the russians will only use their S-300s in syria to defend their own bases at khmeimim & tartus

Why Isn’t Alt-Media Asking About The S-300s After Biden’s Latest Strike In Syria?
Andrew Korybko, AltWorld, Feb 26 2021

The US just bombed alleged Iranian allies in Eastern Syrian last night, which reportedly killed at least 17 of them and thus represents the Biden Administration’s first major international strike since taking office last month. The Alt-Media Community rose in unison to condemn this attack but many of its members are suspiciously silent about the S-300s’ no-show despite passionately promoting them over the past few years as the solution to defending the Arab Republic from foreign attacks such as this most recent one. It can’t be known for sure, but they might have realized that the dispatch of these systems to Syria in late 2018 following the tragic mid-air incident with “Israel” that September was nothing more than a psy-op to placate the angry masses. At the time, Syria accidentally shot down a Russian spy plane while aiming to hit an “Israeli” jet. Russia condemned “Israel” for its reckless mid-air tactical evasive maneuver which led to that missile hitting its own plane instead. It also claimed that it didn’t receive adequate enough notice in advance of that attack in order to take precautionary action to avoid the tragedy that ultimately transpired. This was in violation of their 2015 military “deconfliction” pact that was agreed to in the run-up to Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria. While Russia officially regards such “Israeli” attacks as violations of international law that complicate the country’s already complex conflict, it never does anything to stop them. This explains why the SAA has yet to obtain control of the S-300s since they’d likely use them to shoot down those jets, which Moscow might believe would further escalate the situation and potentially lead to it dangerously spiraling out of control. After all, Syria got lucky in February of that year when one of its outdated S-200s destroyed an “Israeli” jet, proving that the SAA does indeed have the intent to use the S-300s to bolster its defensive capabilities in the face of such unprovoked aggression against it and in full accordance with international law. Nevertheless, that outcome would run contrary to Russia’s grand strategic “balancing” act of trying to promote a so-called “compromise political solution” to the country’s conflict, one which envisions the eventual withdrawal of Iranian forces and their allies such as hezbollah in possible exchange for “Israel” and the US stopping their conventional aggression against the Arab Republic. This isn’t mere speculation either, since President Putin’s Special Envoy to Syria Alexander Lavrentiev explicitly called for those forces’ departure from the country. The Arabic editorial of Russia’s publicly-financed international media outlet Sputnik reported on his official statement in May 2018. According to Google Translate, he specified:

We are talking about all the foreign military units present in Syria, including the Americans, the Turks, Hezbollah, and of course the Iranians.

While Moscow soon thereafter clarified that it acknowledges Tehran’s legal military presence in the country at Damascus’ request for anti-terrorist purposes, the Kremlin continues to deny the SAA the right to use the S-300s for the purpose of defending its allies from “Israeli” and American attacks against them. This observation very strongly suggests that Russia is pursuing a Machiavellian strategy whereby it unofficially hopes that “Israeli” and American strikes will result in Iran and Hezbollah’s forced withdrawal from Syria. I elaborated in detail on this hypothesis in the following analyses, which should be reviewed by the reader:

The second answer in my recent interview with Iran’s Farhikhtegan newspaper also addresses this issue. Curiously, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and “Israeli” Foreign Ministry Director General Ushpiz met in Moscow on the eve of last night’s attack to discuss the situation in Syria, according to Russian publicly-financed international media outlet TASS. The official Twitter account of the Russian Embassy in “Israel” also shared a picture of their diplomatic teams smiling, laughing, and visibly enjoying themselves ahead of discussing such a serious topic as that one. It can only be speculated, but it might very well be the case that “Israel” was serving as an intermediary between Russia and the US to inform the former of the latter’s impending strike as part of the “deconfliction” agreement between their forces to avoid mid-air incidents such as September 2018’s tragic one. Sputnik later reported that Russia condemned last night’s strike, yet it did nothing to help Syria stop it. At this point, honest members of the Alt-Media Community must publicly question why the S-300s haven’t yet been used for their official purpose of defending Syria from foreign attacks by “Israel” and the US. Under no circumstances should those who respectfully raise their concerns about this ultra-sensitive issue be accused of being “Zionists,” “agents,” or whatever else by the community’s gatekeepers who’ve hitherto aggressively pushed back against anyone who dares to ask this “politically incorrect” question. To the contrary, the objectively existing and easily verifiable fact that the S-300s have never even once been used to defend Syria since they were dispatched there in late 2018 for that explicit purpose very strongly suggests that those who attack others for asking this obvious question might be the real “Zionists,” “agents” or whatever else.

