Military Review

American generals against truce in Syria

The joint statement by the presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, about the armistice in Syria, which sounded on Tuesday night, was frankly unexpected for the world community. Recently, rumors about a ground force operation of military formations from the countries of the American coalition have been actively roaming. They wanted to support the forces opposing President Bashar al-Assad and even turn the tide of the war in their favor. Now here is what the French say is camouflage.

American generals against truce in Syria

A political decision provoked a demarche of security officials

The presidents agreed on 27 February with 00: 00 hours Damascus time to stop fighting in Syria between government forces and the opposition. The truce has been announced for two weeks. During this time, Russia and the United States must convince the parties to the conflict to stop the civil war, and look for a way out of the crisis exclusively at the negotiating table. On news the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded vividly. On behalf of the organization, he said: "We are all very encouraged by the fact that the two important co-chairs, Russia and the United States, were able to come to such an agreement, now it is necessary to ensure that all others adhere to them as well."

Federica Mogherini, head of EU diplomacy, called the announcement of a truce in Syria as good news and a step in the right direction. She noted: “The agreement is fully in line with the decision taken by the MGPS last week in Munich.” In the United States itself, the results of the closed multi-day talks on Syria were called the “bells of hope”. White House spokesman Joshua Ernest assessed the prospects for an armistice agreement as follows: “For several years we have been trying to reach a diplomatic solution to the problems tormenting Syria, and now is the moment of opportunity to succeed.” The Syrian government, Kurdish leaders, and representatives of the Saudi-controlled Supreme Committee for the Negotiations (HCP) of the Syrian opposition spoke about readiness for a truce.

Against this background, in Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, reports about disagreements between representatives of the defense and diplomatic departments of the United States sounded a sharp dissonance. According to these publications, at a meeting with Barack Obama, prior to the joint statement of the presidents of the two countries, Pentagon chief Ashton Carter, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Joseph Dunford and CIA Director John Brennan spoke in favor of strengthening the support for the rebels.

After the political decision on the truce was still made, the leaders of the Pentagon and the CIA demanded that a “plan B” be prepared in case of a breakdown of the cease-fire in Syria. They promised to "create serious trouble for Russia." As the reviewers of these publications write, the pressure on Obama of the hawks alliance from the defense departments can force the American president to correct his position and take more stringent measures against Moscow.

The Syrian opposition led by the CIA responded to the demarche of the American security forces, which leaked to the local press. Separate groups have already announced that they will observe a ceasefire regime depending on the cessation of the blows of government forces against the Dzhebhat an Nusra detachments. It should be recalled: the group, which is now being baked by the opposition, is recognized as terrorist in the world. On this account there is a formal UN decision.

When the retinue does not celebrate the king

Observers linked the statements of the heads of law enforcement agencies with the completion of the term of office of Barack Obama. In America, the outgoing president is usually called the “lame duck”. The partners are already less listening to his wishes, and the prospects for interstate relations are reconciled by electoral speeches of new potential owners of the Washington White House. The presidential team is becoming less disciplined, concerned about its future career.

It always has been. They are used to it. Only Barack Obama "limped" for a long time. This was publicly shown in the fall of 2014. Then at the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, he agreed to put the Ebola fever and the “aggressive policy of Russia” in the same ranks of world threats. Later, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, responding to the questions of State Duma deputies as part of the government hour, commented on the statements of the American President: “I paid attention to listing the threats that President Obama allowed himself, starting with his speech at the UN General Assembly. Subsequently, not so long ago, talking with John Kerry, I asked him what it meant. He told me: "Do not pay attention."

That fall Kerry often met with Lavrov. They discussed the Iranian nuclear program and the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Counting on the support of the Russian minister in resolving these problems, Kerry sacrificed his own president as a chess player with a pawn. Commentators then agreed that the US Secretary of State could allow such a scornful attitude to the words of the head of state solely because of their origin and social status.

John Forbes Kerry truly belongs to one of America’s wealthiest and most influential families. This explanation is all satisfied. Meanwhile, John Kerry, in his first election campaign, actively supported Obama, counting on the post of vice-president of the United States, but here he was bypassed by Joseph Biden. Then Kerry tried to lead the State Department, but even then he failed - Hilary Clinton took the position. So John Kerry from the Forbes family in general was left behind the presidential team. In the light of these failures, it would not be worthwhile to make him a senior uncle - the curator of the president, who can afford liberties that are inaccessible to others.

Moreover, Obama did not intend to take John Kerry for his second term. This time, Susan Rice, who had previously been the US Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, was seen as Secretary of State. Rice stumbled over Congress. At the hearing, her candidacy had unpleasant questions about the war in Libya, the death of the American ambassador to Benghazi. Congressmen considered Susan Rice responsible for the Libyan failures and refused to trust her. It was only then that the candidacy of the veteran of the Democratic Party and the Vietnam War, John Forbes Kerry, emerged for the post of US Secretary of State.

By the way, the case of Susan Rice was, perhaps, the first bell that the foreign policy of the United States could be formed beyond the wishes of the head of state. A long investigation into the Libyan events led the Washington political club to the conviction that the death of the ambassador to Benghazi and other tragic failures were the result of adventurous decisions, the authorship of which was firmly entrenched in the "Clinton gang".

As written by the Washington Post, contrary to the recommendations of the then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the influential female trio in the person of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power insisted on the expediency of the bombing of Libya and convinced Barack Obama to make such a decision. They also took over the main management of the displacement of Muammar Gaddafi. The tragic consequences of this policy are well known.

Obama managed to distance himself from them, but this only strengthened the view that the president’s foreign policy decisions can be manipulated or even ignored. And not only the president. Known independent role in the Ukrainian crisis, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland.

The news site AgoraVox wrote about it: “The fact that Nuland created in Ukraine was recognized as“ the most brazen state coup in the stories". She established a neo-Nazi government in the country. ” The general public Nuland remembered with buns on the Maidan and a selective mat to the European Union.

Devoted people know that Victoria Nuland is in the close circle of Hillary Clinton and without due veneration relates to her immediate superior, Secretary of State Kerry, and to President Obama, allowing herself to freely interpret their statements and decisions. Nuland showed independence not only in Ukraine. Not so long ago, behind the back of her patron, she tried to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but was awarded only a conversation with his assistant.

The meeting made a lot of noise in political circles, but had no practical results and real consequences. But once again she showed: under President Obama, the once authoritative and highly professional diplomacy of the United States began to sin with amateurish improvisations, sometimes reminiscent of a political "walking-field".

Noted on it and US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Recently, contrary to official statements by President Obama, Carter publicly supported the plans of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, aimed at the invasion of their military formations into the territory of Syria. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon now essentially obstructed the Syrian initiative of the US foreign ministry and even the president.

... It is possible with irony to treat diplomatic freedom in the current US administration. More often it brings more harm to the United States itself. However, this cannot be said about the concerted actions of the heads of security agencies who arranged the demarche to the president. Here they represent a real threat - both to the truce that is outlined in Syria, and to the world as a whole ...
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mirag2
    mirag2 26 February 2016 06: 20
    It’s easy: the Americans generally could just pretend to be ready for peace (and how, after all, an all-planet peacekeeper!) - and then they will say: the Russian Federation is still bombed, it doesn’t observe the armistice of the Russian Federation, nor Assad, nor Iran. in Syria, and start to a heap of land, and allow Turkey to enter there and Saudi Arabia. This is the pitchfork then.
    1. Sensatus
      Sensatus 26 February 2016 09: 06
      Well, how can they be "for" if they themselves created all this instability?
      And now, simply because Russia has put them in a hopeless situation, they must smile and pretend to be a peacemaker.
      1. 222222
        222222 26 February 2016 10: 18
        "" "" Quote from the statement of the British Secretary of State Philip Hammond:
        “Over the past few weeks, we have seen very disturbing evidence pointing to the coordination of the Syrian Kurdish forces, the Syrian regime and Russian aviation ... All this could potentially lead to the establishment of Russian influence in the area adjacent to the border with Turkey, which is a NATO member. .. "

        That is, the British Foreign Ministry let slip and finally, in plain text, announced all the plans of the United States, and why all this war is going on. And the plans are extremely simple - the United States, Britain and NATO cannot allow Syria and Russia to destroy the Isis, because if Russia and Assad take control of the border with Turkey, then it will be clear to the whole world that all this terrorist wave comes from Turkey.

        And since Turkey is a member of NATO, this will be colossal proof that NATO, led by the United States, is the most important world terrorist. That's it.

        So, we express our gratitude to the British Foreign Office for the truth. As they say, write more)). "" "
        1. elmi
          elmi 26 February 2016 12: 58
          American generals against truce in Syria

          Tricky mnogohodovka!
          In fact, they are jumping for happiness that they managed to convince Russia to agree to a truce. And in order to save face, they gave Russia the opportunity to be the first to announce the armistice initiative. Naturally, we had rumors about another concession or deflection in front of the West, as it was possible in the 0808 war, when the West "for reconciled" without giving the opportunity to finally defeat Saakashvili's forces and change power, and in the Donbass, against the backdrop of a successful offensive, they stopped by the Minsk agreements. and now they stopped in Syria! Are there many coincidences? So that would divert from ourselves suspicions of their involvement in the imposition of a truce on Russia-declared that we are like against a truce.
          1. jjj
            jjj 26 February 2016 15: 42
            It turned out very cynical. Until February 26, the field commanders of the "moderate opposition" had to unilaterally sign a cessation of hostilities in a Russian center in Syria. The territory, whose actual authority signed the act, becomes free from Russian air raids. The rest of the territories are legitimate targets. This was approved by Obama and even the UN in the person of the Secretary General. As we know today, the theater of action of our aviation has practically not narrowed, but it will be difficult for the Western media to say that Russia is bombing the moderate.
            Although they will say and blame us again for all serious things. And they’ll come up with new sanctions. But our cause is right and victory will be ours
    2. DMB_95
      DMB_95 26 February 2016 10: 03
      Quote: mirag2
      and then they’ll say: the Russian Federation is still bombing, doesn’t observe the armistice of either the Russian Federation or Assad

      Well then, you don't need to stop bombing us and advancing Assad's troops. Then you don't have to feel "thrown" again.
    3. Res_Ullus
      Res_Ullus 26 February 2016 11: 02
      Yes, it seems that they are leading to this. I do not believe in the world of American.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 26 February 2016 13: 18
      Stop the war and the count will begin, how much, wherever you spent on it. Do they need this?
  2. Obstacle
    Obstacle 26 February 2016 06: 25
    "To whom is war, and to whom is mother dear" ...
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 26 February 2016 07: 39
      Quote: Obstacle
      "To whom is war, and to whom is mother dear" ...

      Actually, for a real military man, peace is much preferable to war. For no one, like the military, is aware of its dire consequences. That is why the great strategist Sun Tzu asserted: "The best victory is victory without bloodshed." Hence the conclusion: the American generals are either extremely unprofessional or have mental disabilities. This also applies to US diplomacy.
      1. fif21
        fif21 26 February 2016 10: 04
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        the American generals are either extremely unprofessional or have mental disabilities. State diplomacy is also concerned.
        Controversial Theses laughing It is the Americans who understand exactly what they want in Syria - the removal of the pro-Russian Assad and the establishment of a regime loyal to the states. Plan "B" - the elimination of Assad by the hands of ISIS militants did not work, Moscow intervened. Plan "A" - the elimination of Assad according to the scenario of eliminating Sadam, failed, Moscow intervened again and Assad destroyed his chemical weapons. Plan "C" to keep the anti-Assodist opposition to eliminate Assad after defeating ISIS. Moscow, facing the threat of being drawn into a military conflict with the West, announced a truce with the opposition, but pressure on it to withdraw the Russian military group from Syria will only intensify. Public speeches by US security officials confirm this. What is Obama's position based on? Most likely on some agreements reached in Munich, primarily with the Russian Federation and Iran. Will the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Iran leave Syria after the defeat of ISIS? what
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 26 February 2016 06: 29
    the joint statement by Russian and US Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama about a ceasefire in Syria was frankly unexpected for the world community...More unexpected it became .. for Obama’s gang ..
  4. bad
    bad 26 February 2016 06: 37
    ... You can be ironic about the diplomatic freemen in the current American administration. More often it does more harm to the United States itself. However, this cannot be said about the coordinated actions of the heads of law enforcement agencies who staged a demarche to the president. Here they are a real threat - both to the emerging truce in Syria, and to the world as a whole ...
    ..that this freemen would not start a war .. big and hot ..
  5. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 26 February 2016 06: 43
    The armistice decision is taken by Russia and the United States. Conclusion: the war between us is already underway. Only while in another territory and while by somebody else’s hands. Victory in Syria will be a victory over the United States.
    1. alex74nur
      alex74nur 26 February 2016 09: 38
      I completely agree with you, but there is another DB theater - Donbass, where it has also been getting hot lately.
  6. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 26 February 2016 06: 51
    That's why they are generals. They need to justify their existence with something. Only war for them mother dear.
  7. lotar
    lotar 26 February 2016 07: 20
    The military needs to justify their exorbitant costs for all sorts of not always productive projects, and any conflicts will help them perfectly in this. There will be no Syria, another place will appear, maybe even in the same Central Asia or somewhere else, it’s not important. that the United States will always find an adversary, if this does not happen, then there is a high probability of the manifestation of such scenarios, on the basis of which films like the Hunger Games and the like are shot in Hollywood.
  8. cap
    cap 26 February 2016 08: 13
    "However, the same cannot be said about the coordinated actions of the heads of the security agencies, who arranged a demarche to the president. They pose a real threat - both to the ceasefire in Syria and to the world in general ..."

    Catch them in a cage. am
  9. Belousov
    Belousov 26 February 2016 08: 42
    If before the struggle of the clans did not crawl out into the public, now it is rushing out of all the cracks. Even with nerd Bush Jr., this was not. Obama was not originally an authoritative figure, a screen without his own opinion.
  10. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 26 February 2016 08: 50
    Still they would not be against it. They know that we in Syria have run out of time limits. Other problems support us. Ukraine is on the agenda, and there are enough internal problems. All efforts will be made to disrupt the truce.
  11. yesdvt
    yesdvt 26 February 2016 09: 29
    I drank birch Sprite in the spring forest! In short, we will die.
  12. Algetxnumx
    Algetxnumx 26 February 2016 10: 29
    It’s all still flowers, if this cat is tearing Hillary Climax to power, then it will be berries, and such that the whole world will choke on them.
  13. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 26 February 2016 11: 39
    well yes. when still imagine so much dough to cut down. and maybe soon everyone will be mowed down. to the other world, at least some accumulations must be taken away. egyptians mlyn))
  14. socharew7
    socharew7 26 February 2016 13: 07
    Well done Well done, American generals! Here are the ears of these dogs, but in the trenches, to smell what the smell of war is! So that they would get enough blood and shit, nits, to get a bite !!!
  15. Samoyed
    Samoyed 26 February 2016 13: 10
    Why not arm the pro-Russian opposition in the Baltic states? Why can NATO in Syria arm the opposition?
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 26 February 2016 14: 05
      Both the USA and Israel and the EU need a war in Syria, and Russia’s participation of Iran and China in it as much as possible because in this way they weaken our resources and thus gain advantages in a competitive war.
    2. iouris
      iouris 26 February 2016 18: 39
      There is no pro-Russian opposition in the "baltics".
  16. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 26 February 2016 14: 12
    In order for them not to be at all against the ceasefire, they must be sent there!
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 26 February 2016 15: 24
      There was a video of a shot of terrorists from the ATGM ATGM on T-90.
      The "curtain" seems to be turned off, most likely a Syrian-Lebanese-Iraqi crew? One got out and escaped the fate of the rest is unknown, I really hope that they are alive.

      The TOU is probably from the United States, so they are such "partners" you cannot believe the words of the United States and Israel, especially - they will give it any minute.
      1. Kars
        Kars 26 February 2016 15: 29
        I already posted. They don’t want to open the news.
        The curtain didn’t seem to be included, there are ideas that the components of the rifle were affected.
        1. padded jacket
          padded jacket 26 February 2016 15: 36
          Quote: Kars
          I already posted

          I’m glad I’ve gotten to our tank? After all, terrorists in Syria and the Kiev nationalist regime have one sponsor - the United States and Israel.
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 February 2016 15: 43
            Quote: quilted jacket
            I’m glad I’ve gotten to our tank?

            Oplot has the same Curtain))
            And so, in principle, purely sporting interest is not fundamentally different from the analysis of hits in Abrams.
  17. Belarus
    Belarus 26 February 2016 16: 33
    Obama said in vain that Putin and Assad will be guilty of disrupting the ceasefire in Syria

    I think that after these words there’s no need to explain anything to anyone else ?! The scenario that will follow: the breakdown of the armistice, the accusation of the whole of Russia, the deployment of coalition forces led by Turkey to Syria and, as a result, the possible destruction of the country.
    It is still noteworthy that Obamych signs some declarations and at the same time makes such statements + the general’s dawn also sings along.
  18. Natalia Lashkova
    Natalia Lashkova 26 February 2016 21: 39
    Obama finally decided to work out his Nobel.