Shift from a sick head to a healthy one - in the blood of the American establishment. The victory of Damascus over the "Islamic State" does not give rest to Washington and gives rise to all new illogical conclusions. Some of them contradict each other. What do Western politicians seek when they gain arrogance not only to steal other people's merits, but also to accuse Russia of appropriating victory over the militants of the IG?
The absurd statements came back from the USA. Their author is once again the US military, or rather its head, James Mettis. According to him, the destruction of the militants of the “Islamic State” is an unfinished business, and reports of victory over a terrorist organization do not correspond to reality.
Just think that the other day about the defeat of a terrorist organization declared Donald Trump. The American leader, although he appropriated the merits of others to his own armed forces, seems to share the opinion of Moscow and its allies on the termination of the pseudo-caliphate. As they say, and thanks for that.
Everyone is accustomed to the tremendous ability of Western politicians to turn the situation upside down. The announcement by the military and political leadership of Russia about the defeat of ISIL in Syria and the departure of servicemen to Russia in connection with the fulfillment of the tasks set on the one hand caused predictable criticism of the West, on the other - was the reason for aggressive statements and accusations. Predictability lies in the expected US desire to justify its “honest” name in the eyes of the international community. That is, those taxpayers who, in fact, paid for the senseless and useless, in terms of the destruction of the militants, the presence of the American military in Syria. Not so long ago, the Pentagon represented by representative Eric Paekhon announced the achievements of the international coalition in Syria to the whole world, at the same time noting that "the Syrian regime and the Russian Federation did not demonstrate a serious approach or commitment to defeat the IS."
Representatives of individual countries of the Western coalition also did not stop at banal dithyrambs against themselves, and accused Russia of misappropriating someone else’s victory. The public speech of the French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who considers Deir-ez-Zor’s release “belated”, is still fresh in the memory, and Russia's victory unjustified.
Perhaps the above lies do not deserve due attention (in Syria, they know who actually defeated the igilovskie rabble), if it were not for the attempts of American friends and others like them to revive the terrorist army. This scenario is now being actively implemented at military bases near the settlements of Al-Tanf and Jisr al-Shaddadi thanks to the efforts of instructors from the United States, Great Britain, Norway, Jordan and the special services of other countries.
It is noteworthy that if earlier militants of “moderate opposition” acted as trainees, now, according to media reports, military trainings are held with IS terrorists who were evacuated from Raqqa or who fled after the “late” release of Deir ez-Zor or Abu Kemal.
But the head of the Pentagon prefers to keep silent about these terrorists as soon as it comes to the remaining igilovtsy in Syria. Maybe because now the deserters of the IG are ready to fight under the banner of the “New Syrian Army” and are not considered igilovtsami? Or because yesterday’s thugs are ready to defend Washington’s interests in overthrowing Assad?
In any case, the defeat of ISIL, the deprivation of its power in the areas under its control and access to oil sources, not to mention its combat power, is an indisputable fact. As well as the statement that the merit in the destruction of the militants belongs to the Russian AIF and the Syrian government army, not the international coalition.
Rewriting the same stories, which the West has been practicing since the end of the Second World War, testifies to Washington's helplessness in establishing its own orders on the territory of a foreign country. Perhaps in the US they yearned for past glory: after all, Russia's intervention excluded the possibility of the Iraqi or Libyan scenario in Syria.