© AP
Syria has traditionally remained under Russian influence and has relied on Russian military equipment as most of the Arab countries bought military hardware from the western powers. Russia has had a naval port facility in Tartus, Syria, since 1971. Intriguingly, why is Russia, by its inaction, absent from the Syrian scene, despite the presence of its naval force at Tartus when the western powers unite to shore up insurgency against Asad's government?
"Russia is not looking to oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and wants the conflicting parties to negotiate and stop the 'massacre', putting an end to the 'catastrophe' in Syria", President Vladimir Putin recently told a German broadcaster in an interview. "We do not think that Assad should leave today, as our partners suggest. In this case, tomorrow we will have to decide what to do and where to go" Putin said. Instead of asserting itself forcefully, the Russian response to the ongoing insurgency in Syria is apathetic. Once Assad goes and the western powers install their proxy in Syria, Russia will have to vacate the naval port there. It seems Russia's withdrawal to self-isolation after its misadventure in Afghanistan continues.
The western media portrays to the world that Assad's Alawites minority - 12 percent Shiites - is ruling the Sunnis majority therefore the Sunnis have risen against the Alawites. But could such an uprising continue for two long years without the tacit support by the US? If popular protests by majority of people alone were the benchmark to change repressive regimes, the simmering uprising by the Shiites in Bahrain and Qatar would have toppled the Khalifas of the two Gulf States.
The present arrangement, however, is interesting. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf emirates, finance the insurgency in Syria. Turkey provides its territory for the Free Syrian Army to operate from, while the US, the UK and France provide the military hardware. It's bloodletting financed by the Muslims, inflicted by the Muslims against their kin, using weapons supplied by the western powers.
To forge a more effective alliance against Asad, the US recently brought Israel and Turkey together by negotiating a patch-up between the two since Israel attacked the Gaza flotilla in 2010, in which some Turkish activists were killed. Israel and Turkey would now plan a common strategy to oust Asad and replace him with a pro-west stooge. A west-sympathetic Syrian National Council on the lines of Libyan Transitional National Council is already in place. SNC is likely to be headed by a US citizen and business executive Ghassan Hitto as LTNC was headed by Dr Abdelrahim Alkep. Syria is Libya's replay.
The imperial powers inflame and exploit the sectarian schism between the Sunnis and Shiites in not only Syria but also in other Muslim countries including Iraq. These powers don't bother changing their tactics when occupying sovereign countries although the old crap of the oppressed people rising and arming themselves to overthrow the repressive regimes in power now stinks.
In October 2010, Saudi Arabia purchased $60 billion worth of military aircraft from the US in the name of security against Iran. Similarly, Prime Minister David Cameron toured the Middle East in 2012 to sign a deal of 6 billion pounds to sell 100 Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Oman. When criticized at home for selling military hardware to autocratic regimes, the prime minister had said, "The autocratic countries had a right to defend themselves." If autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the Gulf are acceptable, what's wrong with Assad's in Syria? Who doesn't know that pulling down Assad's regime in Syria aims at weakening Iran?
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter