A
friend, George Abert, suggested a reason why the Turks shot down the
Russian fighter-bomber over Syria. The Russians have a technology
that they recently demonstrated against the newest US missile cruiser
and Israel’s US jet fighters. The technology shuts down the
communication systems of hostile forces, leaving them blind. He
wonders if the Russian aircraft was shot down in order to encourage
the Russians to use its unknown technology whenever Russian aircraft
are in the vicinity of NATO and Israeli aircraft. He bets that the US
has sent every Raven and ELINT specialist to the area in hopes that
Russia’s use of the technology will allow them to learn enough
about the system to duplicate it or learn how to block it.
by Paul
Craig Roberts
Turkey’s
unprovoked shoot-down of a Russian military aircraft over Syria
raises interesting questions. It seems unlikely that the Turkish
government would commit an act of war against a much more powerful
neighbor unless Washington had cleared the attack. Turkey’s
government is not very competent, but even the incompetent know
better than to put themselves into a position of facing Russia alone.
If the
attack was cleared with Washington, was Obama bypassed by the neocons
who control his government, or is Obama himself complicit? Clearly
the neoconservatives are disturbed by the French president’s call
for unity with Russia against ISIL and easily could have used their
connections to Turkey to stage an event that Washington can use to
prevent cooperation with Russia.
Washington’s
complicity is certainly indicated, but it is not completely out of
the question that the well-placed Turks who are purchasing oil from
ISIL took revenge against Russia for destroying their oil tanker
investments and profitable business. But if the attack has a private
or semi-private origin in connections between gangsters and military,
would Turkey’s president have defended the shoot-down on such
spurious grounds as “national defense”? No one can believe that
one Russian jet is a threat to Turkey’s security.
Don’t
expect the presstitutes to look into any such questions. The
presstitutes, such as the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Sarah
Rainsford, are spinning the story that the loss of the Russian
aircraft, and earlier the airliner, proves that Putin’s policy of
air strikes against iSIL has backfired as Russians are not safer.
The
responses to the shoot-down are also interesting. From what I heard
of Obama’s press conference, Obama’s definition of “moderate
Syrian rebels” includes all the extremist jihadish groups, such as
al Nursa and ISIL, that are the focus of the Russian attacks. Only
Assad is an extremist. Obama, following the neocon line, says that
Assad has too much blood on his hands to be allowed to remain
president of Syria.
Obama is not
specific about the “blood on Assad’s hands,” but we can be. The
blood is the blood of ISIL forces fighting the Syrian army. Obama
doesn’t refer to the blood on ISIL’s hands, but even the
presstitutes have told us the horror stories associated with the
blood on ISIL’s hands, with whom Obama has allied us.
And what
about the blood on Obama’s hands? Here we are talking about a very
large quantity of blood: the blood of entire countries—Libya,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and the blood that Obama’s puppet
government in Kiev has spilled of the ethnic Russian inhabitants of
Ukraine, not to forget the Palestinian blood spilled by Israel using
US supplied weapons.
If the blood
on Assad’s hands disqualifies Assad from office, the much greater
quantity on Obama’s hands disqualifies Obama. And Cameron. And
Hollande. And Merkel. And Netanyahu.
Throughout
the entire Washington orchestrated conflicts in the Middle East,
Africa, and Ukraine, the Russian government has spoken reasonably and
responded in a diplomatic manner to the many provocations. The
Russian government relied on European governments realizing that
Europe does not benefit from conflicts generated by Washington and
separating themselves from a policy that is against their interests.
But Europe proved to be a collection of American vassals, not
independent countries capable of independent foreign policies.
In its
campaign against ISIL in Syria, the Russian government relied on the
agreement made with NATO countries to avoid engaging in the air. Now
Turkey has violated this agreement.
I will be
surprised if the Russian government any longer places any trust in
the words of the West and any hope in diplomacy with the West. By now
the Russian government and the Russian people will have learned that
the Wolfowitz doctrine means what it says and is in force against
Russia.
From the
Ukrainian attack on Crimea’s power supply and the blackout that is
affecting Crimea, the Russian government has also learned that
Washington’s puppet government in Kiev intends further conflict
with Russia.
Washington
has made it clear from the beginning that Washington’s focus is on
overthrowing Assad, not ISIL. Despite the alleged attack on France by
ISIL, the US State Department press spokesperson, Admiral John Kirby,
said that Russia cannot be a member of the coalition against ISIL
until Russia stops propping up Assad.
To the
extent that the shoot-down of the Russian military aircraft has a
silver lining, the incident has likely saved the Russian government
from a coalition in which Russia would have lost control of its war
against ISIL and would have had to accept the defeat of Assad’s
removal.
Each step
along the way the Russian government has held strong cards that it
did not play, trusting instead to diplomacy. Diplomacy has now proven
to be a deadend. If Russia does not join the real game and begin to
play its strong cards, Russia will be defeated.
Source:
Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for shining light on the shoot down of Russian planes. It makes a lot of sense that even an incompetent, corrupt government would not shoot down a Russian plane all on its own.
ReplyDelete