Believe my dreams not my actions please – the US State Department

by on October 3, 2016 in International affairs, Media Comment

The US is naturally blaming Russia for the failure of the ceasefire in Syria. They’ve broken off bilateral talks with Russia. This is the State Department briefing about this. It starts at about 18 minutes into the video.

At 20 mins in the State Department admits that the US did not deliver its side of the deal on Syria with Russia. The deal called for them to separate their ‘moderate’ rebels from Al-Nusra. (The exact text of the agreement was not disclosed. But it is clear that the expectation of the Russia side was that they would do this). The US admitted they failed to do this. They say that they asked their ‘moderate’ rebels in ‘good faith’. Maybe they did. But the ceasefire deal required not that they simply ask but that they did in fact make that separation. It didn’t happen. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said it didn’t happen. It is true. This won’t stop (as we can see) the State Department blaming Russia 100% for the failure of the ceasefire to be resumed.

But. There you are – in front of your eyes – the State Department admits they failed to keep their side of the bargain.

The apparent anguish and pained sincerity of the spokesperson cannot mask this fact. However; this fact won’t stop 99% of the ‘free’ press in the West joining in and blaming Russia.

At the end of this briefing the spokesperson gets caught in another tangle. She says “it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria” and “Assad must go”. (Her words paraphrased). Well. Which? Because if there were ‘free and fair’ elections in Syria (an impossibility now that the country is overrun with Salafists who certainly don’t believe in ‘democracy’) quite possibly Assad would be elected. This tangle is the result of their dual strategy. On the one hand the US is an Empire who appoints and dismisses client kings with as much regard for ‘democracy’ as the Roman Empire had. On the other hand (and unlike the Roman Empire) everything is dressed up as resulting from their commitment to ‘democracy’.

The commitment to ‘democracy’ is about legitimizing themselves to their own domestic populations. Because if the mask slipped and they appeared as the greedy elites of an expansionist Empire that they actually are they’d be overthrown.

 

Add to Favorites Print article