by then been largely discredited.

Hawks in Washington argued the terms of the ceasfire meant Russia could continue to strike United States-backed rebel groups without fear…of Washington’s doing anything to stop them.

On the same day the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama’s “top military and intelligence advisers did not believe Russia would abide by the ceasefire in Syria and wanted to ready plans to increase pressure on Moscow by expanding covert support to rebels fighting the Russia-backed Assad regime.” For two of the country’s most prominent newspapers, it was thus clear that the primary context of the Syria ceasefire was not its impact on Syria’s population, but how it affected Washington's geopolitical ambitions for global hegemony. In 2012 or 13 we reported that the Syria conflict was in fact a US / NATO engineered proxy war with Russia.

Contrary to western propaganda about Russian intentions to take advantage of the agreement to hit US-supported Syrian opposition groups, as soon as the partial ceasefire agreement took effect on February 27, Russia released a map that designated “green zones” its air force would not strike. The green zones, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, corresponded with Syrian opposition groups that had signed on to the ceasefire. Furthermore, Russia stopped bombing the Nusra-controlled areas of northwest Syria, instead focusing on ISIS targets further west, a scenario Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis confirmed on March 14.

But instead of separating themselves from Al Nusra, the US-supported (i.e. controlled) armed opposition joined forces with ISIS affiliated Al Nusra and its jihadist allies in a major offensive aimed at destroying the ceasefire. 

British middle east expert Charles Lister, a Foreign Offive adviser  on Islamic extremism in Syria, has reported being told by the commander of a US-backed armed group that around March 20, Nusra officials began a round of meetings with non-jihadist opposition groups from Hama, Latakia and southern Aleppo, including those supported by the United States, to persuade them to participate in a major offensive against the Assad regime, rather than in a ceasefire and political negotiations.

The media, having ignored the events leading up to the collapse of the ceasefire enthusiastically reported  the offensive launched on April 3 by Al Nusra and its “moderate” allies, heralding it as the turnaround in the course of conflict that would finally persuade Russia to abandon its ally and lead to the downfall of Assad. 

The Los Angeles Times reportted  a “punishing attack” by The Free Syrian Army and several “so-called moderate rebel factions” on the town of Al Eis, southwest of Aleppo, “overlooking the M5 highway, a vital artery connecting the Syrian capital, Damascus, in the southwest of the country, with the government-held city of Homs, in west-central Syria, and Aleppo in the north.

Associated Press reported that anti - Assad forces, together with US-supported factions in the Syrian opposition had “seized government positions in heavy fighting in northwestern Latakia province.” The story quoted Zakariya Qaytaz of the US-supported Division 13 brigade as telling the agency through Twitter: “The truce is considered over. This battle is a notice to the regime.”

The Nusra-led offensive was a decisive violation of the ceasefire, calculated by Washington to anger the Russians, whose intervention with their allies in Iran had halted the advance of ISIS in Syria and Iran, effectively frustrating the Moscow led policy of isolating the jihadists. It led to continued high levels of fighting in the most heavily populated area of  north west Syria, and Russian planes returned to Al Nusra controlled territory for the first time in nearly three months. Yet after the first reports on the offensive, Syria almost vanished from mainstream media until July. No US newspaper followed up over the story of vicious and destructive fighting, although British and European news did report events but with a strong anti Assad, anti Russian bias. Nobody on either side of the Atlantic took the time to analyze its significance in terms of US policy, or Washington's true motives in arming, funding and supporting “legitimate” armed opposition groups in trashing the ceasefire.

Syria US Proxy war
Syria US - UK hypocrisy
How Obama underestimated Syria
Couild syria trigger a nuclear war?
FUKUS axis war in Syria
Obama-Duterte Blow Up: What the Corporate Media Doesn’t Get
The recent bad blood between US President Barack Obama and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is based on hostilities far more profoundthan could be caused by a simple clash of personalities.

Why Does War Have To Be So Inevitable?

Syra: the real agenda
Obama's catastrophe in Syria
Obama and Al Qaeda allies?
Russia, Syria at war with Turkey
ISIS a US creation
ISIS oil trade with Turkey funds jihad
Success in Syria Gives Putin The Advantage In Obama's Proxy War In Syria
It Looks As If Demonising Russia Is All Discredited Hillary Clinton And Her Supporters Have Left
America's Iraq policy meltdown
America warmongering

Success in Syria Gives Putin The Advantage In Obama's Proxy War In Syria
Kerry Demolishes Obama's 'Moderate Rebels' Syria Narrative
Why Do The Western Powers, The United nations And The EU Continue To Tolerate The Terror Sponsor Erdogan And Turkey
The Last Accredited Western Reporter In Damascus Speaks: "Russia Did More 'Good' In 30 Days Than The US Did In A Year"
USA Has Told Assad He Needs To Commence Handover Of Power In Syria by August Or Face Consequences
Russia's Surprise Withdrawal From Syria? "If We Don't Go Away, We Can't Come back Again."
EU Sacrifices Kurds To Turkey's Imperial Ambition For Erdogan Help With Migrants
The Hidden Genocide In Syria:Obama's Moderate Rebels As Brutal As ISIS
Russian Foreign Affairs Dept Accuses Turkey Of Hindering Syrian Peace Talks

Julian Assange Says: “1,700 Emails In Hillary Clinton’s Collection” Proves She Sold Weapons To ISIS In Syria
Anonymous FBI Informant Says Treason In Govt At The Highest Levels
Snowden Mocks Claims That Russia Hacked The Democrats Campaign Computer System
Will 'President Trump' Mean The End Of NATO?
Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary, Reveal Extensive Media Collusion
So Hilary Clinton Broke The Law Because She Did Not Know What She Was Doing?
US Media Bias Revealed As Political Fact Checkers Caught Covering Hillary Clinton Crimes
Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got off the scale worse
Wall Street 'Whistleblower' Exposes Clinton Foundation Fraud
Obama's Economy Is Bad; Clinton's Would Be Worse
Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

Songs of Glory

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

No comments: