Introduction — Sept 1, 2017
What follows is yet more Western media double-speak. Instead of illuminating what has really happened in Syria, like so much of the Western media coverage of events there, it tends to obscure the truth.
It’s been said that large swathes of the British media is in cahoots with UK intelligence. Well, what follows only bears that out. Because Guardian’s analysis is so badly off the mark as to be insulting to readers, which suggests to this writer that it was published with the approval of British intelligence.
While it’s true that President Assad’s forces look increasingly as if they will prevail, that’s not because the world has lost interest in what was happening in Syria, as the Guardian implies.
There is one prime reason why this is the case and the following Guardian article hardly refers to it. Almost as if it were incidental.
Of course, Russia decisive intervention in Syria in September 2015 changed everything. Far from throwing “gasoline on the fire”, as Washington described Russia’s intervention at the time, it marked the beginning of the end for the militants.
From that point on the conflict began to turn in Assad’s favour. Iran and Hezbollah also played a key part but Russia’s intervention was pivotal and successful too. Ed.
Victory for Assad looks increasingly likely as world loses interest in Syria
Martin Chulov — The Guardian Aug 31, 2017
In recent months, as supplies of aid, money and weapons to Syria’s opposition have dwindled, it had clung to the hope that ongoing international political support would prevent an outright victory for Bashar al-Assad and his backers. Not any more.
An announcement earlier this week by Jordan – one of the opposition’s most robust supporters – that “bilateral ties with Damascus are going in the right direction” has, for many, marked a death knell for the opposition cause.
Within the ranks of the political opposition, and regional allies, the statement was the opening act of something that all had dreaded: normalisation with a bitter foe. And without anything much to show for it.
Emphasising his words, Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad al-Momani said: “This is a very important message that everyone should hear.” And indeed, the about-face in Amman was quickly noted in Ankara, Doha, and Riyadh, where – after seven and a-half years of war – states that were committed to toppling the Syrian leader are now resigned to him staying.
Returning from a summit in the Saudi capital last week, opposition leaders say they were told directly by the foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, that Riyadh was disengaging. “The Saudis don’t care about Syria anymore,” said a senior western diplomat. “It’s all Qatar for them. Syria is lost.”
In Britain too, rhetoric that had demanded Assad leave the Presidential Palace, as a first step towards peace, has been replaced by what Whitehall calls “pragmatic realism”. The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, last week couched Assad’s departure as “not a precondition. But part of a transition.”
Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, has openly delegated finding a solution to Syria to Russia. Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to close a CIA-run programme, which had sent weapons from Jordan and Turkey to vetted Syrian rebel groups for much of the past four years. Washington has adopted a secondary role in twin, ailing, peace processes in Geneva and Astana and has focused its energies on fighting Isis, not Assad.
Where such a change of direction leaves up to 6 million refugees who had fled the war for Jordan, Turkey and Europe is a question that many of the exiles are now starting to grapple with. Many, like Ghassan Moussa, say that near certain defeat is more a result of international fatigue than the opposition’s shortcomings.