There is “news” circulating that
Russia's Putin is “softening” his stance on direct US-led
military strikes against Syria. I do not think that Putin is being
“softer”, as
proof is what he, and far more importantly the
Chinese, have been asking for all along.
The Syrian people would do well to
remember, however, that the Russians also backed NATO's overthrow of
the secular nationalist Shah of Iran, what Islamists and the media
market as the “Iranian Revolution”, so such cooperation with
Washington would not be unprecedented.
In the case of Syria, one only has to
be mindful of Russian media's (RT for instance) references to the
Syrian government as “Assad's regime” and the Islamists as "rebels", obeying and in line with
the same directive followed by the western “free media”, or the
very presentation of a pro-Islamist thug such as Pepe Escobar (a
Huffington Post and al-Jazeera contributor no less) as an “opponent” of NATO's
Islamization policy, to realize where they truly stand.
I believe that the Russians, like
the British, are apprehensive about the complications that such an
undertaking in Syria may involve. They are no more “pro-Assad”
than they are against
Islamization. Like the privileged classes of
the western countries, they are advanced enough to deter any threats
directed against themselves. The real victims of the Islamist proxy armies are
the “Third World” sovereign states and their people who, in
defending their sovereignty against "human rights activists", are denounced by the media as
dictatorships and violators of human rights.
A final thought on the Islamic
Republic's position on Syria. We may want to recall the “beacon of
Islamic democracy's” similar position prior to the invasion and
Islamization of Iraq. The Islamic Republic was against it, so we
were told, yet became one of the main beneficiaries of the invasion.
I see no reason to predict a different outcome here.