There’s no “diplomatic” way to say this, but everyone in the Alt-Media Community must now declare whether they stand with Russia or the Resistance in Syria, since their goals no longer overlap in the Arab Republic. They’re both against terrorism there, but that’s where their common interests end. Now that ISIS has all but been defeated, they disagree over the post-war presence of Iranian forces and their allies there. Russia’s reluctance to let the SAA operate the S-300s to defend its partners from American and “Israeli” attacks has resulted in Moscow passively facilitating those strikes against them. Everyone must now make their positions clear about whether they believe that Russia has the right to deny Syria the S-300s “for its own good” to avoid a larger escalation or if Syria should have the sovereign right to decide for itself if and when to use them. Last night’s American strike against alleged Iranian allies in Eastern Syria forces everyone in the Alt-Media Community to ask why the S-300s weren’t used to defend them considering the fact that they were dispatched to the Arab Republic nearly two and a half years ago for the explicit purpose of deterring foreign attacks such as this most recent one. Only those who are dishonest will shirk away from asking this, while the provocateurs among them will attack those who respectfully do so as “Zionists,” “agents” or whatever else. I’ve argued in this analysis that the S-300s were never really meant to be used against “Israel” or the US but were sent as part of psychological operation to placate the Arab Republic’s angry masses after the tragic Sep 2018 mid-air incident. Russia won’t let Syria use them because it wants “Israel” and the US to bomb Iran out of the country.

Russia’s Policy of Peace Is Encouraging War
Paul Craig Roberts, Feb 27 2021

On Feb 25, the election thief ordered a US air attack on Syria that killed 17 Iranians (? – RB). US and Israeli attacks on Syria have been ongoing for years with no consequences other than Syrian and Russian denunciations of the US and Israeli violations of international law. Clearly, the US/ Israeli agenda takes priority over international law. One would think that after all these years, the Kremlin would have noticed that and cease sounding like an ineffective broken record. After years of hesitation, Russia finally permitted Syria to obtain S-300 missiles, which, if they are permitted to be used, are capable of preventing US and Israeli attacks. As the missiles are never used, Washington regards them as just another bluff by a cowardly Russian government that won’t fight. Andrew Korybko tries to find a Russian policy in Russia’s protection of US and Israeli attacks on Syria. (…) If Korybko is even partially correct, the Kremlin does not understand American and Israeli aggression. The Kremlin’s failure to understand the enemy is what will lead to war, not Syria’s use of the S-300s to defend its terrority from attack. If it is OK to attack Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria, Washington will conclude that it is OK to attack Iranians in Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This will expand violence and instability, not reduce it. Hezbollah is all that prevents another Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the partition of that country. The Russian posture in the Middle East is so weak that it encourages more US/Israeli attacks. In other words, instead of defusing the situation the Kremlin’s policy inflames it. Moreover, what Russian interest is served by driving Syria’s Iranian and Hezbollah allies out of Syria? Only Washington and Israel’s interests are served. Russia’s policy, as postulated by Korybko, implies that Russia agrees that Iran and Hezbollah need to be curbed. Therefore, Hezbollah can be attacked in Lebanon as well as in Syria, and Iranians can be attacked in Iran as well as in Syria.

Russia’s policy as portrayed by Korybko can only be a failure. Washington and Israel will continue their attacks, because they know that there will be no consequences but words. The Kremlin needs to consider which policy is the least risky: continuing to fire off ineffectual words or missiles that make attacks costly. The easiest and surest way to establish peace in the Middle East is the announcement of a Russian/ Chinese/ Iranian/ Syrian mutual defense pact, with NATO’s banner that an attack on one is an attack on all. The accusation that this would lead to war can be answered with a question: why then hasn’t NATO led to war? If war is likely to be the result of an attack, an aggressor thinks more than once about an attack. As long as aggression is tolerated, it grows until it has to be resisted. This has been the official narrative of WW2 for three-quarters of a century. The Kremlin could begin by comprehending that 90% of US Middle East policy is determined by Israel and Israel’s US agents, the zionist neocons. Biden’s regime is stocked up with them. Israel wants Greater Israel, and the neocons want US hegemony in the Middle East in order to give Israel what it wants. Israel has been slowly and patiently stealing Palestine for decades and now wants to move faster. Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya moved the plan forward. Syria’s destruction was in the works until Russia intervened and prevented it. But Syria is still partly a partitioned country, and Syria, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and Iran are the remaining obstacles to US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. If this hegemony is achieved, Russia can expect Washington’s subversion of Muslims in the Federation and in the former Soviet Asian republics. As US General Tod Wolters again told the Russians three days ago, apparently to no effect, the US regards Russia as “an enduring existential threat to the US.” The inability of Russia to come to terms with this fact will result in war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.